Contemporary day Western feminism might as well be used as a euphemism for the hegemonic feminist theory, for both are non-class, non-racialized, at least according to Mohanty.

In this world of polarised communities and strong power structures, Chandra Mohanty, in her essay, Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses, goes on to identify gender as a source of oppression. However, her take is quite different from ones common idea of gender struggle. She does not look at the man-versus-woman debate. Instead, she takes a more globalised view of the world and pays close scrutiny to how women of the West may well be waging a gender war against other women, or particularly those of the Global South. For me, Mohantys article was able to achieve three main things: the need for creating an understanding of how all global systems work in symbiosis (for instance, capitalism, globalisation, imperialism etc), the need to understand how the “Third World Woman” is in fact, constructed from the perspective of the “First World Woman, and the need to understand the detrimental effect of generalisations.  

Keeping in view the colonial past of most countries (both, colonized and colonizer), and their present of globalisation and capitalism, it is almost impossible to look at any aspect of these given communities in a solitary manner. According to Mohanty, “western feminist scholarship cannot avoid the challenge of situating itself and examining its role in such a global economic and political framework. To do any less would be to ignore the complex interconnections between first and third world economies and the profound effect of this on the lives of women in these countries.” This analysis is particularly important for it brings to attention how ideas like imperialism, militarism, capitalism and globalisation are not to be looked independently, for all these systems practice in an interconnected manner and sustain each other. But it isn’t only their compounded nature that one has to call attention to. No. In fact, it is a lot more important to assess how at the heart of some of these practices are gendered and heteronormative sexual politics and ideologies that cement this kind of imperialism and militarism, further strengthening ideas of gendered oppression. Similarly there is a need to always answer questions of freedom and liberation (of the colonized) by deeply engaging with its imperial past and the epistemological question of decolonization and imperialism itself. This is pertinent in understanding ideas of decolonisation on psychic or social levels, or in terms of racialized gendered ideologies.

When Edward Said calls attention to the orient, he mainly lays focus on the need to look at it from the view of the occident and how the latter creates the former. This implies that when a French man goes to Algeria and looks at her people as “backward and primitive”, he is in fact, assuming himself to be at the pinnacle of progress and hence, creating the identity of the Algerian as being different from his own i.e primitive. This same principal can be applied to women of the first world, and how they construct this “third world woman” as being oppressed and primitive. When movements like “Free the Nipple” become flag bearers of what contemporary day feminism should look like, white women look down at the covered woman of the third world and assume her state of oppression in relation to the amount of clothes she uses to cover herself. This train of thought, although common, is inherently problematic, for it is entirely based on the assumption that the idea of a free, liberated woman can be conflated with the “western woman” and how anything that differs from this definition may well be constituting itself as oppressed and awaiting progress. And hence, it becomes almost compulsory, at least in feminist scholarship, to look at the third world woman through her right and culture, and independent of any western thoughts.

But is it as easy?

Most western feminists studying the “third world woman”, almost inevitably comply to the negative connotations that the phrase itself comes with. Part of it may be attributed to ethnocentrism while for the most part, the loaded term can be blamed. The whole term “third world woman” itself points to the problematic idea of generalisation, and how all these women from the Global South are an assumed cookie-cutter model of each other- oppressed and far from progressive. As a result, the first world woman constantly feels the “need” to protect this third world woman, and to “enlighten” her with what real progress should look like.

How this may be put to action is a stark reality in itself.

In 2002, when George Bush is trying to build his empire through waging a war in Afghanistan, Laura Bush comes forth and attributes this intervention to the “emancipation of Afghan women”. Her husband constantly refers to those women as “women of cover” and those who are “oppressed and marginalised”. One may ask how his definition of the woman in the burka (“women of cover”) suddenly, and so nonchalantly, translates to the oppressed, but then the precedent is enough as an answer. The 19-year long war, which sees no future of an end, has further sabotaged the country and made it into a more stimulated cauldron of oppression and tumult, at least for the women. The Afghan woman is possibly more scared to leave her house, and if she does covering is a prerequisite, not because the “Taliban are oppressive” and demand it, but because there is no other way. Even if one hypothetically believes that the war has “liberated Afghanistan”, one can bring Laura Bush’s definition of the “emancipation of these women” and they still still look a lot more destitute.

Feminism is a powerful phenomenon, and while its allies grow each day, people who feel threatened by it also grow at the same speed- almost linearly. Some may deem those non-allies as women-hating, atrocious humans, but then Chandra Mohanty clearly leaves a room for why the woman in burka may “not need” feminism and what her idea of it may be.

This piece is an imaginative one. It shall aim to look at Dada Amir Haider Khan’s journey to the USSR, juxtaposed to Soviet propaganda posters of that time, and try to imagine how Dada might have seen each one, and how they would have contributed as a pull factor in Dada’s decision to sail to Moscow. 

The wake of 1900’s brought forth a world that was a cauldron of oppression and exploitation. The First World War was about to be triggered, United States was at the brink of becoming the next world power, Britain was ruling 25% of the world’s land surface and India had been deeply chained by colonial rule. 

In the midst of this, the century also gave birth to Amir Haider Khan, a revolutionary, a communist activist and an unsung hero of the Indian Independence Movement – one who’s words and ideas can be seen physically in Soviet posters.

In 1914, when the First World War broke out, India was naturally a British ally, with most of the Indian army being sent to fight against Germany in different parts of the world. Dada was then overseeing Anglo-Indian trade as a part of the British merchant navy, possibly laying close scrutiny on how exploitative and extractive the relationship of the two countries was. 

In 1917, when Dadabhai Naoroji died, he left behind a detailed insight into Britain as a brutal exploiter and the famous drain theory that put Britain at a questionable position within the colonised country. That same year, while Indian exploitation was being measured for its magnanimity, on the other side of the world, women were marching out of their houses, in the Russian capital, Petrograd, protesting over bread shortages and demanding an end to Tsarist autocracy- an action that eventually gave way to the Russian Revolution. If one looks from the side of Dada, this revolution was probably not only an alien idea, but also a seemingly impossible one, especially for India of that time. 

To Dada, these posters could have possibly been a utopia of what an ideal revolution and freedom smelled like- one that was far from India. So far Dada had not seen similar Indian women or peasantry at the forefront of any art, let alone a nation altogether.

In 1918, Dada was posted to the United States Merchant Marine, where he travelled most of the world and met people that eventually could be seen as pertinent in shaping his anti-British and communist ideas. He first met Joseph Mulkane, an Irish nationalist who introduced him to anti-British political ideas, and then some Indian nationalists and Ghadar party members who then also travelled with him to Moscow. 

In 1919, while India was suffering from the trauma of the cold-blooded genocide of Jalianwala Bagh, Dada was distributing ‘Ghadar ki Goonj’ to Indians in sea ports around the world. The following image is what the compilation of ‘Ghadar ki Goonj’ looked like: 

While Dada was distributing these across the world, and sending out instigative messages for Indians to unchain themselves from colonial rule, Soviet propaganda posters were no different. They were too, sending out similar messages- messages of breaking free from the systematic oppression that dictated that time period.

And hence, it can only be imagined that Dada gained inspiration from the Soviet posters for his own anti-colonial movement.

By this time, Dada had become deeply entrenched in pro-communist and anti-imperialist ideas, and by 1920, he was off to Moscow along with the Workers (Communist) Party of USA. Below are some of the posters that Dada could have possibly seen- posters that signalled all what Dadas idea of Soviet Union was, and posters that sync with Dada’s memoirs and what was so special about Moscow in that tumultuous period.

This poster is closely symbolic of what Dada envisioned Moscow as: the capital of the world. It seemed to be a place that welcomed everyone in their raw skin colours and job descriptions, without waging any discrimination whatsoever. The poster is particularly important in understanding why, after travelling a large part of the world, Dada decided to head to Moscow, and how many others, like Dada, were doing the same.

The name of this poster is most important for the wind was quite literally changing while taking most people with it, to the Soviet Union. The top image shows a soldier defending the bourgeoisie with the caption “This is who the soldier used to defend”. The second, post-revolutionary, image features banners bearing the slogans, “Land and freedom!”, “Democracy and the Republic!” and “Liberty!” The caption reads: “That’s who he defends today”. This stands particularly in sync with Dada’s ideology for his main aim was to fight the status quo and overthrow the polarised class system in India. When Dada returned to Bombay in 1928, he was seen bringing this poster to life till his last breath.

This image can be edited out to morph Dada’s face into Lenins, and the impact it holds might almost still remain the same. Dada, like Lenin, envisioned a free future and one that did not dictate the idea of Indians having to occupy the broiler rooms in ships for they could “bear the heat” or for black workers to be the most exploited and underpaid for the simple reason that they were “black”.

It can be wondered if Dada would choose the entire Indian population or the working class of the entire world. His memoirs suggest that he would choose the latter, for the steering principle of his life was communism and clearly, not anti-colonialism. And hence, the poster above stands very relevant for its calls for the protection of not a single nation, but instead, the working classes of all nations. 

Lastly, here is an edited version of a Soviet poster in an assumption of how Dada might have viewed it. He spent most of his life brining communism to India and bridging the gap between Moscows cohesive diversity and Lahores polarised class system. However, till the eve of December, 1989, he was adamant on believing that the brotherhood he saw in Moscow, with his fellow Soviets, could one day become a reality.