Bertrand Russell
, a teapot enthusiast and pacifist, once argued: “Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention because they see the said departure as a criticism of themselves.”
Nowhere has this criticism been more apt than the bile that’s levelled at Kangana Ranaut, a remarkable young woman who has gone from holding
nepotists
in Bollywood to account to holding nepotists in politics to account.
From a young age, it was apparent that she wouldn’t play ball by the rules set by the gatekeepers and would continue to break ceilings, much to the chagrin of her detractors. Someone who firmly believes in the de-colonial notion that politeness is a tool of the ruling class to silence the lower classes and keep them oppressed, she has no qualms about ditching political correctness when clapping back at colonisers.
Not happy with just writing historical wrongs, Ranaut decided to take the political plunge in her native Mandi, where she was immediately targeted with misogynist name-calling, including a slu*t-shaming slur that rhymes with the name of her constituency, but that didn’t stop her from winning.
Of course, with success comes hatred, and that was evident with the recent fracas involving a
CISF jawan
who manhandled Kangana Ranaut ostensibly for her views on the farmer protests. Whatever one’s views on Ranaut’s politics, celebrating violence, especially by someone wearing a uniform who has taken an oath to serve and protect, is deeply troubling. It was quite ironic that the incumbent MP from Mandi was attacked for speaking up against a law whose raison d'etre was to remove the dependence on government-run mandis and enable a level-playing field for poorer farmers.
Yet the joy that one saw among the liberal side of the commentariat, many of whom worship at the altar of drone master Barack Obama, the Patron Saint of Liberals, showed that gilt-edged liberalism only extends to those who share their worldview.
One popular comedian saluted the CISF jawan and wondered if she had sanitized her hands after slapping
Ranaut
, a notion that is quite casteist, reminiscent of upper castes keeping an air barrier with those they perceive to be of an inferior caste, offering different utensils or keeping a separate drinking area. A female Rajya Sabha MP could barely contain her glee.
A singer who had to quit politics after he insulted a famous religious figure, and whose PR team spends the better part of the day begging online editors to take down stories about his gaffes, offered the CISF jawan a job.
A crowdsource was started for the assaulter. Another “liberal” actor wondered who would play the CISF jawan in a biopic. Editors of websites that constantly seek funds to support cooperative federalism were at pains to explain why the act wasn’t particularly egregious, as were fact checkers who have no qualms setting an online mob on those who do and say things that they don’t like on social media.
The uncontained gloating is evident whenever a female actor or politician, not perceived to toe the liberal line, is attacked.
Smriti Irani
, another actor who joined politics, is often the subject of most vile misogynist rants. Yami Gautam, who does movies that are unappreciated by “liberal” critics is labelled an actor “who plays dead girlfriends.” This isn’t just limited to female politicians or actors. Even Shah Rukh Khan was targeted on X for attending the PM’s swearing-in, with one individual asking what was the “majboori”. Perhaps it’s impossible for us to rise above our evolutionary trait of basic tribalism when it comes to politics.
Since 2014, whataboutery has become part of the Indian commentariat’s discourse and is often used to ask “What If?” questions, so let me ask one wondering what would happen if the proverbial shoe was on the other foot?
How would the commentariat – in India or the Anglosphere – react if instead of Kangana Ranaut, an MP of the INDIA Block was slapped in her stead by a CISF jawan? Imagine the outrage if, in another reality, the violence was meted out against a female MP who happened to be a vocal critic of the BJP. There would have been op-eds in every newspaper worth its salt condemning the decision, linking it to India’s democracy backsliding and how Modi’s police (the CISF reports to the Home Ministry) was assaulting Opposition MPs. There would be diatribes on how the current regime is so patriarchal and misogynist that Opposition MPs can’t even be guaranteed safe passage within Indian airports.
While some have been pointing out that violence has been carried out against politicians in the past, there’s a difference between a person on the street or a political party – no matter his or her motivations – carrying out an act of violence, and violence meted out by someone in uniform, whose organisation’s oath is “Protection and Security”. It’s hard to explain how any celebration of the latter is dangerous to the nation’s fabric from both a moral and an internal security viewpoint. And this is a nation where a Prime Minister has been murdered by her own bodyguards and is constantly battling various terror apparatuses across the world. That such an incident became a cause celebre for the entertainment industry portends a severe lack of moral clarity among those who keep calling themselves liberal.
