The concept of nation implies the presence of a ruling sector. The ruling class is the class that wields power. In the necessity to hold on to its authority, the State works by a legal system, which decides what is legal and what is not. Once the authority is secured, the recording of the present will automatically adhere to the policies established by the State. While the practice of writing certainly assists the recording of history, it also means that the recording of history becomes an exclusive activity. Historical records that find a large audience are those that exist in the form of writing – merely because the form of the printed texts enables better distribution. The act of writing implies exclusion of the sections of society that cannot ‘write’ – either for the literal lack of education or because these sections do not conform to State policies. This is a segment of society that does not recognize their right neither to knowledge nor assertion; the part that must consent to having their life-experiences recorded from the perspective of the legal system. The legal system, on the other hand, can only categorize occurrences as legal and illegal cases. It cannot possibly look into the circumstances of individual cases; it cannot recognize their complexity.

Individual incidents produce complex narratives. These are, unfortunately, lost narratives: narratives that the legal system cannot record. Contemporary perspectives of history that are founded only on state-authorized records are incomplete accounts of history. Historical interpretations vary according to the questions asked of the historical data. The historian is an author: the perspective that interprets history makes a selection of the data. The Subaltern Studies Collective recognizes the selective perspective as the force of elitism in the writing of history. The legal system (which is under the control of the body of authority in a given society) is the perspective that decides the orientation of social narrative. In the case of Indian historiography, the Colonial power is the ‘elite’ that controls the construction of the historiography. Guha points out that an ‘elite’ perspective cannot do anything with phenomena such as the anti-Rowlatt upsurge and the Quit India movement other than to classify them as disturbances of the legal order. There needs to be alternative narrative(s) that can explain the event from a different perspective, and these are what the SSC seeks.

“Chandra’s Death” is a narrative in which Guha traces the process whereby an instance of child abortion in 19th century India, having been incorporated into the body of ‘legalized’ (elite) history, is labeled an act of crime. As it happens, the abortion was a necessary measure to protect the mother against severe social verdict. The perspective of the abortion as a necessary precaution emerges only after thorough study has been made of the social dynamics of Chandra’s community. Mainstream history cannot explain the complexity of Chandra’s situation.

This goes to show that there are narratives missing from mainstream history. These need to be recovered to create a more encompassing view of the past, which must help to estimate more accurate dynamics between the past and the present. The rediscovery of unrecorded narratives provides an alternative account of history. This can only be done, however, with the advantage of hindsight.

Draupadi in the Mahabharata vows not to tie up her hair until it has been bathed in Duryodhana’s blood. The narrator of her story is impersonal. One can only guess at her reasons for taking up such a vow. Dopdi in Mahasweta Devi’s “Draupadi” does something similar. Dopdi is raped, and she refuses to put her clothes back on. It seems that the refusal, before being an act of defiance, is one of self-protection: if she puts her clothes back on, she will once again put herself in a vulnerable position.

Any given society functions by a set of rules – legal or normative. All its members recognize these rules, their significance, and the consequences of disobedience. The collective recognition of a set of codes of conduct is what enables the creation of society in the first place. The codes in Mahasweta Devi’s story associate a woman’s conduct and sexual chastity with dignity. They also look at dignity as an important factor for social acceptance. The men’s violence hurts Dopdi because they, like Dopdi, understand the social codes. They can humiliate and hurt because Dopdi understands that their conduct is meant to humiliate her. The men cannot comprehend her refusal to clothe herself, because this is a conduct that does not fit into their understanding of what they consider to be social codes (therefore final codes of conduct). Sena Nayak is afraid because he doesn’t know how to handle such behaviour. It is not easy to harm her now, because she has overlooked the system of rules that dictate the men’s conducts. In the conventional system her act signifies disobedience; outside it, hers is an act of self-protection.

What is missing from the Mahabharatha is this narrative of Draupadi that clarifies her vow as a measure of self-preservation, rather than disobedience or a need for apologies.