How Can Anyone Deny That Pallavi Menke Is Drawn From Yashica Dutt’s Life?

 [Savarnas have always just taken from Dalit communities. When compounded by gender, it becomes worse. The makers of Made in Heaven should rethink their stand on Yashica Dutt’s claims. I write in Woman’s Web].

Pallavi Menke, in her understated, yet exquisite Gaurang creation with fresh jasmine flowers in her hair and bright red lipstick was stunning as a Dalit Buddhist bride in the episode “The Heart Skipped a Beat” of Made in Heaven Season 2.

The symbolism of a Dalit bride stepping through the water of the elegantly decorated pool to get to the mandap could not be missed. In 1927, Dr. BR Ambedkar led the Mahad Satyagraha where a group of Dalits drank water from a public tank which they were not allowed to use. Nearly a century later, in some parts of the country, Dalits are still prevented from drinking water from common water pots. Yet, here was a Dalit bride (even if played by a savarna actress), who was walking through water in what was clearly a venue which would normally try to keep people of her caste out.

Even while some commented on the propriety of a Dalit character being played by Radhika Apte, a savarna actress, many revelled in the pride of being represented in such a positive way. Said one twitter user- Loved this episode of Made In Heaven, which revolves around a woman struggling to assert her Dalit identity in a world that constantly tells her not to. I cried buckets while watching certain scenes, as it felt too relatable. An incredibly relevant story that shouldn’t be missed.

A predictable savarna response to this episode

There was an immediate backlash from savarnas. One twitter user, for instance wrote-
Don’t know which Dalit wedding (since they made it a point to say that’s what it was) or Buddhist wedding looks like this — but sure. Might have made more sense to show them donate the crores they spent on this gala, to support Dalit-owned businesses or anything more practical.

Sadly, this is a predictable savarna response.

Each of the weddings in Made in Heaven was opulent- why should only one wedding be singled out as wasteful and extravagant? Why should the money spent on a Dalit wedding be donated to charity, but not the money spent on other weddings? It is individuals who pay for weddings from their personal funds; unless a person is taking a loan from you to fund a wedding you know they cannot afford, nobody really has the right to determine how much the person spends on it.

Similar arguments are often also made when statues of Ambedkar are erected in public places using public money. I too have been guilty of thinking of how the funds could be better utilized in improving primary education for students from marginalised communities, and in giving them scholarships for higher education.

However, writer and activist, Yogesh Maitreya had a response to it and explained how statues to Ambedkar instilled a sense of pride in Dalits- “Ambedkar’s statues are neither inactive nor purposeless. They are the reminder of where you belong and what you inherit. Before I began to read, I grew up seeing him and it instilled in me a sense of confidence and empowerment. His statues are never found or situated in Savarna localities nor beyond Dalit bastis. Ambedkar’s statue is an entrance to the Utopia where you begin to dream to stand alone even when surrounded with storms. Ambedkar’s statue is a beginning of a dream of every Dalit who aspires to break free from the clutches of caste in every sense of the word.”

Yashica Dutt rightly pointed out the plagiarism in taking from her life with credit

The storm was dying down, when a bigger controversy erupted. People who had seen the episode found the obvious parallels between the character of Pallavi Menke and Yashica Dutt, the author of ‘Coming out as Dalit’.

When questioned, the director Neeraj Ghaywan, put up an Instagram post where he thanked “Yashica Dutt and her book which made the term “coming out” become a part of the popular culture lexicon for owning one’s Dalit identity. This inspired Pallavi’s interview section in the episode.”

This acknowledgement was, obviously, not sufficient for Yashica Dutt who pointed out, rightly, that while she appreciated Neeraj Ghaywan for acknowledging her work and contribution on Instagram, it came only AFTER viewers pointed out that the character was based on her and not before. Yashica Dutt also pointed out that an Instagram post did “very little for the millions of the global viewers of this Amazon Prime show.”

What Yashica Dutt was seeking was merely a public acknowledgement that the character of Pallavi Menke was inspired by her life and work. Instead the director, Neeraj Ghaywan continued to insist that Yashica Dutt was merely one of many Dalit authors (the others included Sujatha Gilda and Suraj Yengde) who’s works the team studied for inspiration.

The producer, Zoya Aktar, then went on the defensive and stated that she was “disturbed” by the “misleading reports and comments” by Yashica Dutt, before going on the describe how Pallavi Menke’s backstory was very different from that of Yashica Dutt’s and that the storyline was completely fictional.

There is little merit in what Zoya Aktar claims

While Pallavi Menke might be a Maharashtrian Ambedkarite who studied law at Columbia University and is the recipient of several awards, unlike Yashica Dutt who is from Rajastan and studied journalism at Columbia University, these are merely superficial differences. There are far more similarities between the two than differences. Both used caste agnostic surnames and hid their Dalit identity while in India. After going to Columbia University, both decided to “Come Out” as a Dalit, and wrote books on their experience. Both were public figures who are conscious that for them the personal and the political are intertwined. To completely deny that the character of Pallavi Menke was based on the life of Yashica Dutt is dishonest.

Art almost always imitates life. All good fictional characters are based on or drawn from real life people, and it is precisely this that adds depth to the work of fiction. Many of the characters in Made in Heaven itself are familiar, but the difference between them and the character of Pallavi Menke is that they are all composite characters, while the inspiration for Pallavi Menke is predominantly drawn from one person.

The storyline is entirely fictional. While Pallavi Menke might speak the same language as Yashica Dutt, the situations she encounters and the way she deals with them is fiction. Yashica Dutt cannot, as some say, claim royalties from the episode because the storyline is fictional. But what she can and must demand is an acknowledgement that the character is based on her life and work.

This too is what Yashica Dutt wants when she says, “I request the show creators to acknowledge my life’s work and ideas that contributed to this episode …. beyond a post on social media, and within the show’s credits.” Her request is perfectly justified, and to give her due credit for inspiring the central character will only enhance the impact of the episode which in Yashica Dutt’s own words is “no less than a cinematic triumph when it comes to showcasing what it truly looks like for a Dalit woman to take power back in this casteist society.”

Sadly, however, even while the episode celebrates a Dalit woman seeking her place in the world, the discourse in the real world will continue to be driven by savarnas who choose to negate a Dalit woman’s contribution.

Why We Should Not Remain Silent When Confronted By Bigotry

 [First published in Youth Ki Awaaz]

“When she came to work for us, our house help told us her name was Rakhi*. Since she wore shakha pola and sindoor, we didn’t suspect anything even though she admitted she was from Bangladesh. It is only in the last few weeks when she started behaving strangely and not even drinking water that we came to know her name is Rubia* and she is Muslim. She has deceived us so badly, we may have to ask her to leave.”

A few months back, during the month of Ramzan, these words were uttered by a well-educated, professionally qualified woman (let’s call her Sakshi) in a group of similarly qualified women. Sakshi was immediately challenged, “yes, deception is bad. But given the current environment, can you really blame Rubia for hiding her religion?”, she was asked. Sakshi, however, held her ground and kept insisting that the “deception” was unpardonable- “If we can’t trust her on this, how can we trust her on anything else?”

We tried reasoning with her, but she refused to accept she might be wrong
We explained that we are all guilty of small acts of deception- haven’t we all texted a friend and say the traffic is killing and we will be 10 minutes late, while in fact we are still waiting for the Uber to arrive? Or haven’t we pulled on a shrug while leaving home because our mother-in-law may not approve of our spaghetti strapped top, and taken it off as soon as the doors of the lift closed. But she insisted that those were insignificant deceptions, but her domestic help masking her religion was a major one deception which could not be overlooked.

We reminded Sakshi that while engaging a housekeeper, we should be concerned about the quality of work and her work ethics, not her religion. Her height, weight and religion mattered no more than the name of her favorite actor. But she continued to insist that she didn’t care about the religion of the house help, she was bothered that she had been deceived.

We then tried to explain how in the current environment where people are openly talking about boycotting Muslim run businesses, Rubia had only been exhibiting caution by masking her religion. That even if religion didn’t matter to one employer, it would to another, and she didn’t want to jeopardies her chances of getting the job. The person still insisted that it was a matter of principles, and that if the house help could lie about her religion, she lacked integrity.

By this time, we were fed up, and we reminded Sakshi that survival was more important than principles. “She needs the job. If the only way she can get a job is by masking her religion, then if we have any principles, instead of condemning her, we should be asking ourselves why she needs to do so.” She, of course, continued to insist that deception was wrong, and that we cannot condone it.

We couldn’t convince her, but we refused to ‘agree to disagree’
At some point, we realized that there was no point even arguing with her. Most said we could agree to disagree, but a few of us insisted that bigotry needs to be called out. In a country where people are taking public pledges to boycott Muslim traders, and Muslims are being beaten up on suspicion of eating beef, nobody can be blamed for attempting to mask their identity. It is a matter of life and livelihood for the house help, and a person chooses not to recognize it, it is more than just a difference of opinion. As Jack Cameron said, “Calling bigotry an opinion is like calling arsenic a flavor”, and unless bigotry is called out, it gets normalized.

Choosing to live in a utopian land isn’t an option either
Sakshi’s was a clear case of bigotry. But when I narrated the same incident in another group, Deepika (not her real name), who doesn’t have a single bigoted bone in her body, burst out “But, of course, what Rubia did was wrong. She shouldn’t have lied to her employer.” When we tried to explain why a person many be compelled to mask their religion, she said, “Why should anybody care about her religion. Religion doesn’t even matter anymore.” Deepika genuinely believes that since she doesn’t think the religion of a person is important, it doesn’t matter to anyone else either.

Unfortunately, only upper caste, economically well off people from the majority community have the privilege to state that religion doesn’t matter. Religion certainly matters to the young woman with the neutral sounding first name who finds the landlord no longer wants to give his flat on rent to her after hearing her surname. Religion certainly matters to the person travelling by train through a communally sensitive state and who couldn’t sleep at night for fear of what might happen if a mob saw his name on the passenger manifest.

Religion certainly matters to the mother who gets a note from her son’s school asking her to send only vegetarian snacks in the tiffin box because other parents complained about the kebabs she packed (and which were polished off by the same students who then complained). Religion certainly matters to the vendor who is no longer allowed to set up a stall at the fair where his family have been participating for decades.

If Rubia told a potential employer that her name was Rakhi, it was because she desperately needed the job, and didn’t want to be turned away because of her religion. Well-meaning people cannot blame her for doing what she did, because the reality she operates in is very different from the reality we live in. On the contrary, people with good intentions should speak up against the system that forces her to mask her identity.

Silence is not an option; our silence enables perpetrators of hate
It is extremely easy for us to say that we are not confrontational, and that we prefer not to get involved. However, at some point, remaining silent no longer remains an option.

As author, Naomi Shulman wrote- 

“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”

It is important for all of us to become resisters. Because if we who have a voice do not speak against injustice, who will?

Barbie the Toy is different from Barbie the Movie

[Under all the pink and hype, Barbie the Movie, is Feminism 101 for the uninitiated. I write in Women’s Web.]

We didn’t have Barbie in India when I was young. I do remember asking for a Barbie when a relative come from abroad, but was told something about how playing with Barbies killed the imagination. I am not sure if it was my mother who decided Barbies were unsuitable for me to play with, or my aunt, but I do know I never had one. Since nobody I knew had one either, I didn’t really miss having a Barbie either.

I was in high school by the time Barbies were introduced in India. Far too old to even consider wanting the toy! Besides, by then, we had already started reading about Barbie, and how she can setting unrealistic goals, and that her vital statistics were so weird that she would have kept toppling over had she been a real person. There was also all the criticism of how Barbie perpetrated gender stereotypes by doing nothing more than dressing up and looking pretty. By then it was popular to look down on the overtly sexualised Barbie, and I did so too.

I disliked all that I thought Barbie stood for
All Barbie seemed to do was change clothes and look pretty. Even the so called ‘Professional Barbies’ were clones of each other- overtly sexualised, unattainably thin and wearing those impossibly high heels. I blamed Barbie when companies created pink versions of consumer durables and targeted them exclusively at women- I didn’t want to pay a premium only for the colour. Over time, the dislike turned to indifference; and I was not even aware that Mattel had brought in diversity in skin tones and body shapes.

Then, earlier this year, Barbie re-entered my life through social media. “This Barbie has [insert passion]” memes started popping up.

The pre-publicity for Barbie the Movie was like a tsunami this summer. It seemed like a cute movie, but I didn’t even think of watching the movie till my son told me that it was a deeply feminist film, and that there is one scene I would particularly enjoy. I couldn’t imagine how a toy that has been criticised for perpetrating unrealistic body standards and gender stereotyping could star in a feminist movie, so decided to watch it.

*Contains some minor spoilers*

The plot of Barbie the Movie, by now, is well known
The Barbies exist in a fantasy land called Barbieland where all the Barbies ever made wear their beautiful clothes and live their perfectly perfect lives where “Everyday is the best day ever, and every night is girls night, from now until forever.” While the Barbies have their cool professions, the Kens just hang around waiting to be noticed by Barbie.

Then, Ken and Barbie are forced to venture into the “real world” where Ken discovers patriarchy, and returns to Barbie world to infect it with patriarchy. By the time Barbie returns to what has now been renamed Kendom, the Kens are in charge, and the Barbies are serving them. Barbie and the discontinued Barbies, with some help from her friends from the real world, regain control.

In the new Barbieland, the Kens are given more rights than they had previously, though when Ken asks for a seat in the Supreme Court, he is asked to work his way up from the lower courts!
*end of spoiler alert*

The storyline is a takedown of patriarchy and is certainly feminist
The pivotal scene of the movie is the “It’s literally impossible to be a woman” monologue by Gloria, the woman from the real world who befriends and assists Barbie. “It’s literally impossible to be a woman,” she tells Barbie. “You are so beautiful, and so smart, and it kills me that you don’t think you’re good enough. Like, we have to always be extraordinary, but somehow we’re always doing it wrong.” You could see women nodding along while she described the many ways in which the system is rigged against women.

While to feminists the monologue was merely Feminism 101, it did force other women and sympathetic men to acknowledge the ways in which women are imprisoned by the need to live upto everyone else’s expectations.

The line, ”you’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you’re supposed to be a part of the sisterhood”, for instance, not only exposed the Beauty Trap but also the pressure to Lean In and be part of the Sisterhood. Left unsaid was the fact that men are untouched by so many issues that literally paralyse women.

The fact that both the original Barbieland, where the Kens were merely accessories, and Kendom were dismantled sends out the clear feminist message that any world where one gender holds all the power at the expense of the other is not a sustainable world. In the new Barbieland, the positions of power are still controlled by the Barbies, but the Kens are given the opportunity to work their way into it- hopefully the Kens will face fewer obstacles than women do in the real world.

The movie also explores the criticism against Barbie
Gloria’s tween daughter, Sasha, is vehemently anti-Barbie. When Barbie strides in expecting to be loved, Sasha tells her exactly why she dislikes everything Barbie stands for. Barbie cannot refute that, though she tries, because the reality is that Barbie does initiate young girls into unrealistic body standards, and many, including Lisa Ray have publicly stated that playing with Barbie led them to suffer from body dysmorphia and anorexia for years.

On the other hand, the fact that there were President Barbies, and astronaut Barbies, and journalist Barbies, and physicist Barbies and Barbies following every other profession, means that young girls were told that their gender did not prevent them from having whatever career they wanted. Even though these Barbies were literally indistinguishable from the Barbies leading the suburban dream of every American housewife (minus the husband), they did show girls who may not have other such role models that a woman could be anything she wants to be.

Unfortunately, this messaging has been lost in the pink and the hype surrounding the movie. When Malala posts a picture of herself and her husband in a Barbie toy box with the caption, “The Barbie has a Nobel Prize. He’s just Ken.”, you admire the confidence of Asser Malik, because it is not easy for any man, least of all a man from the subcontinent, to admit he is “just Ken”.

But you are also disappointed because nobody should be a “just Ken”. Every individual has an identity and is deserving of respect. If the takeaway from the movie is merely the line “He’s just Ken”, then the movie didn’t achieve what it set out to do- to get people thinking of a more equitable world.

For me, three scenes sum up my thoughts about the movie
Scene one
The first scene is where Barbie and Ken, upon entering the real world duck into a store and walk out wearing brand new clothes. The shopkeeper chases after them to pay for the clothes, and they seem unaware of the existence of monetary transactions.

This is one of the criticisms levelled against Mattel- that people who play with Barbies don’t realise that they need to pay for all the stuff she owns, and that they grow up unaware of the consequences of swiping a credit card to buy something they cannot afford.

Scene two
The second scene I loved was when Barbie is sitting on bench trying to make sense of the real world. And older lady comes and sits next to her. Just to be kind, Barbie tells her she’s beautiful, and the old lady smiles and says, “I know”.

Not only was this a tender moment of Sisterhood, through those two words “I know”, the director of the movie conveyed that beneath all the hype and pink, real beauty was something only the heart can see.

Scene three

The third scene was when Gloria swerves the car off the road. “How did you learn to do that?”, Sasha asks. “From this man I dated”, replies her mother vaguely. “You mean Dad?”, asks a wide-eyed Sasha. Even tweens seeped in feminism can’t imagine that their mothers existed before they became their mother.

Feminists are often guilty of similar thoughts- each new wave of feminism builds on the foundation erected by the earlier ones, and while criticism is both valid and necessary, it is not right to completely denounce a feminist from an older generation- had she however flawed not existed, we may not be around in a position to critique her.

Barbie the toy is not Barbie the movie
Personally, I loved the movie because it delivered a powerful message in a light hearted, fun way. While watching the movie, it is important to separate Barbie the toy from Barbie the movie. The toy was controversial and the debate about whether Barbie the toy has a positive or negative (or mixed) impact on young girls will continue long after the movie leaves the theatres. But the main message of Barbie the movie was a feminist one. It will give men and women who don’t really understand feminism a perspective on the inherent inequity in society. They may choose not to use the word feminism, but the idea matters more than the name.

Women's Bodies Are NOT Your Battlefields In Times Of Conflict!

 [The video of three women in Manipur being sexually molested by a mob triggered this article which was first published in Women’s Web]

Trigger Warning: This deals with graphic gender based violence, violence against women, rape and war-time sexual violence on women, and may be triggering for survivors.

The recent video which shows two Kuki women being paraded naked by a mob in Manipur has provoked a cry of outrage both on and off social media. The video has forced people who tried to ignore the ongoing violence in Manipur to break their silence and speak up against the outrage. It draws attention to the sad reality that a woman’s body is the preferred battleground for those seeking vengeance or for those wanting to assert dominance over a family, a clan, or a state.

While women and girls are always vulnerable to sexual violence and exploitation, they are most vulnerable during wartime and times of political conflict. Throughout history, sexual violence against women and girls has been used as a systematic strategy to humiliate, subjugate and terrorise groups of people.

The numbers are staggering
It is estimated that anywhere between 200,000 and 400,000 women were victims of sexual assault during the Bangladeshi Liberation Movement.

This document by the UN records that more than 60,000 women were sexually assaulted during the decade long civil war in Sierra Leone and about 40,000 during the civil war in Liberia. Nearly 60,000 Bosnian-Muslim women were raped during the unrest in the Balkan, anywhere between 100,000 and 250,000 during the Rwandan genocide, and over 200,000 in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Closer home, it is estimated that anything between 75,000 to 100,000 women were abducted and raped in the months leading up to Partition and during its aftermath.

Historically, sexual violence in conflict zones has often been regarded as an unavoidable and inevitable consequence of war and conflict, and the perpetrators of violence have seldom been punished. However, the unprecedented scale of gender-based violence, particularly in Rwanda and the Balkans provoked international debate on re-conceptualising rape and other forms of sexual violence as ‘war crimes’. This, in part, led to the International Criminal Court declaring in 1998 that gender based violence was indeed a war crime. However, despite this declaration, the enforcement of laws pertaining to widespread sexual violence against women, particularly in conflict zones, remains weak and women in conflict zones remain vulnerable to gender-based violence.

‘Honour’ of the family tied to women’s bodies
Though the crimes were sexual in nature, revenge and ethnic cleansing were the reasons cited for the abduction and rape of the women.

As Urvashi Bhutalia who has documented the post-Partition violence in the Punjab says, it is hard to estimate numbers because families choose to forget the woman who has been abducted, and the abducted women choose to forget their story from the time before their abduction.

This is largely because in those communities, the “honour” of the family is tied up to the purity of their women, and the way families retain their honour is by denying that their women were abducted. This is also the reason why even when women were rescued from their captors and returned to their home countries, the families refused to take them back and they ended up being forced into prostitution.

It is not only in wartime that women’s bodies become a battlefield
The video from Manipur also reminds us reminds one of the scene in Bandit Queen, where the actor who played Phoolan Devi was made to walk naked through a mob of jeering men. It is also reminiscent of many similar videos that have been made of women being paraded through the village they can be “taught a lesson”. In fact, in India, stories of sexual atrocities against Dalit women are so common that we have almost become immune to them.

In one such case, when a journalist asked the victim if she recognised any of her perpetrators, the woman famously said, “sab the”(everyone was there)– all the (dominant caste male) villagers were present while the violence was being inflicted on her. In each of these cases, the sexual violence perpetrated against the woman is less about sex and more about power and dominance. When the dominant caste men are displeased with a person/s from the oppressor caste, their preferred way of seeking vengeance is by asserting sexual dominance on the women.

This is directly linked to notions of patriarchy and the belief that a woman is the property of the man/ family/ clan. Sexual assault of women is therefore a way of humiliating men by violating both their honour and their exclusive right to the sexual possession of ‘their’ woman – “honour revenge. In this scenario, though the sexual violence is against the woman’s body, autonomy, integrity and self esteem, her subjectivity is denied and it gets recognised only as a crime against the men/ family/ community.

The need for an intention to change the situation
Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals which calls for Gender Equality specifically states that it should be the goal to “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other forms of violence.” This can only be achieved when the international community demands accountability for sexual gender based violence especially in conflict zones.

While it is true that international organizations should respect the territorial integrity of a nation and should not interfere in internal matters, it is also imperative that sexual violence as a weapon of war should be condemned. Balancing the two is one of the biggest challenges that the world is facing today, and unless sexual violence against women in conflict zones is addressed, gender equality will remain a distant goal.