In “Bachna Ae Haseeno”, Raj (Ranbir Kapoor) meets Mahi (Minissha Lamba) in Switzerland. Mahi is a dreamy girl, who believes in ‘true love’. After spending time together, Mahi develops a huge crush on Raj. But at the end of their story, he betrays her. It didn’t mean much to him. Later, Raj wants to apologise Mahi. But Mahi is married to Joginder (Kunal Kapoor) and a mother of two children. Joginder tells Raj that Mahi may be the ‘perfect woman’, but she no longer believes in true love and doesn’t love him, also.
In “Tutak Tutak Tutiya”, Krishna (Prabhu Deva) is married to Devi (Tamannaah) as per his dying grandmother’s wishes. Krishna doesn’t love his simple, village-born wife. On the other hand, Devi just wants her husband’s acceptance. And when Devi is possessed by the ghost of Ruby, transforming her into a ‘modern’, model-like woman, Krishna realises his mistake. At the end of the film, he develops feelings for ‘Desi’ Devi when he gets to know that she is pregnant with his child.
Now, why did I pick these two movies?
In the first movie, I began to wonder about when Joginder realised his wife didn’t love him. Was it before their marriage? Was it on their ‘first night’? How did she get pregnant (I know, it’s sex!) if she didn’t love him? Was there consent? And even if we assume there was, I wonder why she consented at all.
In the second movie, I wondered how Devi could be pregnant with Krishna’s child. As far as we know, Krishna loves neither ‘Desi Devi’ nor ‘Ruby-Devi’? Did Krishna have sex with innocent ‘Desi Devi’ without having consent? Did he exploit Devi’s situation when she was in dire need of his approval and acceptance?
The Great Indian Arranged Marriage
An ideal heterosexual couple’s relationship usually flows from love to consent to sexual activity. So, ‘after the marriage’ and ‘before the sex’ is a crucial period for developing trust and mutual consent. In this formula, as I see it, there are three types of couples: The first, who spend time together and generate mutual consent; the second, who spend no or little time together and generate confused or partial consent; and the third, that spend less time together but generate mutual consent, faster than other two types (too much libido and eagerness to explore, maybe?).
For me, absolute love can be one-sided, but in a relationship, it should be a two-way street! In the first movie, Joginder loves Mahi but she doesn’t love him. Joginder’s one-sided love and the weak trust between them might indicate that he had no enthusiastic, affirmative consent from Mahi on their ‘first night’. In the second movie too, Krishna doesn’t love Devi. She may have just started to think of her need for approval as love.
So, why a woman stays silent? One of the reasons someone might stay silent, when it comes to their own sexual agency, is the demand of the arranged marriage itself. Her existence bound by the ‘virtues’ of ‘Obedience’ and ‘Invisible Consent’.
Obedience = Love?
It would be an oversimplified analysis if we deal with the idea of consent with respect to sex only. Consent is part of everybody’s daily life too. Individuals, ideally, have autonomous control over their will and body. It’s only when it concerns other people that mutual or collective consent is required. But, our social reality is very different from the theoretical reality. People are forced, coerced, and brainwashed into doing things they wouldn’t do if their free will was respected. In South Asian society, this is celebrated as ‘obedience’.
In patriarchal society, obedience is inculcated, especially in girls, since childhood. Girls are raised without the knowledge that their choices and bodies are their own. This creates a power relation where they have no voice, or even critical thinking. Rebellion is highly discouraged. Despite all the laudable efforts parents make when raising their children, they also create a sense of guilt and shame in those children.
This process creates an illegitimate superimposition of obedience over love and consent, which becomes part of a child’s inner self, and remains well into adulthood. The obedience is repeated, transformed, reproduced in different forms. A woman’s obedience to her parents is transferred to her husband and his family.
Invisible Consent
How do we know for sure if Mahi and Devi had given free and open consent to their husband or not? The social structure, women’s condition in it, and power relations play a pivotal role.
Patriarchal society gives men free reign to dominate their wives’ bodies. It teaches both men and women that marriage is a sacred institution, in which compromising, adjusting, and sacrificing is a must. It makes many men believe that an assertive and empowered women endangers the institution, and a threat to their masculinity. This society controls, suppresses, or entirely denies a woman’s sexual agency, while providing men space to explore theirs.
Women are subjected to constant and special gendered training in a patriarchal society to perform gender-specific roles: how to be a good daughter, wife, and mother. They are manipulated to prioritise these roles over a healthy pursuit of their sexual pleasure.
Also, no matter how educated a woman may be, some families may insist she remain confined to their house. This situation makes her financially dependent on her husband, and powerless.
Thus, during sex, women are usually expected to find pleasure in their male partner’s pleasure, as well as silently tolerate any discomfort. They are expected to subordinate their sexual agency to another’s to earn respect, worthiness, and acceptability in the eye of an unknown husband (in the case of an arranged marriage).
Even though Mahi and Devi hadn’t given clear consent to their husbands, things still led to sex.
Two Kinds Of Husbands
Wives are put into categories, yes. But in “Bachna Ae Haseeno” and “Tutak Tutak Tutiya”, we can put Joginder and Krishna under two categories of husbands.
First, a husband who is unaware, uncritical, and confused enough to take their wives’ obedience as love. This husband relies on invisible or silent consent. Even if a woman says ‘NO’ to her husband, he might resort to ‘curious’ pestering questions till she concedes. This is Joginder.
Second, a husband who is ignorant and filled with masculine pride. Their love is supreme and their will is a stand-in for consent. They are unfamiliar with the word ‘NO’. This is Krishna.
Both kinds are consciously (Krishna) or unconsciously (Joginder) adherent followers of patriarchal norms and culture. The difference is perhaps the degree to which they practice their patriarchy.
So what about these couples that have failed to generate two-way love and mutual consent before any sexual activity? I would suggest, crudely though it is, both Joginder and Krishna had sex with their wives without consent.
Is This Rape?
The phrase ‘non-consensual sex’ is widely used instead of ‘rape’. And there are still no laws against marital rape in India. In fact, a Delhi High court bench last year said force is not a precondition of rape. We can argue that, under a patriarchal setup, some men sexually dominating their wives – consciously and intentionally – because they know a woman can’t protest. But let’s consider another case.
In Regina v/s Khan, a case in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, filed for an incident of attempted rape, it was said that recklessness (instead of intent) can be considered circumstantial evidence of non-consent. The accused was convicted for attempted rape, because of his intention of to have sexual intercourse, whether or not consent was present or even available. The court said in the judgement that the intent of the perpetrator is precisely the same in an attempted rape and in rape.
Knowing of this case, I could say that Joginder and Krishna (who spent little to no time with their wives and had not developed any love and mutual consent) forcefully had sex with their wives. Both men can be accused of attempted rape. But in real life, ‘obedient’ wives have no choice but to protect their husbands.
We all know how the women are presented in the Indian movies: they are responsible for reproducing sexism and patriarchy. We also know how our generation still carries rotten, orthodox patriarchal pride and prejudices inherited from our ancestors (who are also classist, racist, and sexist)!
Do we have what it takes to end this cycle?