Standing tall and unflinching on the shoulders of giants
Of all the heartening images emanating from India's cricket World Cup win, the ones I found most moving showed the team getting retired icons of women's cricket to individually raise the trophy in their hands before the jubilant crowd at the stadium. It was not an unthinking gesture. These young women knew they had 'a billion eyes on them'. And they were making a point that those eyes should rightfully also see earlier generations of women whose battles against discrimination contributed to this incredible moment.
That scene is playing in my head as I write now about SS Rajamouli's re-edited Baahubali. For those who don't know, Rajamouli has merged Baahubali: The Beginning and Baahubali 2 - released in 2015 and 2017 respectively - chopped about 2 hours, and re-released it as Baahubali: The Epic. The most prominent deletion is of the hero's entire 'love story' with the warrior Avanthika, played by Tamannaah Bhatia, who's now left with a few minutes on screen.
Just months back, Bhatia was asked about a column I had written in another newspaper in 2015, titled 'The Rape of Avanthika', critiquing that very sequence. It featured the protagonist tattooing Avanthika without her knowledge or consent, unleashing a snake on her to terrorise her, followed by a dance during which he forcibly unties her hair, changes her clothes, and applies makeup on her face. She then sleeps with him. I described the encounter as a symbolic, romanticised representation of sexual assault.
When 'The Rape of Avanthika' was published, I got a flood of support from readers, alongside months of communal, misogynistic abuse. In her recent interview, Bhatia defended the film, interpreted my article as an effort to control her, and suggested that I wrote it because I'm sexually repressed and worse. I posted a rejoinder on social media, and assumed that was that. In end-October, though, Rajamouli announced that he had deleted that scene for the re-release.
I have no idea why a star raked up my decade-old article, making herself the face of a debate that was not about her. It's important to note though that oppressive systems and societies are always delighted when members of minority, marginalised and oppressed communities volunteer to be the voice of the oppressor.
Bhatia has company among India's entertainers. Neena Gupta and Usha Uthup, for instance, have in recent years made ill-informed comments dissing feminism in interviews. While Swasika Vijay has blamed women for sexual harassment in film industries, saying, 'It happened to you because you didn't react when it was needed.'
Why do such women become spokespersons of patriarchy? Some do it as a survival tactic to please male-dominated establishments in professions that limit women's opportunities. Some because their social conditioning prevents them from seeing discrimination, prejudice or dangerous on-screen portrayals for what they are.
This internalised misogyny manifests itself as anger against those who do see. For such persons, a criticism of the systems or portrayals they've been a part of could read like a personal attack. It takes extraordinary open-mindedness and courage to recognise and acknowledge the harm done by these systems and portrayals.
The problem with becoming a mouthpiece for a system that devalues you, is that you end up surrounded not by male feminist allies, but by men who will use you as a shield in their battle to preserve patriarchy, and discard you when your usefulness runs out. Sadly, women enablers of patriarchy are played up in the public discourse by those who peddle the lie that 'women always pull other women down'.
The way to counter this stereotype is to play up women who support women, including our seniors on whose shoulders we stand. The Indian cricket team of 2025 showed us the way when, in their moment of glory, they remembered to honour the great women whose allyship and struggles brought this team to the place where they are today.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
That scene is playing in my head as I write now about SS Rajamouli's re-edited Baahubali. For those who don't know, Rajamouli has merged Baahubali: The Beginning and Baahubali 2 - released in 2015 and 2017 respectively - chopped about 2 hours, and re-released it as Baahubali: The Epic. The most prominent deletion is of the hero's entire 'love story' with the warrior Avanthika, played by Tamannaah Bhatia, who's now left with a few minutes on screen.
Just months back, Bhatia was asked about a column I had written in another newspaper in 2015, titled 'The Rape of Avanthika', critiquing that very sequence. It featured the protagonist tattooing Avanthika without her knowledge or consent, unleashing a snake on her to terrorise her, followed by a dance during which he forcibly unties her hair, changes her clothes, and applies makeup on her face. She then sleeps with him. I described the encounter as a symbolic, romanticised representation of sexual assault.
When 'The Rape of Avanthika' was published, I got a flood of support from readers, alongside months of communal, misogynistic abuse. In her recent interview, Bhatia defended the film, interpreted my article as an effort to control her, and suggested that I wrote it because I'm sexually repressed and worse. I posted a rejoinder on social media, and assumed that was that. In end-October, though, Rajamouli announced that he had deleted that scene for the re-release.
I have no idea why a star raked up my decade-old article, making herself the face of a debate that was not about her. It's important to note though that oppressive systems and societies are always delighted when members of minority, marginalised and oppressed communities volunteer to be the voice of the oppressor.
Bhatia has company among India's entertainers. Neena Gupta and Usha Uthup, for instance, have in recent years made ill-informed comments dissing feminism in interviews. While Swasika Vijay has blamed women for sexual harassment in film industries, saying, 'It happened to you because you didn't react when it was needed.'
Why do such women become spokespersons of patriarchy? Some do it as a survival tactic to please male-dominated establishments in professions that limit women's opportunities. Some because their social conditioning prevents them from seeing discrimination, prejudice or dangerous on-screen portrayals for what they are.
This internalised misogyny manifests itself as anger against those who do see. For such persons, a criticism of the systems or portrayals they've been a part of could read like a personal attack. It takes extraordinary open-mindedness and courage to recognise and acknowledge the harm done by these systems and portrayals.
The problem with becoming a mouthpiece for a system that devalues you, is that you end up surrounded not by male feminist allies, but by men who will use you as a shield in their battle to preserve patriarchy, and discard you when your usefulness runs out. Sadly, women enablers of patriarchy are played up in the public discourse by those who peddle the lie that 'women always pull other women down'.
The way to counter this stereotype is to play up women who support women, including our seniors on whose shoulders we stand. The Indian cricket team of 2025 showed us the way when, in their moment of glory, they remembered to honour the great women whose allyship and struggles brought this team to the place where they are today.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
Next Story