Within the truly prodigious outpouring of self-consciously “post-colonial” scholarship on colonial India since 1980, it is little exaggeration to state that the ontology of colonialism has been figured as difference: its production, its management, its transgression, and its obtrusion. This is the case whether the scholar's disciplinary affiliation has been anthropology, history, literary studies, politics, or sociology and whether or not the scholar has been formally associated with the now-famous Subaltern Studies series. This is also the case whether the specific subject at hand has been caste or gender, nationalism or communalism, peasants or workers, state or non-state practices, elite or non-elite discourses, formal or informal knowledges, histories or memories.

In his comments Kunal Parker has framed my article within what he calls the “ontology of colonialism as difference.” He argues that my article “fits squarely” within a “self-consciously postcolonial scholarship” that in recent decades has been centrally concerned with “the rendering of colonialism as difference.” My research in this article, however, was neither inspired nor guided by the historiography of difference. Indeed Parker's framing of my article in these terms prevents him from seeing the most important claims in it. If I were to characterize the nature of my essay in terms of a genre of historiography, I would place it in the genre of the history of the present. My aim in this article, which is part of a larger project, was to make the postcolonial political formation in India intelligible in the light of its pre-independence historical origins. While most historians of modern India terminate their research at 1947, the year of India's independence, assuming postcolonial political development to be inaccessible to historical research, most studies by political scientists have taken 1947 as their point of departure, as if the postcolonial political formation had emerged fully formed without any history. My larger project seeks to break through this historiographical barrier and make postcolonial India accessible to historical research.

Howard Gillman is unconvinced by my argument that New Deal lawyers turned to the history of federal disaster relief in support of key spending measures, such as the Social Security Act. Likewise, he is unpersuaded by Justice Stone's suggestion to Frances Perkins that she could “do anything under the taxing power.” I understand why Stone's comment grates on Gillman's modern ear; it grated on mine too. What is Stone talking about, and how could his comment be squared with our understanding of the pre–New Deal period as one of sharp limits to federal power imposed by the courts? Gillman's conviction that, in this era, the Supreme Court exercised substantial veto power over federal spending leads him to some critical misreadings of key cases and misstatements of fact. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to his comments and, in particular, to include some details regarding Supreme Court developments for which there was no space in the article itself.

In his commentary, “The Historiography of Difference,” Kunal Parker hits on two crucial and interrelated themes that form the framework for debates in modern South Asian history: colonialism and subaltern agency. In this short response to Parker's comment, I address both of these issues and also offer some insights about methodological obstacles in the writing of Indian legal history.