Over the past week, the internet has moved from gushing over Amitabh Bachchan's letter to his granddaughters, to dissing it for being a publicity stunt for his upcoming movie, Pink. Many feminists have also called the letter sexist and patriarchal.
As a feminist myself, I am disappointed with this narrative.
This may be a PR stunt, but it still gets important feminist messages across. So, why object?
Mr. Bachchan has an incomparable fan following in India -- one that cuts across barriers of class and region. When someone with that kind of reach endorses feminist, progressive ideas that are otherwise not palatable to a lot of Indians, it creates a positive impact we cannot understate. One only has to search "Amitabh Bachchan letter" on Facebook and Twitter to see the updates of thousands of women who feel encouraged by it.
Indian women are routinely forced into marriages, policed for their choices, or judged by their clothes. The idea that women should live freely, on their own terms, without bothering with society, is not popular in our country, especially in circles that are not educated/informed. How, then, can we discount the letter that has helped convey these very ideas to the masses?
With Pink's release around the corner, I have no doubt that the letter is an attempt at publicity. But if we're going to damn every person/brand that does good work with their own agendas in mind, we might have to do away with the entire concept of CSR, as well as ban the charity work done by most religious organizations. This may be a PR stunt, but it still gets important feminist messages across. So, why object?
Now, I do agree that the opening lines of the letter, which ask Navya and Aaradhya to carry forward the legacies of their paternal grandfathers, are sexist.
The letter has motivated and resonated with thousands. Let's not contemptuously dismiss largely positive viewpoints, for a few faults.
The idea that family legacies are linked to paternal heads is rooted in the construct of marriage as it occurs today (women move into their husbands' homes, wives and children take the man's surname, etc.). Should we be challenging that idea? Sure. But should we be using these two introductory lines as an excuse to wholly trash a letter that goes on to make strong feminist points in its main body? Hell no!
Let's acknowledge the fact that the letter has motivated and resonated with thousands. Let's not contemptuously dismiss largely positive viewpoints, for a few faults. Let's not lose the plot to unwarranted, useless nitpicking. If anything, the letter is good for the feminist movement.