At the very outset, rape culture is not only the act of committing the heinous crime of rape, but also everything in a culture that legitimises that violence and the subjugation of women in structures of power. Within the spaces of the home, workplaces, and public spaces, the patriarchal idea that women are not equal to men and can be reduced to only our bodies, dehumanising us, is the cornerstone of rape culture.
Hindi cinema has a long-standing history of legitimising and perpetuating rape culture. Celebrating objectification of women, using women as pawns in power struggles between the 바카라˜hero바카라™ and the 바카라˜villain바카라™, hyper-sexualising of women as objects of desire, reinforcing ideas of patriarchal control on women in relation to men, demonising strong women, and creating saviours out of men who 바카라˜emancipate바카라™ women, commercial Hindi cinema through the ages has validated and fuelled rape culture across the languages of expression, whether it is visuals, or dialogues, or lyrics.
Post the cinema of the 50s, with women in focus and Nehruvian socialist hope in films, patriarchy reared its head reared more viciously from the 60s onwards. From the 70s on, the most popular films of the time reduced the female protagonists to supporting roles, which would aid the narrative of the 바카라˜hero바카라™. Invariably, the 바카라˜villain바카라™ became a 바카라˜villain바카라™ due to his lecherous gaze/action at the hero바카라™s love interest/mother. The hero found his purpose in avenging the said attack, or 바카라˜saving바카라™ her from the said attack, and suddenly the role of the female protagonist moved from who she was and what she desired, to what she could be for the male lead. And how she could be pivotal to the plot of making the hero, a hero. The versions of the Ramayan and the Mahabharat that ran on TV, are exactly set in the same mould. Soorpanakha is punished for her desire with her nose (and breasts and ears) cut off, that essentially disfigures her face and attacks her for her agency, which had propelled her to act on her desire, or Sita, who had to go through a 바카라˜justified바카라™ agnipareeksha to prove her 바카라˜virtuosity바카라™, which loosely meant not having been made 바카라˜impure바카라™ by the touch of another man. Thus, reinforcing a man바카라™s idea of ownership on a woman, his unchallenged authority towards her and her life, and her depiction of a servile woman in complete service and devotion of the 바카라˜righteous바카라™ male God. Draupadi was publicly humiliated as Krishna came to 바카라˜save바카라™ her. In all of these depictions, the woman is a dehumanised version of herself, with no agency and no gaze, and while things are done to her, that move the plots forward, she바카라”her identity and her pain, is merely incidental to them.
This expectation of servitude is carried through language. 바카라˜Pati바카라™ itself translates to 바카라˜owner바카라™ and with that the notion of Pati Parmeshwar eulogised in Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham (2001), is equating the said owner to God. If in a relationship between two people, one is considered God, the other will always be a devotee. This has been reinstated repeatedly, across cinema to create culture memory. Songs like 바카라˜tere liye palkon ki chaadar bunoon바카라™ from Harjaaee (1981), to 바카라˜tere haath se pi kar paani, daasi se ban jaaun raani바카라™ from Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jaayenge (1994), have celebrated the servitude of wives. And it isn바카라™t just the inequality of marital relationships that perpetuates rape culture. This inequality is alive in all romantic relationships. When Badshah sings 바카라˜ghoor ke dekhe jo koi tujhko kaan pe uske chaar laga doon바카라™ as the female voice only keeps imploring for her song to be played in 바카라˜DJ waale babu바카라™ reinforces the power structures in gender. It is a heightened version of the same sentiment that propels films like Animal (2023) and Kabir Singh (2019), which are some of the highest grossers of the years they were released in. These showcase and justify violence against women as a sign of uncontrollable love, and toxic ownership as ways of relationship.
Desire being depicted on screen, whether for a man or for a woman, has always had the female form being deeply sexualised, and always through the male gaze. Films like Jism (2003), Paap (2003), and Murder (2004), while taking into account female desire, did not legitimise it, but exploited it to sell the female form to grab eyeballs. And this is true for visual and spoken language as well as lyrics. 바카라˜Item바카라™ songs created for male desire, like 바카라˜Chikni chameli바카라™ have the camera placed threateningly close to the female actor바카라™s body, completely robbing her of agency. Cinematography changes the gaze, and distance determines agency. Both of these are perpetually flouted. Choreography and placement of camera also add to the objectified depiction in songs. As recently as in 바카라˜Aaj ki raat바카라™ from Stree 2 (2024), the choreography is designed for cleavage show to cater to the male gaze. 바카라˜Mai toh tandoori murgi hoon yaar, gatka le saiyyan alcohol se바카라™ from Dabangg 2, reduces the woman and likens her to a chicken. The song 바카라˜Buzz바카라™ has lines like 바카라˜Jahan se hona chahiye wahin se hai tu thick바카라™, which are deeply sexist.
Consent has perennially been flouted by Hindi film lyrics over the years. From 바카라˜Tera peecha na mein chhodoonga soniye바카라™ from Jugnu (1973), to 바카라˜Ab tu haan kar ya na kar teri marzi soniye, Hum tujhko utha kar le jayenge, Doli mein bitha kar le jayenge바카라™ from Jab Pyaar Kisi Se Hota Hai (1998) all the way to 바카라˜Khaali peeli rokne ka nahin바카라™ from Phata Poster Nikla Hero (2013), such songs and countless more have only consistently reinforced the idea that women바카라™s consent does not matter. The idea that women바카라™s 바카라˜no바카라™ means everything other than that (na mein haan), has taught generations of men that women바카라™s said refusal is either not what they mean, or can easily be flouted to stake claim. The idea of 바카라˜staking claim바카라™ on a woman is itself rooted in power structures that obliterate the fact that women have agency and can claim it.
When ideas of consent are flouted at such a scale, it legitimises the acts of physical closeness. Where the woman바카라™s resistance is easier to ignore, or justify as just an 바카라˜act바카라™. Rejections by women make patriarchal, toxic men hostile and they go on to attack women to show them their 바카라˜rightful place바카라™ or 바카라˜aukaat바카라™. This 바카라˜aukaat바카라™ is the patriarchally accepted view of the place of women in society that conforms to the idea of women being servile and submissive to the wills and whims of men.
These dialogues and songs are a part of cultural memory. They create culture idioms. Set to infectious beats, these lines take hold of people바카라™s minds, as does the visual representation. The reason why we have an Animal (2023) that works is because a Kabir Singh (2019) came before it and that made money. As long as films, songs and dialogues like these are written and celebrated, society will find its legitimacy on how it treats women. Many would argue that it is not cinema that is to blame, or that cinema that is created responds to the demands made of it. However, cinema and art have the strength to gently guide society the way they wish to. So here바카라™s hoping that films like Laapata Ladies (2023) and its subtle ways of showcasing major feminist narratives create more business than the films and songs that we바카라™ve been stuck with so far.
