Colonial Masculinity: The 'Manly Englishman' and the 'Effeminate Bengali' in the Late Nineteenth Century (Studies in Imperialism)

In this book, Sinha discusses four controversies that took place during the 1880s in colonized India. The reader can instantly tell that she did a ton of research, combing through Indian and British, mainstream and radical newspapers, as well as court cases. She carefully details myriad arguments advanced by many activists. The uniting theme is how the British stereotyped Bengalis as effeminate as a way to resist any of their assertions for empowerment.

This text should be embraced by numerous anti-oppression academics and activists. The facets of the struggles she describes will remind many of things that have happened in the United States. The Indian struggle to enlist in the British military reminds me of the 1990s fight of gays to serve openly in the American forces. The chapter on changing Indian marriage customs reminds me of current fights in France about Muslim girls' ability to wear scarves at public schools. Unlike most stereotyping and against ideas proposed by Althusser, Sinha demonstrates how Bengalis were differentiated from men in other Indian states. This book was a clever example of region, not just nation or colonialism.

Importantly, Sinha draws the contours of the two-way street that is power. Obviously influenced by Foucault and Lacan, she illustrates that Bengalis resisted British force and that British stereotyping of this Indian state says as much about the UK as it does about its former imperial subject. Sinha states at the outright that many of the proposed British laws were never enacted. Still, she spells out how Bengali outcry led to rich discussions about small, historical events. One can see the diversity of both Indian and British populations. This book is deep.

I do have a few critiques of the book. With the exception of the introduction, little is said about Bengali effeminacy. That topic is merely one ingredient in the overflowing stew that was India before independence. The controversies detailed would have still erupted whether Bengali men were stereotyped as effeminate or not. In many ways, a subplot of the research is given more space in the title of the book than its body. I applaud Sinha for pointing to an effeminacy not connected to male homosexuality. While many homophobes in the waste often conflate the two, this is not the case worldwide, and wasn't even true historically in the West. (Think about it: the ancient Greeks may have approved of male homosexuality, but they did not conceive of that love as violating gender norms.) Still, this book was much more about biological sex than socially constructed gender. Many of the chapter dealt with rule affecting Indian women and the patronizing arguments by British men, British women, or Indian men to support or refute these measures. African-American feminist writers once produced an anthology that stated, "All the men are black, all the women are white...." This book, similarly, was an intersectional work that looked at a group of women of color. This occurred much more often than effeminate Bengalis or British masculines were addressed.

This book is small in terms of page length. However, the print is small, the paragraphs are long, and there are no photos besides the one on the cover. The reader will have to be careful moving from line to line.

There are many writers with projects like Sinha's, but most are in cultural studies or literary criticism. I'm surprised to see an academic working in history to come up with such a profound, critical text. She should really be applauded, once again.

Sinha only focused on one decade in one state of one nation (though a very populous one). I should hope that other colonial and post-colonial scholars learn from her insights and keep running with her torch.