Bollywood superstar Salman Khan is in the news for the wrong reasons again. In an interview where he was talking about the gruelling shoot preparing as a wrestler for an upcoming film, Salman Khan said, “When I used to walk out of that ring, it used to be actually like a raped woman.” The comparison trivialises a crime. It also highlights the loose and commonplace use of inept analogies that make light of gender inequality and abuse.
In ironic double-speak, actors like Nagma, Pooja Bedi and BJP spokesperson Shaina NC essentially said that while Salman was definitely wrong, they know he is a good human being and that he didn’t mean what he said. Subhash Ghai blamed the media for blowing the issue out of proportion and ended his defence by saying, “He is just a child.” Yes, I agree. Salman is a 50-year-old child with a foot-in-mouth disease.
The child’s father, screen-writer and lyricist Salim Khan had to intervene and apologise on behalf of his son. He tweeted: "Undoubtedly what Salman said is wrong. The intention was not wrong. Nevertheless I apologise on behalf of his family his fans and his friends." Personally, the most interesting thing that stands out for me is how Salman’s well-wishers brought up the “good human” card in his defence.
Good humans can be gender-insensitive. Their being good doesn’t make up for the lacuna. Instead of focusing blindly on the goodness of their character, we need to make such people understand where they err, so that they are better.
The 2012 Delhi gang rape forced our country and its media to acknowledge grievous crimes against women and make these a Page 1 story. However, one of the downsides of the floodgate of dialogue was that gender rights suddenly became the “in” thing. Educated intellectuals, with strong patriarchal tendencies, began camouflaging their real thoughts to fit in. As a result, compelled by the need to be politically correct, many good-hearted people still have astonishingly contrasting public and private opinions.
Bigoted opinions that once made their way to the judiciary and the police force are now being hushed up and discussed in “private” talks. So, you now have people confiding to you in innocuous social settings: “Don’t get me wrong, it shouldn’t have happened. But why do women have to wear such short skirts and go out for drinks with men so late? These are bad times.” Private conversations reek of sexist bias but in public everyone wants the rapist to be hanged.
It is easier to tweet against Salman Khan but it is an agonising social choice to call a spade a spade amongst family and friends. It is a painful task to remove masks of patriarchal notions from the faces of good humans whom we care for. But, call them out if you care. Be assertive, be patient and be articulate. Everyone wants to be a feminist. A handful of men and women actually manage to be one.
Before gunning for Salman Khan, how about first tackling the same kind of analogies thrown around by friends, cousins, uncles and aunties? There might be many whom you know who begin discussions with “Don’t get me wrong, but...” Such conversations usually include clichéd justifications of crimes based on moral and social conditioning that don’t have an ounce of legal or rational backing. Salman Khan won’t get away, don’t let the well-meaning get away with off-the-cuff remarks either.
The dilemma that our country faces today is that too many good humans have never had the exposure to discussions about the changing definitions of acceptable and not-acceptable in the gender rights dialogue. If uncles, aunties and friends can master new technology and easily adjust to mind-boggling gadgets, is it too much to ask them to keep pace with changing social dialogues? They can also adapt to new interpretations of equality and try to cultivate informed discretion between the judiciary, its rights and desist from the escapism of moral judgement. The latter doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have a place in deciding the former.
People who still bring up short skirts are probably from a different generation, or contemporaries who were brought up within the constraints of a patriarchal society. But, I choose to believe that they are essentially good at heart, that they are intelligent and even open to change if contrasting opinions are put forth in a non-accusatory manner. Gunning for them with aggressive, offensive, in-your-face confrontations might be counter-productive.
We need patience to deal with Salman Khan prototypes within our own circle. Slowly, but surely, they will know why saying “Boys will be boys” promotes a culture of impunity and machismo, and why saying “Girls shouldn’t argue” brings up meek, confused individuals rendered incapable of speaking up against injustice.
India is not alone in its hypocrisy and its high reliance on the character card. In America, Brock Turner, a Stanford University student and a promising swimmer, got away with a six-month sentence for raping an unconscious woman early this month because the judge felt that more serious punishment will damage his future. This is a classic example of a “good-boy” excuse making its way to the judiciary. Brock’s father defended his son, was eloquent about his athletic achievements, and dismissed the rape as “20 minutes of action.”
Watering down gender issues by highlighting the goodness of the accused gives away our own moral and objective immaturity. Only if apologies are unconditional, can one expect a chance at forgiveness.
