Saving Kate MIddleton's skirt from flying

The summer breeze lifted Kate Middleton’s dress as she stood with Prince William paying their respects at the Amar Jawan Jyoti. The photographers who might have been clicking away also captured that. It made it on the front page of the Times of India, as well as to the international press.

One can pull up the TOI for many things, but as far as I am concerned this was not it.

Why does a candid moment cause so much consternation? I’ve read social media anthropologists and feminists huff and puff over this. Culling a few points I shall respond.

The newspaper was being asked, “Do you want to be Playboy?” Ridiculous. Is this pornography? Unless somebody gets excited it is not, in which case they have no business to get moralistic.

They complain that this was a sombre moment, and I suspect there was more outrage because it was at a memorial. Was she wearing a dress that was inappropriate? Not really, although I see the point of the advice Vanity Fair offered:

With pins like Kate’s who wouldn’t want to show them off? But at such an important and somber moment during the tour, flashing so much royal flesh wasn’t ideal. The Queen has small weights stitched into her hemlines to avoid such wardrobe malfunctions. Kate’s stylist might want to take note!

This was no a wardrobe malfunction; it was, if anything, Nature getting frisky. However, this is not about how she conducted herself, but how others did.

Not only were many of them reproducing the ‘offensive’ picture but also adding their own fantastical thoughts to it. Like, “If it had the opportunity, Times of India wudn't have hesitated from publishing an upskirt pic of Mother Teresa.”

Before the criminal newspaper even gets there, the male gaze has imagined the female form, and a revered one at that. Why not, say, South superstar Rajanikanth, who wears a lungi that is susceptible to the wind?

I am amazed at how easily people call out sexism by themselves being voyeuristic by reproducing it. It is justified as using it as ‘evidence’ to shame. There is too much naming and shaming, which only results in throwing darts during a local fair. 

Buzzfeed, social media’s favourite historian on dope, had reproduced the front page and even encircled the picture to emphasise that this was sexual harassment. Stunning.

Online feminists, men and women, too use the term sexual harassment so loosely that it reduces harassment to some kitty party game. They complained that this was not a Marilyn Monroe moment because there was no choice involved here. Of course, there was not. Just as the photographers did not lie down on the floor or peep up (many concerned people in fact used stok photographs of children peeping up skirts to draw an analogy with bad boy TOI, forgetting they were misusing kids to suit their agenda). The Times photographers are not forecasters that they’d know when the wind would blow and the dress would fly.

Buzzfeed again carried a photograph of William’s coat from the back riding up to reveal his shirt. They care a lot about equality so they wondered why that did not make it to the front page. Probably because it was the back? Probably because Kate looks willowy when she is billowy? Had the media flashed Will, would they be discussing sexual harassment? What would have been their argument? And if not – which is the probability – then why?

On a related note, there was much praise for Kate Middleton wearing India-inspired prints, but an Indian actor would be expected to be an ambassador for the country even at sponsored events where they might go to market a product or a film, such as at Cannes.

Since there was talk about how the royal couple was so humble, could not this moment in the breeze be seen as part of them being human and fallible? But, no, these are largely supremacists whose high-mindedness will protect Kate Middleton's 'honour'. Had it been our own Mallika Sherawat or Rakhi Sawant's skirt flying they would be busy enjoying the memes.

And mind you, we are talking about people who use their mobile phone cameras to click sundry strangers at restaurants and other public places to make a point, to post on Instagram, to tell the world that they find others so funny, so disgusting, or to name and shame, never mind that they do not even know the name of the person nor will they care about the ‘issue’ once the picture gets its retweets and likes and they are honoured for the day as people with a conscience.  

Murder, she said -- Sheena Bora vs. Indrani Mukherjea

When a murder case is described as a circus, an edge-of-seat drama, you know that nobody is interested in the dead. It is the killing that counts, especially if it takes us through a maze.

India is riveted by the daily assault of media stories on Indrani Mukherjea, the woman who killed her daughter (who she publicly referred to as a sister) back in 2012. It has been brought to light three years later; the reason for it is confined to footnotes when it ought to be the real news.

DNA

Briefly: Indrani married Peter Mukherjea, whose son Rahul from a previous marriage was in a live-in relationship with Sheena, daughter of Indrani, who also has a son Mikhail (introduced publicly as her brother).

An informant told the police that Sheena had been murdered. This led to the driver, who confessed and accused his boss Indrani and her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna of the murder. Sanjeev and Indrani have a daughter Vidhie, who Peter legally adopted. The father of Sheena and Mikhail is a Siddharth Das whose mother says she can only vouch for one grandchild, i.e. Sheena, and not Mikhail. (Who named him Mikhail? Clearly somebody must like Gorbachev.)

There is bound to be confusion, what with all the players contradicting one another and themselves.

However, due to the sensational nature of the disclosures and the surge of pop psychology doing the rounds, the fact that the police in the forested area where the remains were buried did not pursue it should be alarming. Nobody seemed to know or care about her disappearance in all this time, including her fiancé, her brother and her grandparents.

But, it is also about how society does not care. The manner in which people are reacting too reveals little concern for the victim. And if there is, it is to judge the non-existence of moral values.

I have a vague recollection of Indrani as a Page 3 denizen. She and Peter, who was the CEO of Star India, were obviously party animals. Later, they started another channel. Now Vir Sanghvi, senior journalist, has given an interview about his ex-bosses. I don't understand this. If he does not have any clues about the murder, why should he be allowed to barf about what are essentially his peeves against them?

In the initial stages, I watched a high-society punk on two TV channels. It was amazing how he altered his tone to suit each channel's story, and the channels are playing favourites here too.

I fail to understand how these ‘friends’ who say they can't believe such a thing could happen are called upon to judge precisely that. Far more important than the motive, it is for the police to establish that a murder did indeed take place, and the identity of the victim. Right now, they have exhumed the grave and collected a bagful of bones and a skull.

We read this and write about it as though these are things we encounter regularly. The reason we are becoming desensitised is because of the inhumane nature of reportage. The emphasis is on the uber lifestyle. For the middle class, it is a story close enough but certainly not about them. They can, therefore, judge, be it the money angle, the lust angle or the power angle.

Let us pause here. We do judge all crimes and criminals, so why not a woman who has from all evidence produced thus far killed her daughter, a planned murder, wiped out all visible clues, and lived with this and other lies?

The feminist trope has become mandatory when discussing any public event or cases these days. So, some commentators tell us that it is wrong to diss Indrani by referring to her as ambitious or a femme fatale. There is nothing wrong in being either. I do see that such slotting might convey that a woman with drive is bound to clear whatever comes in the way through any means. It so happens that Indrani did indeed do all of these. Her gender is immaterial.

I read a piece where the writer was angry about this and went on to list quotes not only about this case, but two other publicly visible women, thereby drawing attention to what she was herself dismissive about. While it is a fact that a woman with more than one husband draws attention and sniggers, here these gentlemen were very much a part of the crime, either directly or as evidence.

Some part of her lifestyle will be highlighted for the same reason as some are now talking about how the dynamics might change after the revelation about her being abused by her father as a teenager. Are we going to justify her crime because of it? If we think he is a beast, then should we trust him to shed light on the case?

The driver was an important part of the crime; there is little attention being paid to him. Why? Because we do not have pictures of him holding a cocktail glass? I am curious as to why he had preserved Sheena’s photograph (supposedly to identity her just in case the killing was outsourced) years after the murder? Wouldn’t he have wanted to get rid of it?

What prompted the informer, who woke up after three years?

What intrigues me most is Peter, who appears to be given the benefit of amnesia. He does not seem to know about anything and has portrayed himself as a lovelorn man who only trusted his wife, and did not seem to know about anything, including her being the mother of these two children she called her siblings. He says he has never met her parents, either.

Since we do not know how well she knew his family, is it possible that they functioned as a supra nuclear family? They weren’t very young, and had experienced previous marriages. The term “delusions of grandeur” has been used for Indrani. It is possible that this was a delusional compact world they chose to lead, where ‘others’ were not admitted as more than passersby. He probably believed her because he couldn’t care less about another version, just as she probably trusted him for other things.

I am surprised that people are shocked not so much by the murder as by the relationship. These are the same people who are quite okay with discussing minutiae of their own ‘happy lives’ in private messages to strangers on the internet. Therefore, nobody is in a position to discuss the dysfunctional.

As regards the crime, usually we say there should be justice for the family. Isn't that redundant here?

The Cleavage Chiaroscuro

What happens when a Bollywood actor decides to speak out against objectification? The reactions are simplistic and extreme.

The Times of India tweeted a link to its web gallery, with one picture that had the caption: "OMG: Deepika Padukone's cleavage show."

She responded with: "YES! I am a Woman. I have breasts AND a cleavage! You got a problem!!??"

TOI, rather flippantly, told her that it was meant as a compliment, adding: "You look so great that we want to make sure everyone knew! :)"

Deepika: "Don't talk about Woman's Empowerment when YOU don't know how to RESPECT Women!" and "Supposedly India's 'LEADING' newspaper and this is 'NEWS'!!??"

One thing needs to be clarified — this is not news and was not sold as such. It was by the entertainment department and the link was to a web gallery.

Was TOI being disrespectful? Yes. Specifically to her and generally to its readers. The assumption is that people are intent upon looking only at certain aspects of a person they might admire as a performer or even a looker or, worse, people cannot see what is there and need to be guided with verbal cues.

This is infantilising besides objectification. What exactly does a "show" conjure? That it is a performance, a display. Deepika is being accused of exhibitionism.

As happens often, the story is not so much about what was said but how it snowballed. The actor has featured in Times of India's other publications, often on the cover. It is a mutually-acceptable relationship, even beneficial. TOI has often passed off pulp as news.

The point is: are we and should we consider the cleavage of anybody as pulp? Would that not amount to a denial of gender dynamics, of the body, of identity? While Ms. Padukone herself was clear about what she has and how she expects respect, has the response followed this template?

Lyricist Swanand Kirkire came up with this: "Behind every cleavage there is a heart, a voice, thanks... for showing us your true beauty & this is a compliment." If he had to pay tribute to her heart by mentioning its location, then he should have mentioned the rib cage.

The general tenor of "she is more than a cleavage" is patronising, apart from missing the point: A woman can show cleavage, but it does not give anybody the right to point at it. Just as one might object to catcalls, which again are considered compliments by some.

And why does a woman need to have more that is in the realm of the abstract? She may possess many qualities that need not be for public consumption or its intensity may be reserved for personal interactions only.

In fact, one fallout is men who are standing with her want to express solidarity by posting pictures of their moobs (man boobs). This means little, for male actors have no issues about being known for their six-pack abs and muscles. If anything, their bodies convey a single-minded commitment to achieve a look required for a role, if not for the image of star power.

A woman actor who does work on her body is seen as an aberration that needs to get back to her original shape soon, even if the original shape follows a standard idea of perfection.

Returning to the online battle, not for a moment did the thought of Ms. Padukone's just-released film 'Finding Fanny' cross my head. She does not need publicity, although the mainstream media that is reporting on this are referring to her as the FF star.

One radio jockey, Malishka, resorted to hyperbole saying that Deepika "makes history today not just coz of #FindingFanny but coz of the stand she took".

It raises an uncomfortable question: If responding to a newspaper means creating history, are we to assume that there is silent acceptance otherwise? The reiteration of "about time" reveals a scenario where nobody speaks up.

I am particularly concerned that even now the sounds are merely echoes of one who is a top line actor. It is fairly routine for those not as well-known, especially those who are referred to as item girls, like Rakhi Sawant or Poonam Pandey, to be dismissed as drama queens if they do raise their voice. I doubt if they would get any support. So, this is also about class and the pecking order.

The Deepika episode gives an opportunity to some to become legitimised, even as they continue with their ogling. Director Anubhav Sinha said, "It is the high camera angle not a low neckline. What is low is the standard of journalism. Downright SICK!!!"

What exactly was actor Ayushmann Khurana trying to say with this, "Dear yellow journalism, a star showed you that some of you are green"? How puerile to suggest that this is about envy. The puerile seems to prevail, just as it becomes obvious that a little flash makes a bunch of people sweat and indulge in mass catharsis. Not many would wish the rub a big media house the wrong way, and they just do not have the time of inclination for more than a castaway statement.

If all these stars are truly concerned, they should speak out more often. It is only real war that will get them results and bring about a change in attitude.

© Farzana Versey

Storm after the silence: Now it's Tapas Pal

Think about it. Why was the Tapas Pal clip not aired earlier, or why did it not go 'viral' on June 14 when he made the rape remarks? Is there a PR lobby that ensures some people stay in the news, or their leader gets an opportunity to be "shocked", an emotion recollected in tranquility?

That comment should have died and been buried. Exhuming it serves no purpose other than to confirm what we already know. This business of shaming those who have proven they are shameless simply gets them mileage.

Tapas Pal is a Bengali actor from the 80s. He is also a Trinamool Congress Party leader. A week ago he had said:

"Ekta jodi kono birodhi aajke Trinamuler kono meye, kono baap, kono bachchar gaye haat dey, tader gushti ke ami jaa taa kore chole jabo. Amaar chheleder dhukiye debo rapekore chole jabe, rape kore chole jabe…(If anyone from the Opposition dares touch a daughter of Trinamul, a father from Trinamul, a child from Trinamul, I will do whatever I can to their entire clan. I will set my boys on them, they will rape them, they will rape them.)"

This particular statement is more political than gender-related, although some reports have mentioned that the target would be women cadre of the opposition. The TMC and Communists are old rivals, and both have a history of violence. Some have explained it as a response to some CPI (M) workers getting violent. It is no justification.

This does not need any analysis. He himself said so:

"I am a ruffian and have committed many such acts. Let anybody dare stop me," Pal had said, much to the applause of his supporters.

The worrying aspect is that his supporters applauded him. His statement has to be seen in the context of how the public responds too.

Demanding his arrest is becoming a showpiece for his party leader Mamata Bannerjee to express shock, quite forgetting her own attitude when she had accused a rape victim of faking it. A spokesperson told the media:

"The chief minister is shattered by the comments. The party has already cautioned him on Monday and demanded a written explanation from him in 48 hours."

This is beyond ridiculous. What is there to explain, and why would it take 48 hours for what is on record? He has already denied it, saying that he used the word "raid" and not rape. Irrespective of it, there is threat of violence. His wife has apologised on his behalf. He should be isolated, instead of getting an opportunity to speak.

Before anointing our commentators for their concern, let us ask where was the media when the statement was made? Are there reports or opinion pieces on this soon after the incident?

That this clip has become a talking point now also reveals the total disconnect between national and regional news. Unless, it creates a buzz, the big news channels won't pick it up. When they do, it is to sensationalise it, run a kangaroo court, and hammer at it till 'justice' is done.

What has happened to such remarks earlier? They took up primetime space, brought in a few new faces, and objectified rape again in the studios. Till the next celebrity case took over.

All those who think they are sensitising the public, I am afraid nothing of the sort is happening. If that were important, then those listening to Tapas Pal's speech would not be egging him on. These are ordinary people who adhere to a similar pugnacious attitude to claim space. Women have traditionally been considered territory. Is there any newspaper or TV channel ready to run a campaign against this topic, which is not controversial but can have a long-lasting impact?

That's when we can talk about concern. Now it is just another gravy cart. Or, a storm after the silence.

© Farzana Versey