QUESTION: How do Susie Tharu and Tejaswani Niranjana address what they see as a crisis in feminism ?

ANSWER:

Susie Tharu and Tejaswini Niranjana are Indian feminist scholars, literary critics, and cultural theorists known for their contributions to postcolonial feminism and gender studies. Susie Tharu is a professor and activist recognized for compiling anthologies of Indian feminist writings. Tejaswini Niranjana is a cultural theorist and translator, known for her work on translation studies, feminism, and postcolonial theory. Both scholars focus on the intersections of feminism, nationalism, caste, and postcolonial identity, particularly in the Indian context.

Tharu and Niranjana’s essay Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender (1994) is a critical intervention in feminist theory. In this work, they address what they perceive as a “crisis in feminism,” particularly in the Indian and postcolonial contexts. Their critique focuses on the limitations of Western feminism in addressing the complexities of gender, caste, and class in postcolonial societies. They argue that mainstream feminism has often been dominated by upper-caste, middle-class women and has failed to incorporate the experiences of marginalized groups, particularly Dalit and tribal women.

Tharu and Niranjana identify a crisis in feminism arising from its inability to adequately address the diversity of women’s experiences, particularly in postcolonial societies like India. They argue that the dominant feminist discourse has historically been shaped by Western liberal feminism, which often fails to consider the intersection of gender with caste, class, and colonial histories. Their critique revolves around the following key points:

One of their primary concerns is that mainstream feminist movements often assume a universal category of “woman”, ignoring differences in social, economic, and historical contexts. Tharu and Niranjana argue that:

• Feminism, particularly in its early phases, generalized the experiences of upper-caste, middle-class women, sidelining the struggles of working-class, Dalit, and Adivasi women.
• Western feminist frameworks are not always applicable to postcolonial societies like India, where gender oppression is deeply intertwined with caste and colonial histories.
• The assumption of a singular feminist narrative creates exclusions and fails to account for the lived realities of marginalized women.

They critique how Indian feminism has been influenced by colonial histories, particularly the way British rule reshaped gender roles in India. Key arguments include:

• Colonialism reinforced patriarchal structures by codifying laws that disadvantaged women (e.g., personal laws that reinforced religious and caste-based gender norms).
• Early Indian feminism emerged in response to colonial discourse, which framed Indian women as oppressed and in need of Western intervention.
• Nationalist movements often used women as symbols of cultural purity, which limited their agency and activism.

Tharu and Niranjana argue that feminism in India must account for these historical factors rather than simply adopting Western feminist models.

A central critique in their work is that feminist movements in India have often ignored caste-based oppression. They highlight that:

• Many early feminist leaders were from upper-caste backgrounds, and their priorities did not always align with those of Dalit and tribal women.
• Dalit feminism challenges both caste and gender oppression, but mainstream feminism has often failed to engage with Dalit perspectives.
• The failure to incorporate caste analysis into feminism creates an incomplete understanding of gender oppression in India.

Tharu and Niranjana emphasize the need for a more intersectional feminism that includes caste, class, and regional differences.

They also critique how feminism has been shaped by language and academic discourse, particularly in English-dominated scholarship. They argue that:

• Much of Indian feminist theory is written in English, making it inaccessible to grassroots feminist movements.
• Indigenous and vernacular feminist voices are often marginalized, limiting the scope of feminist discourse.
• Translation plays a crucial role in shaping feminist debates, but it often distorts or oversimplifies complex ideas when moving between languages.

By addressing these issues, they call for a more inclusive feminist framework that recognizes diverse linguistic and cultural perspectives.

Tharu and Niranjana argue that feminism must:

• Move beyond Western-centric models and develop context-specific theories that address the realities of Indian women.
• Incorporate Dalit, tribal, and working-class perspectives, ensuring that feminism is not just an upper-caste, elite movement.
• Recognize the historical and political factors that shape gender oppression in India, including colonialism and nationalism.
• Emphasize regional and vernacular feminisms, rather than relying solely on English-language feminist discourse.

Tharu and Niranjana’s critique is highly relevant in contemporary feminism, particularly in discussions about intersectionality. Their arguments highlight the importance of context-specific feminist theories, which move beyond Western frameworks and account for caste, class, and historical realities.

However, one challenge remains: while their work calls for a more inclusive feminism, practical implementation requires structural changes within feminist movements. The inclusion of Dalit and marginalized voices must be an active process, requiring more than theoretical acknowledgment. Additionally, making feminist discourse accessible beyond academic circles remains a challenge, particularly in a multilingual country like India.

Overall, their critique urges feminism to decolonize itself, address internal hierarchies, and become truly inclusive of all women’s experiences.