‘I can be naked in front of a thousand people, I don’t give a sh*t. It’s just that they get uncomfortable’: Ranveer Singh

No, it’s not the climate warnings, rising inflation or raging hate crimes that sounded the alarm for a national crisis. Rather, it’s Ranveer Singh’s derriere that has brought the entire nation together in a bid to honour ‘women’s modesty’. The Bollywood actor’s polarising nude photoshoot for international magazine Paper, is now, quite literally, the ‘butt of all jokes’ as primetime anchors on national TV debate about its pros and cons. An FIR has been filed under section 67A of the IT Act along with sections 292, 293, 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code for “hurting sentiments and insulting the modesty of women”, at Chembur station after a Mumbai-based NGO Shyam Mangaram foundation and a lawyer, Vedika Chaubey, lodged a complaint.

But, how exactly does it ‘hurt’ or ‘insult’ women?

Morality, Modesty and Porn vs Art

For a society that feeds on item numbers that objectify women’s nudity, deciding that pictures of a naked man are a threat to a woman’s modesty reeks of hypocrisy and moral policing. What is the message that is sent by this public outrage? Does it not reinforce the patriarchal notion that women’s “modesty” is somehow at cross-purposes with the way they consume art or any form of nudity?

According to the National Commission for Women portal, in 2021, 30,865 complaints were received of which 72.5% (22,379) come under three categories – right to live with dignity (36%), domestic violence ( (21.6%); and harassment of married women including for dowry (15%). There was a 30% spike in complaints as compared to 23,722 in 2020. None of these staggering statistics or the daily horrific rapes ignites as much of a loud, collective uproar as when Singh shed his clothes.

When such data points to the reality of outraging a woman’s modesty through multiple ways every single day, considering Ranveer Singh’s buttocks an ‘insult’ is nothing less than an insult.

In a conversation with News18, Lalit Tekchandani, who represents the NGO, said, “Many women and children approached us saying that what Ranveer Singh has done with the photo shoot is against our society norms. We are still a conservative society and he has done a shameful act…” He alleged that the actor has been paid Rs 50 lakh for the shoot and that it’s a “shame he can stoop so low for money.”

Of course India’s sexually repressed, prude-proud culture is unsettled by nudity displayed by a mainstream icon, but the same logic is not applicable when it comes to ancient mythological sculptures, architecture or religious figures. The greatest threat to a nation that prides itself on perceived puritanical notions of sexuality is flamboyant nudity. In fact, people in Madhya Pradesh’s Indore took Singh’s nakedness so personally that they started a clothes ‘donation’ drive for the actor.

Akhilesh Choubey, advocate for the complainant, told News18, “The photo shoot is kind of pornography, which is banned in India. If he is not hesitating to pose nude, tomorrow we will have the entire youth doing it.” So, where do we draw the line between porn and art? Khajuraho temple’s erotic, nude sculptures are art but somehow Singh’s nude photos- even if something similar hadn’t been done by countless artistic icons before him- are decidedly not art?

In India, obscenity is a punishable offence, However, what constitutes “obscenity” is not clearly defined under the law. According to Section 67, publishing material in the electronic form “which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest” or tends to “deprave and corrupt persons” shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years and a fine of Rs 5 lakh. But, exceptions are made if the publication is justified for being good for the public on “the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern”, or it is used for “bona fide heritage or religious purposes”.

Modesty vs Masculinity

Milind Soman and Madhu Sapre’s 1995 nude photoshoot wearing nothing but a python and shoes for a footwear brand, Pooja Bedi’s banned Kamasutra condom ad and Aamir Khan’s naked poster for PK have all aggrieved the morality mafia.

Ranveer Singh has never conformed to the traditional gender roles, be it in his sartorial choices or outspoken opinions. He has consistently flayed masculine tropes by donning skirts, lehengas and also pitching in his own idea to endorse a condom brand in 2014, when sex is still hush-hush in Indian society. His gender-fluid appearances have invited ridicule from people who find it incongruent with their boxed ideals of gendered dynamics, but there’s no other male, mainstream Bollywood star who is perhaps as secure as Ranveer is in his redefined masculinity. His unabashed and colourful celebration of sexuality challenges the desi, toxic masculinity, encouraging people to be comfortable in their own selves.

And maybe that explains the larger outpouring of criticism from cis-het men, because it’s not the women, not the queer community that’s mainly ‘outraged’ by Singh’s nakedness. As always, ‘protecting a woman’s honour’ is regurgitated as an excuse for bruised masculinities.

Modesty vs Hypocrisy

Meanwhile, another post that’s doing the rounds compares the comments under Ranveer’s nude photos and Bollywood actress Esha Gupta’s bikini picture. It shows encouraging comments under the former’s post, while the latter is attacked with misogynistic slurs. Uorfi Javed is another actress who is constantly trolled for her bold looks unfathomable to Indian standards.

While Singh has received respectful appreciation from certain quarters of society for his bare-it-all shoot, women continue to battle casual sexism and slut shaming while reclaiming their sexuality. What we are witnessing here are two different facets of the same problem called patriarchy.

Read all the Latest Buzz News and Breaking News here