Why Empowerment is Not Enough
By: Context Staff
Tags: Indian Politics, India, Feminism, Indian Feminists

Why Empowerment is Not Enough

Decoding the Instagram feminism of millennial Indian artists

Art is obsessed with women - or at least their bodies. You can see it in the flood of naked bodies in a gallery of the Louvre as much as in the drawings of strong women on your Instagram feed. From Greek sculptures and Renaissance paintings to Picasso’s masterpieces, the female form has been a constant “source of inspiration” to male artists who have sexualized her body to the extent of almost completely normalizing this treatment in the art world.

However, what was once depicted as a symbol of purity, chastity, and sexual desire is now being used by female artists to depict empowerment. The empowerment that is derived out of making a choice to dress and look the way she wants. It is this philosophy that several Indian feminist artists subscribe to, and propagate further through platforms such as Instagram.

Nimisha Bhanot’s painting ‘No Boxed Gifts Please’ from her ‘Bad Bahu’ series

A recurrent figure that comes out of this community of artists is the ‘badass’ Indian woman. She is positioned in a strong, commanding pose, dons a tough looking leather jacket or such, and wears gravity-defying heels. Her face is painted with makeup and her body adorned with what looks like all the gold jewelry a woman could possibly carry.

While Nimisha Bhanot’s ‘Bad Bahu (daughter-in-law)’ is seen casually blowing off a wad of cash, Babneet Lakhesar’s ‘Bad Beti (daughter)’ has a carefully positioned joint behind her ear, and a lighter ready in hand. Damini Gupta’s ‘Besharam (immodest) Bitches’ wear low cut blouses, and sport several tattoos. These symbols of defiance are not exceptions but have become a general trend, an easy way of depicting empowerment.

Nimisha Bhanot’s painting ‘No Boxed Gifts Please’ from her ‘Bad Bahu’ series

An illustration from Damini Gupta’s Besharam Bitches series

What Bhanot, Lakhesar, and Gupta, among many others, are trying to do is reclaim the woman’s right to her own body, by showing freedom in her right to dress and portray herself the way she wants to. She tries to defy patriarchy’s attempt to police her actions and protect her modesty, but in the process, ends up sexualizing her own body further. She ends up subscribing to the same narrative, of a woman’s body is an object of sexual desire, that is propagated by men; the only difference being that she chooses to treat it that way, as opposed to being asked to do so. Hence, the defiance that makes her ‘bad’ or ‘besharam’, is not a resistance to the misogynistic objectification of women’s bodies, but a reclamation of it. The very tools used to subjugate her have now become a means of empowerment. Thus, though well-intentioned, this kind of art fails to challenge the institution of patriarchy as a whole and ends up encouraging women to internalize it instead.

These artists also often rely on images of strong Hindu Goddesses such as Durga and Kali, to draw on their ‘stri-shakti’ or female strength. While this is not only exclusionary to those either shunned by the religion or those who choose not to subscribe to it, it is also an invocation of a figure considered divine, one who is above all mortals. Stri-shakti manifests itself in the woman’s ability to suffer through adversities without complaining about them. Thus, this narrative of empowerment derived out of the divine feminine form promotes the idea of the woman as one who is capable of enduring all kinds of oppression. Moreover, the image of a Hindu goddess is undeniably tied with Hindu nationalism. Attempting to denounce western feminist principles, the symbol was used by Hindu nationalists as a means of mobilizing women during the freedom struggle. Thus, the use of this image automatically aligns itself with a narrative of violence and selective empowerment.

When Sam Madhu shares her illustration of a woman looking into the mirror and finding a reflection of the enraged goddess Kali, I do not know if I like that kind of empowerment — I do not wish to be compared to a goddess are be made aware of my inherent strength that comes with being a woman. Maybe the solution is not to deify the woman and idolize the strength that she shows in enduring unending oppression, but to identify and eradicate the oppression itself.

An illustration by Sam Madhu depicting the reflection of Goddess Kali

Similarly, when Priyanka Paul posts an illustration (made in collaboration with Shantanu Sharma) of goddess Durga clutching onto Donald Trump’s slain head, she draws on the nationalist narrative which endorses the use of power and violence to protect the country if it were in trouble. The question of separating violence from the narrative of feminist empowerment also crops up in Tara Anand’s series of heroic Indian queens who had taken up arms to defend their territory. Such images subtly promote a militant idea that necessitates the need to take up arms and defend the female form. There is a sense of something that needs to be protected and sheltered, making the woman protector of it.

An illustration of Goddess Durga by Priyanka Paul and Shantanu Sharma

An illustration from Tara Anand’s series of heroic Indian queens

This image of a strong, sexually liberated, rule-defying women fits right into the choice-feminist’s mould of empowerment, focusing only on a small group of upper-class women who now have the ‘choice’ to sexualize their own bodies, drink and smoke, and talk about their periods. However, it leaves one wondering if empowerment is really what we need — if it is a lazy attempt to reward women with a little more freedom than before so as to distract them from the real issues that multitudes of women continue to battle against every day. Empowerment becomes yet another attempt by patriarchy to ensure that its power over women remains in place, by making sure that women do not challenge it in ways that are de-stabilizing.

While policing women’s bodies and actions is an act that is deeply entrenched in patriarchy, and one that requires to be protested against, feminist art aimed solely at bringing about individual empowerment distracts one from the more urgent need for collective action against oppression of women- all women. It is not enough to replace a few men in power with a few women, as this kind of empowerment makes sure that women from lower classes, lower castes, and other marginalized groups continue to face oppression, same as before. It is not an inclusive solution and fails to challenge the institution of patriarchy as a whole.

What we need is art that is conscious of its impact on young minds; one that does not aestheticize or eroticize women’s oppression but challenges it in a meaningful way. The aestheticization of defiance through figures of ‘bad’ women is merely a superficial attempt at questioning patriarchal norms; more than anything, it seems like a stunt carried out to reach a larger audience under the pretense of feminism. Although possibly well-intentioned, feminist art coming out of the community of these choice feminists not only fails to address the issues that need attention but also makes it harder for more women to raise their voices against these issues, by placing them in the illusion of empowerment.