Subaltern school of thought highlighted the contribution made by the people on their own in making and development of the Indian nationalism. This school of thought believed that elitist historiography always saw mass upsurge either as a law and order problem or in response to the charisma of certain leader.  It means elitist historiography ignored the contribution made by people on their own though in many movements like anti-Rowlett upsurge of 1919 or Quit India movement of 1942, people were actively participated without being guided by leaders. In other words, elitist historiography failed to explain the phenomenon that why mass mobilization took place during Quit India movement without leaders.

Here subaltern scholars argued that elitist historiography ignored the “politics of the people”. According to Guha, throughout the colonial period along with the “domain of elite politics”, another autonomous domain of subaltern classes and groups were also existed. In this autonomous domain, the principal actors were not the “dominant groups of the indigenous society or the colonial authorities but the subaltern classes and groups” who constitutes the masses of the “labouring population and the intermediate strata in town and country—that’s the people.”   Guha also tried to differentiate between the politics of elite and the politics of people.  According to him, mobilization in the domain of elite politics was achieved vertically whereas