Literary
Reconstruction of Mohenjo-daro’s Everyday Life: A Microhistorical Study of Mulk Raj Anand’s A Day in the Life of Maya of Mohenjo-daro
Shankhadeep
Ghosal,
Ph.D. Research Scholar,
(UGC Senior Research Fellow),
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of
Mines),
Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India.
Abstract: This
article seeks to foreground how literature can supplement the historical
missing links through its reasoned imaginations. Traditionally, historians are
found decoding the macro-narratives of an ancient civilization by taking
recourse to the archaeological data, thus overlooking the everyday experiences
of the ordinary people living at that time. Experts working on the Indus Valley
Civilization have so far done the same thing. Undeciphered Indus scripts,
coupled with the limited archaeological evidence, restrict the Indus scholars
to delve deep into the everyday intricacies of this civilization. In this
context, this study, taking recourse to the theoretical framework of
microhistory, analyses how Anand’s reasoned imagination in A Day in the Life of Maya of Mohenjo-daro help
us interpret and understand the daily life-style, social relations, and
cultural practices of a nearly five thousand years old civilization.
Considering the close reading as a mode of interpretation, this study plans to
examine how Anand’s story-telling technique sutures the
historical gaps left by the archaeological records and reconstructs the
everyday life of Mohenjo-daroin a vivid and evocative manner.
Keywords: Microhistory, Historical Silences, Literary
Reconstruction, Reasoned Imagination, Mohenjo-daro’s Everyday Life
Introduction
Our historical
consciousness is largely shaped by the macro-narratives derived from the
excavated archaeological evidence. From the early-childhood, our historical
thoughts are trained to decode the meanings of large-scale events occurred in
the past that mostly include wars, territorial expansions, political and
economic decisions of the ruling class. Although such macro-narratives are
helpful for understanding the power dynamics, governance structure, and
territorial evolution of a land, it cannot educate us about the daily
experiences of the ordinary people living in a particular spatio-temporal
setting. However, in recent decades, this lacuna in historiography has been
brought under critical scrutiny by the scholars of allied disciplines who have
mobilized the literary imagination as a new mode of understanding the micro
dimensions of our ancient societies. This alternative approach seeks to present
history not through critiquing the grand events of the past but through
examining the small decisions and routine practices of our ancestors. In this
context, Mohenjo-daro can be foregrounded as a historical reference point for
understanding this transition from the macro to micro level historical
investigation. As one of the most significant urban centres of the Indus valley
Civilization, Mohenjo-daro has so far provided us remarkable archaeological
findings, such as baked brick houses, well planned streets, advanced drainage
system, the great bath, granaries, and public buildings, to name only a few.
These excavated relics make us aware of the city planning, structures of public
administration, and the technological refinements of this civilization. But
these archaeological findings cannot lead us to the lived experiences of its
inhabitants. Archaeology driven macro history cannot delve deep into the
individual emotions, daily routines, and human desires that constituted the
daily life in Mohenjo-daro. In this regard, literary reflections can provide us
significant assistance by offering “. . .manifold imaginative possibilities. .
.” (Ghosal and Singh 235) that are well grounded in the available
archaeological data. Mulk Raj Anand’s A Day in the Life of Maya of
Mohenjo-daro is one such exemplary attempt that zooms into the ordinary
life of a girl named Maya who lived in this city with her parents. Instead of
focusing on the grand historical events, Anand draws his reader’s attention to
the small details of domestic affairs, social interactions, and daily
activities, thereby putting emphasis on the otherwise “. . . historically
insignificant events.” (Woodward)Thus, this article would be a significant
contribution to the existing scholarship on the Indus Valley Civilisation, as
it foregrounds how literature supplements the historical missing links through
its reasoned imaginations.
Microhistory:
Theoretical Perspectives
In “Why
microhistory matters: Meaning, method, and significance”, Riya Gupta argues:
Microhistory
challenges broad narratives by shifting the scale of observation, uncovering
how ordinary individuals navigated the larger structures of polity, economy,
and society. Far from being a study of “small things,” microhistory is a
methodological approach that restores agency to the overlooked, complicates
neat historical explanations, and situates lived experience at the heart of
inquiry.
Following this
critical observation, it can be reasonably argued that microhistory is a
technique of historical inquiry that concentrates our attentions either on the
individual’s lived experiences or on the localized socio-cultural phenomena of
any ancient society. Unlike the traditional macrohistorical investigations that
delve deep into the large-scale socio-political transformations, such as wars
between kings, territorial expansion of different empires,
politico-administrative reforms within kingdoms, to name only a few, microhistorians
are more concerned about the events of everyday life experienced by the
ordinary people. In other words, they have altered the regular pattern of
historical analysis by adopting a bottom-up approach where the microscopic
analysis formulates “. . . conclusions that are applicable to a greater
percentage of the general population.” (“What Is Microhistory?”)This
alternative approach of historical analysis emerged as an academic interest in
the last two decades of the previous century by holding the hands of
historians, such as Carlo Ginzburg, Natalie Zemon Davis, Giovanni Levi, Robert
Darton, to name only a few. These historians made this approach widely known to
emphasize the limitations of macrohistory that usually erase subjectivity,
individual agency, and marginalized voices from the dominant narratives. In
doing so, microhistorians introduced us with the fact that apparently trivial,
local, or minor events can sometimes offer us deep insights into the wider
societal structures, politico-economic configurations, and other historical
dynamics. In this context, Aqib Yousuf Rather argues: “Microhistory [. . .] offers
a detailed examination of small-scale events to question grand historical
generalizations.” (Rather 27)
Microhistorical
analysis is a rigorous process that intensively relies on the detailed archival
and archaeological study to reconstruct the past day by day. In this process,
marginalized voices and experiences are heard with utmost importance to
understand how the ordinary people led their daily lives in past amidst the
complex rubric of societal norms, political structures, and economic
regulations. In simple words, microhistory does not engage with the state’s
large-scale governing policies; rather, it examines the individuals’ perspectives
on being under those regulatory mechanisms. In this context, Jesse Paul argues:
Microhistorians
are generally concerned with overlooked persons, and marginalized voices. They
wish to gain understanding and insight into the properties of large-scale global
processes and events by looking at the finely textured details of everyday life
during the chosen time period under study. (64)
In addition to
it, microhistorians are often found pluralising the past through their
interpretative rigour. Instead of generalizing the past, they bring forth
diverse voices, perspectives, and experiences to understand the heterogeneity
of our past. Vsevolod Yu. Chekanov validates this claim by arguing that
microhistorians “. . .aim to challenge universalizing generalizations by
emphasizing unique and subjective experiences.” (69) Where macrohistory ends
its journey due to lack of proper archival and archaeological evidence,
microhistory starts its journey from those incomplete trails driven by the
force of logical imagination. This individualistic logical imagination presents
before us a bunch of new possibilities that bring those grey areas under
further examination. Based on these newly imagined possibilities,
macrohistorians can reassess and reevaluate those unearthed archaeological
remains to draw conclusive statements on the unknown dimensions of our past.
So, microhistory provides texture, depth, and subtlety to our understanding of
the past. It does not rule out our macrohistorical understandings; rather, it
supplements and strengthens its shortcomings. In this regard, Jan de Vries
opines: “. . .they [Micro and Macro histories] are not rivals but can be part
of the same enterprise — indeed, that the common historical enterprise can be
enhanced by their fruitful alliance.” (23)
Microhistory and
Literary Imagination
In the process
of unravelling the past, microhistorians often look into the silences, gaps,
and partial truths embedded in the mainstream historical narratives. If these
grey areas do not receive proper justification and explanation, historical
investigation remains incomplete, static, and fragmentary. In this regard,
informed literary imagination is brought into operation by the microhistorians
as it allows them to provide voice to the silent characters, glue the
archaeological gaps, and reconstruct the past in a more meaningful manner. In
this context, Julie Dyess Ellis argues:
Microhistories
are often built on one primary source, frequently a trial or Inquisitorial
account, or, less often, a diary or letters. Many are presented in narrative or
semi-narrative form, which exercises the microhistorian's imagination and
"novelization" skills, "in which an authorial no less than a
scholarly role is assumed." (3)
Here, the path
of informed imagination does not lead us to any irrational thinking; rather, it
guides us to new possibilities that are grounded in available archaeological
and archival data. Short stories, novels, and plays can be considered as
material embodiment of such informed imagination that makes the everyday life
of any ancient society alive to us. This storytelling method can delve deep
into the individual actions, choices, and desires and inform us about how he or
she interacted with the broader societal dynamics in day-to-day life. Microhistorians
use various methods and methodologies to develop these stories, allowing us to
experience the everyday subtleties of an ancient society as vividly as we can
recall our yesterday’s routines. Whereas the macrohistorical narratives provide
us a panoramic view on the civilizational developments, microhistorical
narratives, anchored in the logical imagination, can step into the domestic
affairs of an individual, a family, or a community.
Here, one may
stop and think: how can historical thoughts be dependent on imagined
possibilities? History must be written based on the empirical data.
Storytelling can entertain us but cannot help us reach out to the actual truth.
This macrohistorical mindset can be challenged by underlining its own
limitations. Archival and archaeological data, that formed the base of
macrohistorical investigation, often come to us in fragments. Although these
fragmented remains can enlighten us about general trends of an ancient
civilization, it cannot zoom into the individual experiences of being a part of
that civilizational becomings. It is where microhistorians step into the scene
to fill these gaps in history. They are not against the evidence-based
research; rather, they are proposing that where evidence is exhausted, we can
rely on our critical imagination to provide depth, texture, and richness to the
existing macro-narratives. This critical imagination advances the historical
discussions further and allows the macrohistorians to reevaluate those
“creative-critical”1 claims through their archival and archaeological data.
Literary
Reconstruction of Mohenjo-daro’s Everyday Life in A
Day in the Life of Maya of Mohenjo-daro
Mulk Raj Anand
is one of the central pillars of the Indian English Literature. His writings
are known for revealing the harsh social realities and the life of marginalized
people in India. His children-short story book A Day in the Life of Maya of
Mohenjo-daro is celebrated for the effort of reconstructing the everyday
life of a young girl named Maya living with her parents in the ancient city of
Mohenjo-daro. The deep archaeological knowledge of Anand coupled with his vivid
imaginative power creates an unforgettable microhistorical account of
Mohenjo-daro that supplements the limitations of macro history.
Anand artfully
puts the spotlight on Maya’s family, her daily routines, and the commonplace
household practices to reconstruct the domestic lifestyle of Mohenjo-daro,
which is otherwise an unattainablegoal for the macrohistorians. Here, Maya’s
nuclear family acts as a representative of the other households of that
locality, where shared responsibilities and emotional bonds hold the families
together. Anand begins his story in one fine morning when Maya woke up from her
little cot and dashed to awaken her parents, who were sleeping together in the
adjacent room. Maya climbed up on her father’s belly and started to play with
his beard. To let her husband sleep, Maya’s mother took her away and started
swinging Maya on her knees:
. . .She climbed
out of her little cot and ran to her father’s bed, dragging her toy cart behind
her with a string. She climbed onto her father’s tummy and tried to walk on him
like a dancer on a tightrope. “Ba,” she called to her father, “Ba.” Ba did not
reply. He only growled. So, she playfully pulled his beard. At this Ba groaned.
And Ma, her mother, got up, lifted Maya away from Ba, and took her to her own
bed. Placing Maya’s little brown
body on her Knees, Ma swung her legs up and down. (Anand)
Here, Maya’s
affectionate interaction with her parents in the morning offers a glimpse into
moments of familial intimacy. In this family, Maya’s mother, being the
housewife, took care of her family’s every household affair. When Maya returned
with her father completing their morning bath from the great bath of
Mohenjo-daro, they were served homemade khichri which they ate together. After
the breakfast, Maya’s mother took the initiative to prepare her daughter for
the school. Here, Maya’s mother is projected as an efficient homemaker who
knows every morning need of her husband and daughter:
Ma had cooked
Khichri of rice and lentils in the special earthen pot which Ba had made for
her a year ago. [. . .] Maya sat by Ba in the kitchen and ate her khichri out
of a little clay basin. Then she let Ma wash her hands and mouth, though she
cried when her Ma tried to smear her eyes with black surma, using a
small slide made of lead. Instead, she very much to put some of her mother’s sindur
on the parting line of her hair; and she wanted to use her mother’s tree-bark
to redden her lips. (Anand)
This excerpt
encourages Anand’s readers to imagine about the gender roles of that era which
mostly engaged women with the tasks like caregiving, cooking, and housekeeping.
At the same time, it also zooms into the women’s dressing sense and
self-adornment practices that generally transmitted from mothers to daughters.
Here, Anand’s informed literary imagination shows us that whereas the
macrohistory makes us aware of the architectural patterns and innovative
designs of the excavated buildings, microhistory gives us an opportunity to delve
deep into the sleeping pattern, food habits, bathing practices, cooking
techniques of the family members lived in those houses. In macrohistorical
perspectives, those houses are mere structures made out of baked bricks, but
under the microhistorical lens, those houses are places where once emotions,
love, and desires determined everyday routines.
Moreover,
Anand’s informed imagination leads us to explore the social microhistories of
Mohenjo-daro. Maya, being prepared by her mother, left for the school with her
friends Toto and Coco. Unlike today’s school education, Maya’s school was
ashramic in nature, where there was neither any institutional bell for calling
the students nor did teachers claim any monetary support from the students. But
as the guru dakshina students were told to bring food and clothes for
their teachers:
There was no
bell to call the children to school. Nor did the teacher mind if the children
were late. He sat on a platform at the end of the class room writing on a
slate. Every time some children came in, he looked to see if they had brought
any gifts for him. For he took no fees for teaching. The children had to bring
him some khichri or fruits or nuts. And their parents had to give him
clothes two or three times a year. (Anand)
This extracted
passage allows us to imagine the day-to-day teacher-student relationship in
Mohenjo-daro. It also put the spot light on the economically unstable life of
the teachers as their livelihoods depend on the offerings of the students. As
of now macrohistorians find a dilapidated pillared hall from Mohenjo-daro whose
function is still debated or inconclusive. In this regard, logical
imagination-based microhistory allows us to think of a new possibility, i.e.,
this building might be used as an educational institution. In addition to it,
Anand also imaginatively zooms into the school curriculum of that time. In
Maya’s school, education system was mostly student-centred or activity based
where students were provided guidance in clay crafting and encouraged to play
with friends to build social bonding. The aim of this education system was not
to make a student employable but to make him a social being and economically
self-reliant.
. . .they were
allowed to make dolls and animals of mud. Maya made them better than any other
child, for she had seen her father make them. The teacher then sent the children
to play hide and seek in the grove by the old banyan tree. (Anand)
Maya’s father grew up within this
same education system and found establishment as a potter in their locality. He
mastered the art of clay crafting to sell his products in the local as well as
in the adjacent city markets. As his handmade clay jars were in high demand, he
used to sell them to the grain merchants of Harappa: “He [May’s father] would
take with him some huge jars he had made for a grain merchant.” (Anand) But for
the daily sustenance, he used to make small pots and toys to be sold in the
local market. On the other hand, Maya’s mother, after completing her daily
household duties, used to spend her time gossiping with other neighbouring
ladies and doing needle work: “She [Maya] could hear her mother talking to the
other women. They sat in the courtyard with their needle work. They talked and
talked as they embroidered their cloth.” (Anand) It shows us that women had
their own famine social space where they interacted with each other to share
their thoughts and concerns. In order to make this leisure time more
productive, they preferred to engage themselves in needlecraft for making
clothes for the family members. It is easily inferable that Maya’s mother
acquired this skill as a part of her school education in Mohenjo-daro. As of
now, macrohistorians, based on the excavated fragmentary woven cotton, infer
the conclusion that Mohenjo-daro was the first cotton textile hub of the world.
But they cannot enlighten us about how these cotton clothes were made. In this
regard, microhistory supplements this lacuna by taking recourse to the logical
story-telling method.
In the evening,
Maya’s father decided to sell some of his handmade toys and pots in the nearby
market. Maya accompanied her father both for the amusement and for helping her
father in his business:
It was evening.
Ba had finished baking the pots and toys which he had made yesterday. Now he
was ready to take them to the market to sell them. Maya said she must go too. “You can carry this,
Maya,” Ba said. And he put a baked pitcher on her head. (Anand)
Here, Maya’s
eagerness and her father’s consent show that women were encouraged to
participate in economic activities of that time. The society was liberal and
did not restrict women’s decisions and choices. Along with it, this extracted
passage also underlines how the family members helped one another in their
duties to maintain a harmonious rhythm in the domestic life. Based on the
fragmented pottery and toys, macrohistorians have so far predicted the
widespread use of these items in this city. They have also informed us about
their economic importance. But how these items were brought and sold in the evening
market remains as a subject of enquiry. Anand’s imagination recreates that
environment and helps us visualize how Maya’s father, along with other
merchants, yelled out for selling his products: “But it was only the merchants
talking and shouting, trying to sell their wares. Ba too began to shout. ‘Come,
masters!’ he cried. ‘Come generous masters! Buy this toy. Hear the beautiful
sound it makes. Come, buy toys for your children!’” (Anand)Maya, as a little
girl, could not resist the temptation of beautiful clay toys showcased in other
shops. So, she ran to different shops and wished to buy those attractive toys
for herself. At first, she was attracted by the animal toys nodding their
heads. But soon her attention fell on a soft cotton ball and she pleaded her
father to buy it. Although her father initially refused to purchase it, he
could not ultimately resist his daughter’s persistent request and bought it out
of love:
She went back to
her father and said, “Ba, I want a fluffy ball.” [. . .] her father said, “Come, my daughter. Now we must go home.”
“I want that ball,” she said again. “Tomorrow, my child,” Ba said. [. . .] “I
want the ball now,” Maya said firmly. [. . .] He went to the stall where
woollen things were sold. For one fluffy ball he gave one of his own clay toys,
a little cart drawn by two bullocks. He took the ball and gave it to Maya.
(Anand)
Here, Maya’s
repeated request reflects the child’s psychology of immediate gratification of
any desire. Ba’s initial attempts to negotiate with her daughter show his
hidden economic hardship. But out of love for her daughter he somehow managed
to buy the ball. Father’s love for her daughter overrides all economic limitations.
Macrohistory, driven by the archaeological findings, can never penetrate the
human mind. It only talks about large-scale economic transactions, mode of
business, and the market dynamics of this ancient civilization. But
microhistory, assisted by the logical imagination, can reconstruct the buyer’s
psychology and the seller’s enticing business policies prevailing at that time.
Conclusion
This
microhistorical investigation of Mulk Raj Anand’s A Day in the Life of Maya
of Mohenjo-daro has so far foregrounded a reconstructed everyday lifestyle
of one of the families of Mohenjo-daro that finds no mention in the dominant
macrohistorical narratives. Placing Maya’s daily activities at the centre of
discussion, this study provides a nuanced analysis of domestic affairs,
intimate family moments, gender conventions, and socio-economic life, thereby
stimulating readers to imagine and feel the daily rhythm of domestic life in
Mohenjo-daro’s every household. This study challenges the generalization
tendency of macrohistory, as a society cannot run in a homogenous manner.
Archaeology-driven macrohistory can provide us a zoom-out perspective on the
civilizational dynamics, but logical imagination-driven microhistory can peep
into the human emotions, relationships, and everyday compulsions of a family
living in an ancient society.
Works Cited
Anand,
Mulk Raj. A Day in the Life of Maya of Mohenjo-daro. Children’s Book
Trust, 1968.
Chekanov,
Vsevolod Iu. “Unravelling the Threads of Microhistory: Exploring Key Features
and Notable Examples.” Journal of History, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 68–81. https://doi.org/10.3138/jh-2023-0045
de
Vries, Jan. “Playing with Scales: The Global and the Micro, the Macro and the
Nano.” & Present, vol. 242, no. 14 (Supplement), Nov. 2019, pp.
23–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtz043
Ellis,
Julie Dyess. Microhistory: “The Scent of Human Flesh.” MA thesis, Texas
Tech University, 1996.
Ghosal,
Shankhadeep, and Rajni Singh. “Microhistory, Cultural Memory and Indus Valley
Civilization in Vasant Davé’s Trade Winds to Meluhha.” Bandung,
vol. 12, no. 2, 2025, pp. 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1163/21983534-12020001.
Gupta,
Riya. “Why Microhistory Matters: Meaning, Method, and Significance.” Economic
&Political History Review, vol. 1, no. 2, Oct. 2025.https://ephr.in/2025/10/27/why-microhistory-matters-meaning-method-and- significance/.
Paul,
Jesse. “What Is Microhistory?” Social Evolution & History, vol. 17,
no. 2, Sept. 2018, pp. 64–82. https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2018.02.04.
Rather,
Aqib Yousuf. “Rethinking Local Oral and Microhistories.” Journal of History
and Archaeology, vol. 2, no. 4, Oct.–Dec. 2024, pp. 27–32.
“What
Is Microhistory?” Victoria’s Victoria,
University of Victoria,
https://hcmc.uvic.ca/project/vicvic/student/vicbrewery/content/microhistory.htm
Woodward, Walt.
“Historians to Debate Value of New Historical Approach.” UConn Advance,
11 Oct. 1999, http://www.advance.uconn.edu/10119912.htm