In view of the post-colonial elite ideology in the historiography and the absence of the subaltern masses in the historical narrative, the subaltern studies are in purpose of remodeling the historical image of the subaltern masses and restoring the sheltered history through the analysis of the overlook of subaltern history.
Guha believes the insurgency, in fact, is a motivated and conscious undertaking on the part of the rural masses. There is a blind spot in historical discourse, the historiography neglected the consciousness of the masses, that means the subjectivity of the reflex action are not reflected in historical narratives. The factors of economic and political deprivations are just external causes, these objective facts are not related to the rebellious peasants’ consciousness—their instinct for survival. However, on the one hand, indigenous elites denied that peasantry insurgence is a nationalist struggle; on the other hand, they have to admit that peasantry insurgence is part of national independence and liberation movements, this is the plight of nationalist discourse. Their solution to this problem is to admit their activities but deprive them of their subjectivity and conscious initiative. The Subaltern Studies group redefined the notion of “subalternity” and raised a strategy to reappear the consciousness and subjectivity of the masses.
Guha classified the historical discourses into three phrases according to chronology and their affinity with the official statements, dismantling elitist historical narrative and rereading historiography helped Guha formulate the strategy and keynote of the subaltern studies:
Primary discourse can be foreshortened and without a sequel. Compared to the primary discourse, the second discourse is more liberal but because of the identity of authors committed to colonialism, the neutrality is hard to be guaranteed. This genre of discourse concerned official interests and the beautified functions of colonization, it is a type of colonialist knowledge which gave service to the power of the regime of the Empire. It is noticeable that the perspective of the author of the instrument of national oppression is far from being impartial. As a datum which registered events of the Empire, these second discourses had nothing to do with the illumination of the consciousness of the insurgents. Neither the tertiary discourse indicated the importance of consciousness. The third one had another ideological orientation and it is of academic values and contemporary relevance from a viewpoint of understanding and supporting the rebels. Through the causes and motives of the uprising can help find out colonist solutions to suppress the insurgency. The tertiary discourse is more profound more the second discourse, it criticized the colonialism itself as the radical cause of insurgency, and took the India bourgeoisie as the real subject. However, the local administration is regarded by the second discourse as the main reason—a system of exploitation. They all avoid the status and the importance of consciousness.
How to define the function of religion is another important problem in the prose of counter-insurgency. Is the religion only a means to arouse enthusiasm of the backward masses and then manipulate them? Is the religion just a tool of propaganda? Did the leadership of insurgency who had the elite consciousness not believe in Messianism? Anyhow, the religion is still a great breakthrough point to illustrate the function of consciousness in the uprising that the historiography failed to comprehend. The combination of sectarianism and militancy always has a significant effect in the rural history.