The definition of what constitutes ‘history’ has been questioned both within Western constructions of the past and within decoloniality. Sumit Sarkar, in his book ‘Writing Social History’, argued that the process of history-making takes shape at different levels. If we remain confined within the academic notions of history, we risk alienating and isolating ourselves as solely academic historians. Sarkar’s concerns carry immense validity, and with the isolation of the academic historian comes the dominance of European concepts of ‘history’. In Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History, Dipesh Chakrabarty highlights that European conceptualizations reign supreme within the discourse of ‘history’. But if we are to move away from the traditional conceptions of history beyond its institutionalized frameworks, it is imminent that we question what lies beyond the historical past. This panel studies the history of what has long been construed as the “Other”, exploring how memory, oral histories, ordinariness, and temporality contribute to constructions of the past. There is persistent dialecticism as every account of how the history of the “Other” is cast against formalized notions of epistemic history, which emerged as a professional and scientific perusal in the 19th century. The papers in this panel are situated within the South Asian subcontinent, with one of the papers exploring the spatial and temporal connections between the metropole and the colony. Each of the papers posits an approach to understanding the past that is rooted in indigeneity and “ordinariness”, as the majority populace finds different ways to memorialize a past that is either suppressed or ignored by epistemic history. The papers demonstrate that the temporal locations of the memorialized past also matter: following a chronological arrangement, the manifestations of subaltern memories take different forms depending on their temporal locations.