Ranveer Singh’s bum is a national issue, suggested the wise advocate on national television and the lady anchor could not stop bursting out laughing. Other panellists were equally amused. We don’t have an official reaction from the actor yet, but in all probability he would be a bit angry with himself. He was sitting on a national treasure for so long, literally and figuratively, yet had no inkling of it. If, he would be thinking, this one is so significant, what would his other assets be?
Let’s allow him space to work that out. After all, he is the bonafide owner of the bum in question, and he has the right to give it deep thought. Ranveer has been in controversies earlier, for his sartorial sense and no-holds-barred remarks; trust him to find a way out. And knowing him all these years, a photoshoot in the buff for a magazine wouldn’t be the last time he courted trouble.
The real subject of interest should be the advocate in question who filed a police complaint alleging he ‘hurt sentiments of women’ and the online and offline morality definers and enforcers who cannot stop being outraged at the indecentness involved in the whole episode. A psychological mapping of such individuals is important, because it would not only enlighten us on the status of body parts, legal and otherwise, among this section but also inform us about things celebrities need to be careful about in future. Such mapping won’t throw up a cosy picture though.
SCENT OF MISOGYNY:
Woman bodies in several degrees of underdressedness swaying suggestively to songs with raunchy lyrics don’t quite offend the delicate sensibilities of this lot. Neither do skimpily clad models on magazine covers. We have not noticed public outrage or police cases under the obscenity clause over what goes by the name of item songs in movies. It’s a nude male that bothers them more. Do you smell misogyny here? Yeah, a sex object is what a woman is supposed to be, not so a man. A man’s naked body is highly likely to corrupt women watching it; not so the opposite. Men are a superior species, aren’t they?
WHY SHOULD MEN HAVE ALL THE FUN?
In Ranveer’s case, the bum is not really the matter, the mindset is. When a woman’s body can be used to feed fantasies of men, why can’t women derive the same joy watching men in suggestive postures? We know when filmmakers drench women characters in movies in artificial shower or make them wear blouses more to expose their cleavage than hide it or let the camera capture their swaying hips, they are not exactly seeking aesthetic glory or artistic satisfaction. They know what male viewers are looking for. Where does that leave women viewers? Let’s not be hypocritical. In the age of gender equality, we need to have a level playing field for both sexes. Let women have fun too.
THE QUESTION OF MORALITY:
In the age of social media, sense of morality can take bizarre turns. But it is proven that the more vocal and the more numerous carry the day. Who constitute the more numerous? Men, sick men with a twisted worldview to be more specific, of course. Because they are more aggressive and less flexible about their set opinions. The less convinced follow them anyway because they, you guessed it right, lack conviction in themselves. Women and reasonable men don’t quite match their strength. So morality is ultimately about power. In Ranveer’s case, online denounciation of his posing bare is matched by offline show of strength. In some places in the country there are public protests. Somewhere, media reports say, protesters are collecting dresses to get the actor clothed. They, it seems, are protecting Indian culture. Whose culture? Which culture? Who decides what is culture? Who decides how morality is linked to culture? These are difficult times; let’s not go there.
NUDITY AND OBSCENITY:
Nudity and obscenity are not synonymous. Nudity of a child is not obscene, neither are the breasts of a woman feeding her child nor is the bare body of a woman raped by men. Obscenity like beauty is in the beholder’s eye. Nudity is just nakedness, obscenity is the layers of interpretation and imagination we wrap it with. It’s thus relative, dependent on each individual’s attitude towards sex. Yes, sex because obscenity nearly always has been associated with it. It’s obvious people criticising Ranveer and those indifferent to his pictures view sex differently at the mental level. Some would take in the entire photo, while others would focus on finding the bum.
THE LAW IS AN ASS:
No pun intended here. But the law does not define what constitutes obscenity with any clarity. The IPC provisions dealing with it are archaic, representing Victorian age morality. Penal provision under Section 292 is attracted if the content in question is ‘lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest’ and if it tends to ‘deprave and corrupt persons’. Section 293 criminalises the sale of obscene products. We have a gamut of provisions to deal with the subject –
Section 67A Information Technology Act, 2000, the Indecent Representation Of Women [Prohibition] Act, 1986, the Cable Television Network Act, 1995, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 etc. However, none seems to stop the occasional bum from hitting the headlines.
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:
Yes, the Indian Constitution provides every citizen that right. Ranveer has a right to express himself so long as it does not clash with the law. In several earlier cases, courts have emphasised the point. If only the mob out there grasped the nuances of the idea of rights. Interestingly, we have not seen any protest so far against the filth and gutter language circulating in the social media or OTT shows. The selectiveness of the public outrage is confounding.
Now, we hope Ranveer has completed assessing the value of his assets. He should by now be clear which ones are of national import. If he is wiser, he would be careful not only about his bum but also every single organ of his body.
