I spent the spring break researching for my project, and I found some interesting readings that helped me add some nuance to some of the ideas that I had already formed. I got in touch with Dr Rosalind Parr, who recommended Mrinalini Sinha’s ‘Specters of Mother India: the global restructuring of an empire’. This was an interesting read as it covered some significant elements that are often overlooked in post-colonial historiography. In all that I have read so far on my topic, I noticed an imbalance. The texts either focus on the role of Indian women in isolation with the imperial internationalism of the interwar period, or there is too much emphasis on other international institutions and lack of focus on the role played by subaltern women. Barring two or three readings, at least this is what I have observed so far. ‘Specters of Mother India’ was a satisfying read for me. It explored an exciting transition in the relationship between nationalism and women whilst being placed in an international context.
Mrinalini Sinha, in this book, demonstrated the importance of studying race and gender together in an analytical framework while reminding the readers of the growing agency of Indian women. US Journalist Katherine Mayo in 1925 wrote a polemic against the extension of political power to Indians. The book titled Mother India was supposed to expose the treatment of Indian women by Indian men. Her pro-imperial propaganda ended up becoming a catalyst in reinvigorating the nationalist project in India. A new discourse on Indian feminism emerged out of her rhetorical text[1]. Mayo’s writing evoked a global response; the book was translated into various languages. Gaining notoriety in the liberal feminist circles of America, her rhetoric called for an Anglo-US alliance in the post-war world that defied self-rule for colonies such as India. Mayo’s sinister writing ostensibly used the women’s question to further imperial propaganda and deny nationalists’ political demands in India. Mayo argued that Hinduism’s regressive practices led to the oppression of Indian women, which culminated in the depiction of Indian women as victims. When the question of women and children came up, the league of nations also got involved as it resonated with their plan. The post-suffrage organizations started giving into ideas of the white woman’s burden- the plight of women in colonies become a part of white women’s feminist agenda.
Mrinalini Sinha discusses how Indian women delegitimized the civilizing claims of the imperial government by repudiating Mayo’s text and creating a unique place for themselves in the International forum. Indian women challenged the validity of colonial rule by espousing liberal ideals and fighting for social reform. This explains how Subaltern women were able to play a unique role as nationalists and social reformers in the international platform. By furthering ideas of social reform, they contested imperial claims that tried to depict Indian women as oppressed victims. There is, of course, a caveat to this, Mayo’s claims were not plucked from thin air- there was some truth to it. Sinha also later asserts that the Indian women’s organization mainly comprised upper-caste women who were not representative of most Indian women. Some scholars have critiqued interwar internationalism as a façade that existed only to
Next, I read a few chapters from Rosalind Parr’s book ‘Citizens of Everywhere’. According to Parr, a distinct cosmopolitan nationalism led by women underpinned the processes of decolonization. The general depiction of Indian nationalism has undermined women’s agency and shown them as playing supporting symbolic roles. Popular culture has always depicted nationalist leaders such as Gandhi being in favour of women’s emancipation[3]. However, such narratives have overshadowed women’s independent contributions that go beyond Gandhi’s support for them. Partha Chatterjee’s work on women and nationalism has also been held guilty for downplaying the role of Indian women during the national struggle. His theory suggested that Indian women became a part of an inner/spiritual domain where they tried to establish themselves as different but modern. Therefore, Chatterjee claimed that the only role Indian women had during nationalism was to define themselves as different to the west. Thus, according to him, the cultural nationalist construction of women included limited emancipation of women. Scholars in the same school of thought as Chatterjee have attached little importance to women’s organised activism in the public sphere. Parr has reiterated that anti-colonial women were not passive subordinates in a dominant narrative. They bought their distinct perspectives and ideas to transnational dialogues about various issues. They cooperated internationally and shaped not only their histories but also the histories of the world[4].
[1]rivedi, Lisa. Review of Specters of Mother India: The Global Restructuring of an Empire. Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History 8, no. 1 (2007)
[2]Sinha, Mrinalini. “Refashioning Mother India: Feminism and Nationalism in Late-Colonial India.” Feminist Studies 26, no. 3 (2000): 623-44
[3]Rosalind Parr, Citizens of Everywhere. Indian Women, Cosmopolitanism, and Nationalism, 1920s-1950s. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
[4]Sinha, Mrinalini. “Refashioning Mother India: Feminism and Nationalism in Late-Colonial India.” Feminist Studies 26, no. 3 (2000): 623-44