Why Mallika Sherawat was the feminist that Shoma Chaudhury failed to be

Shoma Chaudhury has probably not called herself a feminist in her entire life, as many times as she has over the last week. But Chaudhury’s situation has shown that being a feminist might have very little to do with actually being one.

Attacked from all quarters over her handling of (and alleged attempt to “cover-up”) the sexual assault case against Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal, Chaudhury’s back is against the wall and her self-proclaimed feminist credentials lay in tatters. Today, Chaudhury quit from her post as managing editor of Tehelka, and her letter mentioned her ravaged feminist self-image.

“I have been accused of an attempt to “cover-up” and for not standing by my feminist positions,” said her resignation letter . “While I accept that I could have done many things differently and in a more measured way, I reject the allegations of a cover-up because in no way could the first actions that were taken be deemed suppression of any kind. As for my feminist positions, I believe I acted in consonance with them by giving my colleague’s account precedence over everything else.”

Chaudhury’s feminism - or lack thereof - became a part of the national conversation around the Tehelka case because of her own words. When asked to defend her email, Chaudhury said that she had railroaded Tejpal’s “differing version” of the events at THiNK, because as a feminist, she gave primary credence to the victim’s version of events. Chaudhury went on to say that it was this feminism which prompted her to protect the victim, and urge Tejpal to comply with the victim’s request for a “full apology.”

Chaudhury’s feminism should ideally not have been part of the conversation at all. As a superior at Tehelka, it was her job to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the victim and accused, regardless of Chaudhury’s gender. But keeping that aside, her feminism truly buckled under the weight of events when Chaudhury swiftly changed loyalties when under attack personally. Rather than align herself with the victim (as might have been keeping with her “feminist” ideals), Chaudhury went into self-preservation mode, accusing everyone from the victim to a “backstabbing lawyer” for her own actions.

Calling yourself a feminist is the easiest thing to do. But the most difficult part of being a feminist is to practice feminist ideals when it is your personal integrity, safety, job or reputation on the line. It’s not an easy test, but it is the only real test for being a feminist, and it is one Shoma Chaudhury failed.

Cut to Mallika Sherawat. The “actress” is not known for her brains, or even her acting skills, as much as she is known for her onscreen kisses (numerous to the point of chapped lips being a real danger) and her participation in ludicrous reality shows (calling her India’s Kim Kardashian is not a big stretch).

In the past, Sherawat made comments about how Indian society is “regressive and depressive” because of how it treats women. At the time, the actress came under fire from commentators who attacked everything from her accent to her words, saying that such a selective airing of national dirty laundry did not become our walking, talking mannequin. Please stick to making ‘blink and you miss it’ appearances in Jackie Chan movies, we seemed to plead.

Now, in a new Youtube video that is going viral , Sherawat fires back at a novice reporter who attempts to cross-question her over the comments she made. “I think the (Indian society) is very, very regressive for women,” says Sherawat, with a defiant flip of her hair. “And I stand by it!”

The source of feminism is not as important as the actual practice of it. And sometimes, as in Sherawat’s case, it comes from where you least expect it, and as with Chaudhury, sometimes the expected defenses fail you.

When Chaudhury faced criticism, and her initial “I supported the victim” stance did not fly, she quickly abandoned ship.

The victim was “lying”, she alleged . She made vaguely threatening remarks about how a “different version” of the events would out, and she would no longer be able to protect the victim. She went on to blame a “back-stabbing lawyer friend” , and eventually the victim herself. “Today, despite my immediate and assertive actions in support of you, I stand wrongly defaced and accused of having abandoned the public values I uphold in my work,” Chaudhury said in her letter replying to the victim’s resignation from Tehelka.

Secondly, being a feminist means not shoving unpleasant things under the rug. No matter how much Chaudhury denies it, using words such as “untoward incident” to describe a possible sexual assault counts as nothing less than a belittling of sexual and personal agency. By doing so, she aligned herself more or less with Tejpal, who in his email described it as an “unfortunate incident”.

In Sherawat’s case, the interviewer goes on to say that Sherawat might have done India an injustice by focusing on the negative side of the state of affairs, rather than India’s growth and education. “I’m not going to lie,” Sherawat says in reply. “I will not be a part of this hypocrisy in India where we do something and say something else. I refuse to lie about the state of women in our country.”

Whereas Chaudhury had an image of being a feminist firebrand, she showed herself to be anything but feminist. Whereas Mallika was derided as a bimbo who traded on her body, but has turned out to be surprisingly feminist – speaking up for Indian women and against hypocrisy. Comparing the two reveals the gap between image and reality. At the end of the day, calling yourself a feminist seemingly has very little to do with actually being a feminist.

One of these women proved herself to be a feminist who stood up for what she believed in and refused to be silent even when their personal integrity was questioned and their intelligence ridiculed. Hint: it wasn’t Shoma Chaudhury.