Recently, an article was published in ThePrint titled, “Kangana Ranaut’s Modi comment shows she is a feminist, but only for herself” by a poet Harnidh Kaur who criticized Kangana Ranaut’s statement calling Narendra Modi as the rightful leader of the country. When I first heard about the comment made by Kangana on Modi, I knew that is enough to rile up some ‘oppressed’ ‘intellectuals’ and ‘warriors of free speech and expression’. How dare she give complement to ‘Narendra Modi’? How dare she called him a ‘Rightful Leader’? Doesn’t she know that only Rahul Gandhi deserves such respect? Just look at his extraordinary political lineage- Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, and now HIM!
Anyway, jokes apart, while I read the article; I could see the hypocrisy and arrogance visible in the daylight. I sometimes wonder, that if people in India were to lose the mentality of treating language above the logic, we wouldn’t be having such high number of ‘Intellectuals’ in this country.
In response to that article, I hereby present the point by point critique of “A Poet”s point in this post:
1. “So, it was a little alarming for liberal people, who appointed Kangana as their feminist icon, to hear her endorsing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the ‘rightful’ leader of the country.”
First, I don’t think it was alarming for ‘liberal people’. Difference of opinions is welcomed by liberal people. To be a liberal or a conservative is actually a psychological-personality trait depending on Openness- one of the BIG 5. It may even be rooted in biology of immunity though there isn’t as much concrete evidence to pass the final judgement.
Second, there are no ‘liberals’ in politics of India but shades of communists and opportunistic people in my opinion. For instance, a party which supports the doctrine of ‘reservations’ can never be classified as liberal in actual sense but communist for it is a policy born out of Marxist notion of ‘Privilege’ and ‘Oppressed’. Postmodernism mixed this notion into Feminism, Liberalism (which is Social Liberalism), Economics, Sociology, etc.
Third, Narendra Modi is the ‘rightful’ leader of the country called India as its Prime Minister.
2. “Maybe that’s why liberals take it particularly personally when she falters or takes a misstep – something she’s been doing a lot recently.”
Here, the question arises, “Who decides what is a misstep?” A person who walks or others who just know how to shame the people who don’t walk like them? This notion of being at some high pedestal of knowledge and owner of it, is a trademark of modern liberalism. No wonder it’s losing its charm.
3. “This comes after a series of discomfiting behaviours from her, like when she laughed along with Jim Sarbh’s rape jokes, or when she refused to support a campaign for fellow star Deepika Padukone. The reiterated message is fairly clear. Kangana is a feminist, yes, but only for herself.”
First, laughing is a personal choice. Her body, her mouth, her brain, her choice.
Second, “rape jokes are funny, rape is not” as said by Sarah Silverman. In the words of famous stand-up comedian, George Carlin, “It’s the context that matters, not the words. Words are neutral”. Here’s a link to the video for those who want to watch it and one more to make people realize how liberals and postmodernists took hold over language:
Third, not supporting a campaign? Again, her freedom to choose.
Fourth, isn’t making ‘independent’ the goal of Feminism? Strong and “INDEPENDENT’ Women? You see, the word Independent means being for yourself.
So, in essence what she is espousing here is not ‘independence’ but another form of ‘collectivism’. It’s either that she doesn’t have the intelligence to understand this simple fact or she wants to simply overthrow one form of collectivism- religious and orthodox, which oppresses women in favor of another form of cult oppression under the banner of Feminism. I say, both. Latter being her goal, Former being her trait- which I’ll tell you why in a second.
4. “Feminism, when optimized for quick consumption, loses nuance and the ability to be inter-sectional. In a country like India, any feminism that is not inclusive is incomplete and dangerous. When someone like Kangana shows examples of personal courage, but repeatedly makes contrived statements that serve nothing but her own marketing, she poses a difficult conundrum to anyone looking up to her.”
See that word she used, ‘Inter-sectional’, let me explain why I concluded her to be lacking intelligence. Intersectionality, if applied to its logical end, leaves out an individual. Intersectionality is a philosophy of disintegration-integration. You first disintegrate a person from a big group based on certain traits and then integrate the person into a separate group representing that person’s trait. But if you actually do this for any person to its logical end, it leaves out that person alone. It leaves out an individual alone.
Here’s another way of looking at it. Intersectionality works for excluded people, in a sense that it asks how a person is excluded from a group. So like how a woman is excluded from mankind’s achievements for instance. Now the fun fact is, there is no limit to the excluded individuals in this world. Case being the LGBTQA+ That “+” signifies the infinite nature of excluded categories. The reason being that the category of the excluded is the category of all things that don’t fit in the category, which is an infinite set. So it becomes a mathematical problem of infinite set and hence can be solved mathematically. Now all you have to ask is the question, “How many categories of exclusion do you need to get 1 in a billion?” That means at best you’ll be a group of 8 people, one more addition of the excluded category in that and you are an individual. For those of you who don’t understand what a ‘category’ is, consider this:
- Women is one category in mankind.
- Dusky women is another category in mankind and also one category in Women.
- Fat is one category in mankind [people].
- Intersection of category Women and Fat People gives you a Fat Women category.
- Intersection of category Dusky Women and Fat Women gives you another category of Fat-Dusky-Women.
Now the question is, how many Fat-Dusky-Women are there in this world? Each one of them are sets in their own along with all resulting intersectional sets. The mathematical question would be how many categories are needed to get a set with one element representing an individual? So, take the Fat-Dusky-Women and put another category dwarf. Then you get a Fat-Dusky-Dwarf-Women. Ask the same question. How many members are there in this set? And keep on doing it because at the final logical conclusion, you’ll receive an individual.
Here’s some other fun analysis. The number of categories are infinite as well because it all depends on the gradation of your categories. So for example, in the same above category of Fat-Dusky-Dwarf-Women, let’s add the category of AGE. Now you can define this category in:
- Two Parts – Old and Young.
- Three Parts – Children, Young Adults, Old Adults.
- 100 Parts – 1, 2, 3, 4,…., 100.
Now applying the Age intersection in two parts leads to creation of 2 more categories. Applying the three parts leads to creation of 3 more categories. But applying the 100 parts leads to creation of whooping 100 more intersectional category. Remove 18 of them as a woman is defined as a human female above 18 years, and you still get 82 different intersectional categories. How many 18 years old, fat, dusky, dwarf women are there?
Here’s more, and yes it’s the last one. You can further divide the age into 1200 different categories based on months and so on.
Conclusion: In real essence, you only need 6th dimensional differential analysis to bottom down to an individual. Take the set of humankind, differentiate them along 6 highly robust categories and you’ll be down to 1 in a billion, approximately small enough to be called an individual(courtesy of Jordan Peterson). A multi-caste, bisexual, 24 years old, smart, speak 3 languages, rich, and educated woman; the probability that you are one in a billion is approximately 1. Just for your information, the scale of probability is from 0 to 1. Hence, we don’t need intersectionality but already existing individualism which is the logical end of the intersectionality. I prefer Classical Liberalism.
Now let’s look into the idea of Inclusiveness. The notion of inclusion here is based on synthetic unity with underlying philosophy of Western Judio-Christian roots of “othering”. It will always be “US vs THEM”. Who are included in “US”? Those who share your views on any matter to the infinity. That’s your cult. A religious cult. That’s the reason why she didn’t show any inclusion of Kangana’s political opinion or Narendra Modi being a PM of India. She, in her hypocrisy, excluded 31% of Indians who voted for Modi and made him a PM of India – hence “A RIGHTFUL” LEADER of INDIA.
Coming to self-marketing, well in the market economy, it’s good to market yourself. Isn’t she marketting herself continuosly as a FEMINIST or A POET?
5. “For me, as someone who often finds herself tired after a long day of trying to be a better woman and a better feminist, it’s not enough.”
Thanks for clarifying that being a ‘better woman’ and ‘better feminist’ are not synonyms.
6. “When people around the world are putting their hearts, minds, and souls into being better version of themselves, into learning and educating, into pushing the boundaries of inclusion to make the world a safer space for themselves and those less privileged, it’s rankling to know that someone with so much public clout simply doesn’t see the impact her words have on people.”
Allow me to make an argument for her from a completely different perspective but similar in intent to hers to reveal her shallow reflection of oneself.
“When people around the world are putting their hearts, minds, and souls into being a moral citizens of the world, into teaching their kids moral values and ethics, into preserving and honoring the traditions and culture of their nation, to make this world a cultured place for themselves and their children, it’s rankling to know that someone with so much public clout simply doesn’t see the impact her masturbation scene would have on children moral outlook”
In essence, she’s doing the same moral policing like the people liberals or feminists criticize. Let me put it in same language that I have seen people use to shun them, “Morality or Impact ka pura theka tumne hi le rakha hai kya? Live and let live.”
7. “…when someone with her platform brushes away the incredible amount of social discontent and trauma in this country to win a few brownie points, she’s made herself complicit in the status quo. She’s made it known that her platform, her privilege and her clout will serve only herself, and if we hope to find some kinship and solidarity with her, it’s only going to be one-sided.”
Incredible amount of social discontent and trauma? Where? In Leftist Lit Fests?
George Orwell, a socialist himself, in his book, “Road to Wagon Pier”, said, “Socialist don’t love the poor, but hate the rich”. I love this quote as it explains her, and those like her, mental condition; so well and in such brilliant articulated words. If Kangana Ranaut would be just some girl who had given up or didn’t make it to her self-made platform, privilege, and status, she would be using her, like she is using the victims of social abuse to score brownie points on her feminism, to make her advancement to becoming a millionare or billionare in order to fight for those type of poor girls/women. But the moment she earned her platform, her privilege, and her status all by her own without needed lovers of poor and downtrodden oppressed people like the author of this piece, she fell off of the pedestal.
8. “This isn’t the first woke icon falling off her pedestal. She won’t be the last. The past few years have been a series of stark, uncomfortable realisations that most hashtag-friendly people we know, well, aren’t quite woke. From Aziz Ansari’s sexual misconduct, to Kanye’s Trump love, to Jim Sarbh’s rape jokes, to the tragic creative downfall of Nawazuddin Siddique – our heroes aren’t really heroic. And that hurts.”
True. This isn’t the first icon who got shamed by the liberals for expressing their viewpoint and this isn’t going to be the last. The past few years and even before that, the likes of Ramdev, Subramanyan Swami, Rajiv Malhotra, Nawazuddin Siddique etc. they haven’t left anyone who doesn’t walk the path they want them to walk like a robot because a robot which doesn’t walk how its master wants it to walk is obviously taking a ‘misstep’.
9. “But for those of us who are feeling let down by her, coping with such betrayals isn’t easy.”
Betrayal? That happens when you are in the same team. Did she ever ask her whether she is in the same team as her? And who appointed her and others like her to represent that team? Privilege much? Cause last time, I didn’t see any voting system set up by any person to ask the 1.3 billion Indians to choose their icons on feminism, liberalism, etc. At least the “Rightful” Leader of this Country was chosen by the majority of its population to be the Prime Minister.
10. “Harnidh Kaur is a poet.”
Thanks for not ‘selfishly marketing yourself’! But really thanks for telling me who you are, I wouldn’t have heard about you otherwise.