The moderate mahila mandate: Is Lalit Modi a glamour-digger?
The moderate mahila mandate: Is Lalit Modi a glamour-digger?
In an era where we fetishize opinions we don’t own and repeat dogma our agenda-led influencers feed us, The weekly ‘Moderate Mahila Mandate’ by author Meghna Pant presents unadulterated, gendered and non-partisan views on what’s happening in India’s culture today, to help you form your own unbiased opinions.
I’ll never forget the moment, perhaps five or so years ago, when I saw Sushmita Sen working out in my building gym. Amidst the swarm of grunting frogs, she was an elegant swan, lifting weights with grace I didn’t know human beings were capable of. I was awe-struck. As a journalist, I’ve never had qualms about approaching celebrities. But Sen to me was too beautiful to be spoken to. I didn’t even have the wherewithal to send her a tweet like Lalit Modi did––Reply my SMS––with better grammar, of course.
So, when Sen was viciously trolled for being a ‘gold-digger’ my first thought was: what is wrong with us? For here's a little insider clincher: the guy she was dating at that time was the type who could afford a Louis Vuitton, only if he could use it for five years. Yet no one accused her of being a ‘coal digger’, did they? Or subsequently accuse Modi of being a glamour-digger––someone who seeks gorgeous, famous women! Because it sounds laughable, doesn’t it? And mad shady! Because patriarchy has conveniently assigned anathemas to women for every choice they make, but not to men.
Because no matter how powerful and successful a woman is, it’s ultimately her private submission we seek. A woman is labelled throughout her life––pretty or ugly, dumb or over-smart, aggressive or bitchy, thin or fat, too old or too young. Because dismissing a woman is the easiest way to take away the value of her work, isn’t it? Her collective shame is our individual glory because even our pettiness is so small. But let’s not forget: labels in the 21st century are like clubs in prehistoric times – weapons used by those who possess neither intellect nor empathy.
A middle-class friend of mine has married a wealthy woman. He leads the life of a trophy wife without the looks or neglect, clinching it all by sleeping with his wife’s friends. His intention is written on the walls. Yet not one person has ever called him a gold-digger. I know an equal number of men and women who have married above their financial status, and only the women are conveniently dissed. Because: cultural negation. By questioning the agency of women, we deny it to them. But doesn’t what we say about others reflect our own unfulfilled desires?
What we don’t realize is that calling someone a gold-digger undermines not only the woman, but also the man in that relationship. Because you are reducing his identity to a monochrome. Women are stereotyped as objects of beauty and men as objects of money. Isn’t it time we subverted modular terms that disenfranchise humans?
Sen is already super-successful. She’s already got her own wealth. Why would she need someone else’s millions when she has her own? Moreover, does anybody really think she doesn’t have a sea of admirers, many of whom are wealthier than Modi? Do we really have to diminish love so quickly to a glitch?
And, even if we go with the supposition that Sen likes Modi for his money, isn’t it her choice? Who are we to judge what people seek in relationships? Her love life, her rules. Why should she listen to yours? Why should anyone? Everyone must find love on their own terms. Even the cinematic adaptation of Jane Austen’s Persuasion clarifies that “for some, the right partnership can be a lucrative endeavor; for others, true connection is reward enough.” Why are we moral policing love? Or are we simply jealous that someone publicly obtains what we privately seek?
Sen is one of the best women our country has seen and will ever see. She’s lived life on her own terms, build her own path, and been undeterred by soporific stereotypes. That too since the 1990’s, which frankly felt like the era of protofeminism in India. She has shattered so many glass ceilings for women in our country––with aplomb, with conviction––that she’s touched the sky! She’s set impossibly high standards of evolution that our society is too regressive to actualise.
If this column sounds like a homage to Sen, it is. Because she deserves it and, thankfully, doesn’t need it. Because this is more importantly about changing the conversation. In today’s world, looks are trivial, money is trivial, success is trivial, and fame is trivial. Only opinions are not.
So, let’s judiciously change our miasmic gob of gender-reductive opinions. Love forms the centerpiece of our human existence, and we cannot take away our humanity by judging those who seek and find love in whatever form suits them. The democratization of love must be as much on the feminist agenda, as other issues, because it seeps through the moral universe of women everywhere, every day. This anecdotal undermining of women must stop, by women and men. We must unshackle women from labels, or carry with the same bite labels for women and men. We must be solicitous about how we define others because what we say about others doesn’t define them, but it defines us. Ultimately, we cannot become what we want by remaining who we are.
Meghna Pant is a multiple award-winning and bestselling author, screenwriter, columnist and speaker, whose latest novel BOYS DON'T CRY (Penguin Random House) will soon be seen on screen.
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News, India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
What's Your Reaction?
