This is an interesting start to an essay. One of the first steps to answering your question might be to problematize your use of "we". Is it possible to speak collectively or does the very use of such generic plural pronouns function to disempower or exclude alternative voice or viewpoints?
On one level, one can argue that Narayan’s A Tiger for Malgudi gives voice to the tiger, who is both subaltern and other. On another level, though, tigers cannot speak. Instead, what we hear is the voice of a middle class Indian speaking for the tiger, and so we can argue that the tiger is being doubly silenced, first because he has no voice and second because the right to speak for him has been appropriated. In one sense, the sannyasi gives voice to the tiger and in another sense, he steals the voice of the tiger. An additional level of complexity lies in the novel being written in English, the language of a foreign power the colonized India, by an Indian, who is part of the human group that colonized the land of the tigers.
As to whether we are listening or not, there are two answers. First, as readers of the novel, we obviously are listening to the novel. In so far, however, as the voice we listen to is always redacted through our own identity and position, there is a sense in which oppressors never can truly listen to the subaltern voice.