Okay, now I understand the issue. It looks like you're reading a description of postcolonialism written by someone who's explicitly opposed to the school of tho

Okay, now I understand the issue. It looks like you're reading a description of postcolonialism written by someone who's explicitly opposed to the school of thought and treating that as a primary reference on the tenets of the philosophy itself. If actually read the original essay with that title ("Can the Subaltern Speak?), you might see that Chibber's criticism is completely off-base, to the point of misrepresenting even objective facts about the principles of postcolonialism.