Page out of Bollywood: Are we going too far with Mahua Moitra?

Love Aaj Kal’s Meera or Raazi’s Sehmat were condemned for women’s ambition, we also saw a Shruti in Band Baaja Baaraat or a Tumhari Sulu being rewarded for the same. Isn’t it time Indian politics took a page out of Bollywood, I dare say, and reward women who’ve fought all kinds of seen and unseen battles to not just survive but thrive in the cesspool of politics?  As the investigations for corruption charges against politician Mahua Moitra begin, and must be accorded due respect, it was the simultaneous trend of #HaramiMahua that irked me. The personal diatribe against her was unpalatable. It was clear––she was not just being penalized for her corruption charges; she was also being penalized for being ambitious. And this is not just in India. It’s a scary time for female politicians the world over. Italy’s first female Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni split from her partner after his lewd and sexist comments to his co-host streamed live. Her separation is more in the news than her ministership. The iconic Jacinda Ardern, who transformed New Zealand’s image abroad, quit as she didn’t ‘have enough in her tank’––breaking the hearts of millions of women around the world. Finland’s ex-Prime Minister, Sanna Marin, had to take a drug test because she attended a party. I haven’t read any news of male politicians from around the world whose personal life is as widely covered as the personal lives of female politicians. What is this cruel obsession with the private lives of women in power? Shashi Tharoor and Raghuram Rajan are objects of respect and desire; can you think of a woman in power who is both? No! Why? In India everything has changed yet nothing has changed. The US does not have a woman President yet. But we have had women as Presidents, Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers. Indira Gandhi was one of our country’s most powerful PM. Yet, female politicians are continually belittled and judged for what they wear, how they look, who they date, where they party, the shade of their lipstick, instead of the yardstick of their accomplishments. We have fantastic new freedoms, but we’re still facing the age-old tripe that a woman who does not conform is to be shamed every day in a million small or big ways. What’s more interesting is that our public clamour for equality has not yet trickled down to our private lives. In the larger context of our society women have been conditioned; they have been programmed, to be servile in many ways––to please our brothers, our fathers, our husbands, our sons, our bosses. We’ve been given the odious task of bettering our man, our household, our family, our children if only we sacrifice and compromise and adjust. So, we act like a feminist sher (lion) in public, but a patriarchal billi (cat) at home. The hypocrisy is heartbreaking. And the women who refuse to be hypocrites? They are shamed. They are condemned. What kind of life are you leading as a woman in India if you say I will not sacrifice, I will not compromise, I will not be subservient, and I will not adjust? The life of an outlier. I remember that after my MBA, I was interviewing for an international management program at an international bank. I’d made it to the final round, when a man––of course––asked me whether I was planning to get married soon. Since I was 24, and Indian––which meant that I was likely to be ‘married off’ soon––they wanted a five-year commitment. I was not selected despite acing the interview and assuring them that I was not getting married anytime soon. I was hired by another big bank in Mumbai and asked the same question at 26. I answered honestly that I was getting married the next year and although I had been hired by them, and had signed the contract, the offer was retracted. Such questions were never asked of my male colleagues from MBA school. A McKinsey report had noted that men are promoted based on their potential and women based on their past accomplishments. Men focus on how to manage a business and women on how to manage a career. Men want answers, woman seek help and permission. In Lean In Sheryl Sandberg stated the same––that women hold themselves back the most. They will be harder on themselves, blaming themselves for mistakes (when men blame their environment), not holding up their hands in a meeting or during a big talk. Men are applauded for being ambitious, powerful and successful. But women with the same traits pay a social penalty, the finest examples being Angela Merkel being labelled an ‘iron frau’ and Indira Gandhi a ‘witch’. Sandberg says it’s like running a marathon. A man will be told, ‘Good job! You’re doing great! Can’t wait for you to make it to the end!’ A woman will be told, ‘Are you sure you want to be running this? Did you leave your child at home to run? How will you even make it to the end?’ A woman is expected to be nurturing and a man is expected to be ambitious. Women are caregivers, whereas for men taking care of a baby is listed as a hobby. Success and likeability are negatively correlated for women. Our image of a happy couple is one where a husband is professionally more successful than his wife, and if the situation is reversed it is seen as threatening. It is assumed that if a woman has a paid job then she’ll forget her job as a woman. As a result, women are always playing double roles. Then there’s the economics of it all. Women don’t ask for a raise. There are obvious disparities even in developed countries like America where women are not paid equally for the same work as men, they are looked down upon if they chose to not get married or do not act “lady like”. Even in ‘progressive’ industries like the movies. Actress Anjelica Huston said of Hollywood that ‘‘It’s kind of like the church. They don’t want us to be priests. They want us to be obedient nuns.’’ In 1947 Larry Summer’s mother, Anita Summers, a renowned economist was told by her employer Standard Oil Company that they were getting ‘the same brains for less money.’ Warren Buffett has famously said that one of the reasons for his success is that he’s competing with only half of the population. Women’s success is treated as an anomaly, a fluke. Many successful and powerful women in India complain about the discomfort that their success has on those around them. The biggest manifestation of this is in the way they are addressed, i.e., men address them as Sir in the field. I saw my mother, who retired as the Chief Commissioner of Mumbai (IRS), addressed only as Sir, so much so that when I was little, I thought ‘Sir’ was an official title for women at work. We need to admit that talent with all sorts of genitalia can make money. Tina Fey in BossyPants says that, at work, women are often made to feel like they’re in competition with one another, when the reality is that they are in competition with everyone. Gender-blind meritocracy is what we should aim for. The achievements and efficiency of women need to be recognized at all levels. Instead of sympathising with women, or demonizing them, we need to empower women and make the woman a hero. Remember, despite being ridiculed and mocked, Hillary Clinton ran for the Presidential race, saying that one should never listen to anyone who says you can’t or shouldn’t go on. Gone are the days when Malaika Arora’s partner would be visibly disturbed by her success. It’s now the age of the Ranveer Singh’s celebrating and enjoying their partner’s ambition, power and success. We used to believe that trees compete with each other for light, but—thanks to Suzanne Simard’s field work—now we know that trees work in harmony to share the sunlight. As women grow more and more powerful, let’s not forget that power and ambition too must be shared and celebrated, not shredded and denigrated. Meghna Pant is a multiple award-winning and bestselling author, screenwriter, columnist and speaker. Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.