Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. And sometimes, a smile can convey the kind of courage that high-decibel sloganeering never can. The courage that Saffiyah Khan of Birmingham, London displayed when faced with the potent mix of mob-hysteria, male-chauvinism, Islamophobia and racism is indeed laudable. A picture of her smiling at a white, British male named Ian Crossland – who appears to be ranting angrily at her – has become viral on the social networking sites. In the picture, Saffiyah – with her hands in her pockets – appears calm and unfazed in the face of the hatred directed at her. Saffiyah had reportedly stepped in to protect a woman wearing a hijab from a crowd of protestors belonging to the English Defence League (EDL) who had gathered to protest against the Stockholm killings by terrorist groups. Some of the protestors allegedly surrounded the said woman and uttered racist remarks against her. The way Saffiyah smiles at the EDL protestor in the picture is a lesson in itself. Her smile is both a master-stroke as well as a master-piece. It is neither mocking, nor is it threatening. Her smile does not convey a sense of contempt against her adversary. It is not the much-detested smirk that has the potential to set tempers flaring in charged-up situations such as the one Saffiyah found herself in. In the picture, she is not even trying to stare-down Crossland, rather she is smiling benignly – if not a bit bemusedly – at him. All that Saffiyah displays through her smile is courage; pure, unadulterated courage to look an Islamophobe, racist in his eyes. The smile and her calm stance conveys a deeper message; that of belief in the rightness of her actions. The smile belittles Crossland’s anger and his actions and puts him in a corner without Saffiyah having to utter a single word. It takes the sting out of the hatred that he harbours towards her – and blatantly directs at her – without knowing her or her history. In some ways, Saffiyah’s smile did what hard-hitting words uttered at full volume had often failed to do. It exposed the ugly face of racism and Islamophobia that is slowly becoming the new normal. Saffiyah’s credit lay in the fact that she chose to react with non-aggression to something that was outright provocative and belligerent. This is rare in times when people are increasingly becoming aggressive in approach and intolerant to differences in lifestyle, view-points, culture, food and attire. In choosing to keep mum, she sent out a resounding message to those who believe that aggression is the answer to situations that are unlike theirs and people that are different from them in some aspect. In the picture she stands tall and proud; her stance a picture of determination, courage and self-control. Her demeanour is also a silent message to all those sexist people who believe in and preach the idea that women need to be extra careful about their safety in public spaces, and hence, need to shut up and walk away when faced with male bullying. There must have been many a raised eyebrow at Saffiyah’s ‘reckless’ and ‘naïve’ action of willingly placing herself in the line of fire of male anger. For some people, especially those belonging to a patriarchal society, that’s an absolute no-no. In such societies, women are taught to be coy and demure, especially in the presence of men. They are brought up with the belief that they are physically and intellectually inferior to their male counterparts, and when challenged by them, their safety lies in walking away with head bowed down. For a woman brought up with such conditioning, looking a man in the eye in order to stand up to his bullying is nearly impossible. Women in conservative, patriarchal societies do not challenge the norms and mores that define the sphere of action demarcated and the role attached to them. Brought up in London, Saffiyah is not a part of a typical patriarchal society. That is not to say that she does not necessarily face the sort of sexism that is the hallmark of such societies. The sexism she faces may not be so blatant and in-your-face, but the challenges she must face as a woman might not be very dissimilar to the ones faced by women belonging to a closed society, though the degree to which she is exposed to the same might vary. Her stance and reaction is an answer to such sexist attitudes that seek to define the behaviour of women along predictable lines. Saffiyah has taught us that running away is not an answer. And keeping quiet is certainly not an option. However, she used a more potent weapon than words to make her voice – and that of her fellow beings – heard. And she did it with a fearlessness and selflessness that is a lesson in itself.
Television and gender stereotypes in India
The Indian television industry has made rapid progress in terms of content and technology since the advent of television in India a few decades ago. The content on the Indian television has become more diversified, rich and entertaining. The technology has become sharper and more hi-tech. However, it cannot be forgotten that the idiot-box is not a means of mere entertainment anymore. Since the audience-base has expanded rapidly, television has acquired a multi-dimensional role in terms of shaping perceptions in society. It is heartening to witness that the audiences today are more mature and more open to consuming contents based on hitherto taboo subjects. A lot of shows on television today revolve around less-talked-about subjects such as live-in-relationships, premarital sex, homosexuality, casual sex etc. It is a welcome change that people are no longer shy to acknowledge and accept the changing reality of the society. At the same time, it can be safely stated that television has done its bit to shape the outlook and perceptions of the people along progressive lines. However, the vital question that arises is whether television has helped break the gender stereotype with regard to women or further strengthened it? This question also acquires significance because television has got a broader and greater reach – as compared to other mediums of dissemination of information such as smartphones and internet – among people of different socio-economic groups and age-bracket. How women are portrayed on television helps in reshaping or reinforcing the perceptions regarding their place in household and in society to a great extent. In this context, the popular soap operas or ‘serials’ running on television play an important role. These daily soaps enjoy a wide-spread popularity among people of different age-group and different socio-economic standing. Needless to say, they play an important role in shaping the psyche of their audiences as far as the issue of gender-based role in society is concerned. If we take a look at the different soap operas running on television, one fact becomes clear. With changing reality of society and a change in mindset, women are being acknowledged as being more than mere adjuncts to the male in the household. The television and the daily soaps have been both impacted by and have impacted this changing reality. So we have daily soaps portraying ambitious and uninhibited women playing different roles and reasserting their rights within the changing social scenario. We come across protagonists defying social norms to stand up for their own rights as well as the rights of others; women who are ambitious and do not shy away from daring to dream big; women who do not hesitate in calling a spade a spade; women who juggle career demands and family responsibility with equal élan. However, if we look closely, this change appears to be superficial. These are exceptions rather than rules. Even though the portrayal of women and their role as members of society has certainly been positive and progressive in certain aspects, the underlying tone and message of most of the daily soaps is largely patriarchal. So while some of the serials show women as empowered, equal partners of their spouses and independent individuals in their own right, majority show them as domestic creatures tied to obscure family values and social norms in a manner and to an extent that is largely regressive. The highly popular female protagonists in these soaps – even supposedly courageous, independent and empowered ones – would not hesitate to sacrifice their ambitions and dreams for the well-being of their husbands and families. While that in itself is not a bad thing, it does raise the uncomfortable question as to whether for all the showings of empowerment, is an Indian woman really an independent individual as far as family and social setting is concerned? What is more alarming is that over-ambition in women is often shown as a vice, the underlying message being: you cannot seek happiness and goals that go against the values, happiness and desires of your loved ones. Over-ambitious women in Indian television serials are always bad news. In most of the soaps, family, marriage, husband and children are shown as the life-blood of a woman’s existence and the latter seems to just exist for them and their betterment. Unfortunately, the male protagonist rarely, if ever, is portrayed in this manner. Sample this: A female protagonist in a serial is turned out of the house by her husband who holds her responsible for the death of their child. Instead of fighting this injustice, the woman keeps mum and walks out her husband’s life for the sake of his ‘happiness’. Needless to say, such supreme sacrifice is almost never expected of a male protagonist. If we look closely, we would realize that almost all soaps show women as emotional and physical weaklings whose life revolve around their marriage, husbands, families and children. However courageous and empowered they may be, they are almost always socially inferior creatures as compared to their husbands. Worse still, the women in serials take great pride in being such inferior adjuncts to their male counterparts. Even in marriages and family settings that are downright abusive, such female “role-models” are shown to stay put for the sake of some inexplicable “good” of their families, whether that of their own or of their husband’s. In a particular serial, a greedy family tries to marry off their equally greedy son to a working woman – the sole breadwinner of her family – who puts the condition before her prospective in-laws that she would give away her monthly salary to her family even after marriage. The boy’s family only agrees because they feel that once the marriage is solemnized, the girl and her family would be in no position to resist their demands for money. Worse, the educated, financially independent and supposedly empowered woman not only puts up with demands related to wedding ceremonies and related expenses but also with all the whims, fancies, demands and even beating of her husband post-marriage. The woman in question does not end her marriage – technically empowered though she may be – and ploughs through until she is able to change her abusive husband and his ways, all for the sake of her mother’s happiness and because of the ever-present societal pressure. The happy ending sounds romantic, isn’t it? Only, such a drastic change-of-heart hardly happens in real life. Is not making a hero out of women who put up with such abusive marriages a derogatory move on the part of the makers of serials? Is not romanticizing such dire situations a bad thing in terms of shaping people’s perceptions regarding a woman’s role in society? Does it not give the wrong message that sustaining a marriage, even an abusive one, is of vital importance to a woman? Is marriage the ultimate aim of a woman’s life, even for the one who is financially secure? Is holding on to one’s marriage so important for a woman that she needs to forgo her dignity in the bargain? If educated and financially empowered women cannot demonstrate courage in ending an abusive marriage, what chance do women from the socio-economically weaker segments stand? The dowry-system is thriving in India solely because marriage is considered socially more important for women as compared to men. Marriage is the equivalent of social security for a woman in India. The daily soaps simply reinforce the perception that marriage is very important for a woman and staying put in the same and trying to make it work is what a ‘sanskari’ woman would do. Such ‘sanskari’ women are, of course, not “selfish” enough to put their own happiness and safety over the false sense of happiness of their families and the skewed societal norms. In many soaps, women are shown to bear injustice simply in the name of ‘respect’ for elders. Not only that, the family setting is shown as the natural realm of a woman, with the role of the latter confined to taking care of the family and the household and indulging in kitchen-politics. Though exceptions do exist, the overall portrayal of women in these daily soaps is so regressive that they undoubtedly help in reinforcing the gender stereotype that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and within the four walls of the house. What is even more alarming is how the notion of sexuality is portrayed in some of the soaps, which only serves to strengthen the gender stereotypes related to man-woman relationship. In many highly derogatory serials, rape-victims are shown to marry their perpetrators with love blooming in the marriage at a later stage. Is romanticizing of what is essentially a heinous crime acceptable? Many serials show men using rape as a threat against unsubmissive women. In a serial now off-air, a man molests a girl, then makes the pictures of the molestation public to humiliate her and even threatens her at every given opportunity. When he lands into trouble with law, he gives an “irresistible” offer to the girl: marry him and save her family from further social humiliation. The girl accepts and though she suffers initially at the hands of her tormentor post-marriage, things soon become hunky-dory for her as love blooms between the two. Is this not sending out an extremely regressive message? In many serials such as ‘Pratigya’, girls who actually don’t show any strength of character and submit meekly to their tormentors by marrying them are projected as role-models. In such serials, love is shown to bloom in what is essentially a forced marriage. Isn’t that setting a wrong example? All that these soaps serve to do is reinforce the perception that women are physically and sexually inferior beings as compared to men and that sexual aggressiveness in the latter is a natural and acceptable trait. Many sexual perverts, stalkers and essentially rogue men would not hesitate to think that their behaviour is very normal and actually equate it with masculinity and machismo. Are such serials not sending out the wrong message that women are essentially sexual objects who can be won over with force and coercion? Is this not a primitive way of thinking? Does this viewpoint not objectify women? Is rape just a ‘sex-act’ that can be made right if the girl marries her rapist? Doesn’t this line of thinking make light of a serious crime that is both physically and psychologically damaging for a woman? Can eve-teasing and molestation ever be the basis of a healthy marriage and relationship? In the end, it can be safely stated that women are largely portrayed on the small screen as whining, crying, helpless creatures who would go to any length to stay true to their ‘sanskars’, even if the latter only means adhering to some skewed and lopsided societal norms and forgoing one’s identity and individuality.
Too Many Words 