Abstract
The controversies surrounding Katherine Mayo's (Citation1927) Mother India provides an exploration into the rhetorical dynamics of figurations that helped maintain imperial aspirations. This analysis suggests that many of the American, British, and Indian commentators who wrote about the impact of Mother India were not just making observations about the accuracy of Mayo's personal observations or the fairness of her religious characterizations; rather, these observers were often participants in much larger discursive debates about what might be called gendered nationalism—the use of paternalistic figurations that suture together particular familiar images with political critiques of oppositional movements.
Notes
For some of the most insightful interdisciplinary critiques of Mayo's (Citation1927) work, see Jha (Citation1971), Kimpell (Citation1990), and Liddle and Joshi (Citation1985).
Mayo's (Citation1917) first social reform book, Justice for All, was credited with helping to start up the State Police Force in New York.
For many years, Katharine Mayo would view herself as one of the defenders of the 60 million “untouchables” living in India, and she would constantly claim that there were “associations” of untouchables that asked the “Government not to weaken its own British element, thereby committing their fate to Hindu Hands” (Mayo, Citation1930, p. 871).
The concept known as “ornamentalism” (Cannadine, Citation2001) is used when defenders of historical and contemporary empires provide unapologetic commentaries on the need for continued imperial oversight and (post)colonial beneficence.