On "an-other" history

     The concept of ‘an-other’ is a tricky one to navigate. It is also one that most new historiographical approaches are foregrounded in: “an-other logic”, “an-other language”, “an-other thinking” and an-other history. What this idea of an-other does is that it first and foremost points towards a dominant theory/ idea and then tries to make room so that ‘an-other’ idea can be accommodated. When I think of the examples of this “other” its very interesting to me that while these alternative ideas claim at some level to be radical, they are  such that can in some ways co-exist with the dominant discourse. I realize all of these are abstractions. Let’s move to particulars.

       If we take the example of Shahid Amin’s articles on Gandhi and if we were to read it in conjunction with other histories (nationalist or otherwise) of  early twentieth-century India what imaginary of India would be formed? Would Shahid Amin’s article co-exist neatly with what has already been written or would it disturb it? There are multiple ways in which these ideas can co-exist and disturb what is already there before them. Ideas that co-exist can use what was before (Spivak’s criticism of the geopolitics of first-world feminism which travels), can read something in a new way to add to a particular idea (Ranajit Guha’s interpretation of colonial law in Chandra’s Death), can disturb the fabrics of what was woven before a text's existence (something that the subaltern collective aims to do). Interestingly, even when claims are made about the rewriting of history and the disturbance of various threads that are woven to create narratives, these texts co-exist with what was before.

       Is there any possibility other than this co-existence and simultaneity (that Mignolo identifies as historico-structural heterogeneity)? What would an actual radical break away from this model of co-existence and simultaneity look like, if it were possible? Is it also a question of language which makes whatever is imagined and presented as radical also submit on the altar of co-existence? What does the subaltern collective, and generally history from below, do when the differences that are said to separate these projects from the rest allow them to co-exist with what is already present? If co-existence, simultaneity and supplementarity are the limitations that are placed upon anything that becomes a part of an epistemic system, what does the outside look like and how can there be a disjuncture within the system if at all?