Denims, diamonds, Miss India and the Mahatma

On a good day, we would have used this picture to slam the commodification of women in a backhanded sort of way, tongue firmly in cheek.

On a day Pantaloon-Femina-Miss India 2010 winners (from left) Nicole Faria, Manasvi Mamgai, and Neha Hinge did the strut in aid of denims and diamonds at C. Krishniah Chetty & Sons in Jayanagar in Bangalore on Tuesday, we ask, what’s the connection with the desh ka dude?

Photograph: Karnataka Photo News

***

Also view: One more example of commodification of women

Another example of commodification of women

Another example of commodification of examinations

Like, bombers get scared looking at bombshells?

Now, what will those fools do with these kids?

Surely all that glitters is more than just gold

The best ice-candy melts before nice eye-candy

What it takes to smoothen some rough blades of grass

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Denims, diamonds, Miss India and the Mahatma”

  1. Pulikeshi the Last Says:

    In the first place, why should there be any connection, however tenuous, between the glitz and the great souled one?

    Perhaps it is time for us step out of the hagiological haze created by Gandhi’s aura and try to live in the present, regardless of our discontents with it. The Mahatma was no “Bharatha Bhagyavidhatha.” By opting for the Soviet mode of industrialisation even as the country was opening its eyes to independence, Nehru more or less proclaimed Gandhi’s irrelevance to the country’s future. Ironically, in our time, the Gandhi cap has become the most glaring symbol of deceit.

    It is enough that every village and town in the country that has a street has memorialized Gandhi and those who have misused his last name and institutionalised many of the evils that Gandhi railed against.

    I don’t think the much vaunted product, “the Gandhian-Marxist ideology” is going to materialize soon.

  2. harkol Says:

    Well there is one thing in common between Mahatma and these ladies. Both are scantily dressed!

    ;–0

  3. karihaida Says:

    So churumuri is into product placement. Good for you :)

  4. prajwal Says:

    @harkol

    looks to me like the one inthe middle is too well covered to be called
    scantily dressed.

    :P

    ***

    p.s. maybe the clothes they intended to wear did nt stay on,maybe what they need is real good decent food for a few days.

  5. harkol Says:

    ho!

    EURAKA!

    I think I get it now..

    These ladies and “Desh ka dude” have the starvation diet in common.

    :-) :-) :-)

  6. Srinidhi Says:

    This editorial group has something against beauty and skin show or probably even women (we dont know yet). They seem to be totally against any depiction of beauty of any kind. Either they are too old or come from Taliban land. They even attacked fully clothed Anu Prabhakar for commodifying exams. A beautiful woman cannot take exams. Whenever they see a beautiful woman, they see a commodity and accuse others of harbouring such notions.

  7. Srinidhi Says:

    We are following the Mahatma by staging these beauty contests. He tested his bramhacharya by sleeping naked with his nieces, and the rest of the indians are doing the same by looking at half-naked women. Gandhi said “My life is my message” , and we are following the message. So there is a very real connection which the editors of this blog cannot see.

  8. twistleton Says:

    It is not just women who are commodified, but yes they are markets’ favourite brand ambassadors. A woman has to look good, and for that there are available so many products. Use these prroducts to look beautiful, feel beautiful and in the future become the beautiful wife of a unbelievably beautiful husband. Ok actually the husband doesn’t need to be very beautiful.

    This is the wonderful image of giddy happiness brand images put across. How better than to aim at the hearts of women and the hormones of men than to have scantily dressed ladies strutting their stuff. Blech, to hell with the whole world.

    The one common thing between Gandhi and the above mentioned is that both have a brand image. There the similarity ends. Gandhi used his image to political and social ends, not commercial. He is the anti-thesis to the man of fashion. His look is all about spare austerity not witless spending.

    A scantily clad woman is not the issue. Women can be scantily clad if they wish to be. But displaying scantily clad women in ads for products women don’t even use is just plain regressive.

    Leaving aside degree of clothing, today every aspect of human emotion can be bought off the shelves, including motherhood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,683 other followers

%d bloggers like this: