Parallax View: The media attention to Ms Khar's appearance was not sexist or trival

According to reports emanating from Pakistan, the country’s Foreign Minister is upset that she was

treated as a style icon in India. I’m sorry that the lady should feel this way so let me try and make her feel better by telling her what we all know: Relax!

Nobody thinks you are a style icon. We just think you sport very expensive accessories. And that’s not the same thing at all.

 

   In other words, we think you are extravagant. But you ain’t no icon.

 

   Now that we have got that out of the way, let’s focus on the debate we had in India. According to many commentators, our repeated references to Hina Rabbani Khar’s accessories trivialized the debate and were sexist in nature.    

 

   Of the two charges, the one about sexism is easier to handle. It would only be sexist to devote too much attention to the way Ms Khar presented herself if she received the sort of attention that a man would never have received. You can argue about whether gender-based comments are necessarily sexist but  --- for the purpose of this discussion, anyway ---- let us assume that they are.

 

   So, would we have focused on appearances if Ms Khar had not been a woman?

 

   Well, there are two ways of looking at it. The first is that good-looking men do get written about in terms of their looks. When Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister, his youthful appearance, his good looks etc. regularly featured in coverage of his Prime Ministership. (And this included the Pakistani press). Even today, Rahul Gandhi’s looks are frequently commented on.

 

   And of course, it works the other way. When Robin Cook was the UK’s Foreign Secretary during the Tony Blair years, it was not uncommon to see some disparaging remark about his appearance in the UK press. “He looks like a garden gnome” (which, alas, he did) was a pretty frequent jibe and when the unfortunate Cook left his wife for his girlfriend, the appearance jokes were recycled again.

 

   In contrast, Madeleine Albright, who was US Secretary of State at roughly the same time, was largely spared any criticism of her looks though it would be hard to argue that she was spectacularly beautiful. When it comes to disparaging people’s appearances, the media are sexist but not in the way you may think: they attack the men more than they attack the women.

 

   Let’s take examples from the subcontinent: Gen. Zia-ul-Haq’s moustaches were always the butt of jokes. (“He looks like Terry-Thomas” ---- a British comic actor ---- the Pakistanis would sneer) and more recently, Nawaz Sharif’s hair transplant has come in for comment. In contrast, I can’t remember anybody making any jokes about Benazir Bhutto’s nose or any other aspect of her appearance.

 

   So, I am not convinced that there is a sexist double standard when it comes to commenting on the way that politicians look. If anything, the men have it harder. They are still making jokes about Nicolas Sarkozy’s height in France. And a few months ago, President Obama used a public function to deliver a speech that made fun of Donald Trump’s hair. (Shortly afterwards, Trump pulled out of the Presidential race.)

 

   But nobody made fun of Khar’s looks in India. Frankly, we didn’t really have a lot to say about her beauty. Our focus was on her accessories. The media talked about that giant Birkin handbag (between Rs 10 to 15 lakh, I would guess, in the shops), her designer sunglasses, her diamond bracelet, her pearls etc.

 

   Some critics have alleged that by drawing attention to how expensively she presented herself we either disparaged her as a woman politician or trivialized the talks. 
  
 

   To see this charge in perspective, let’s move away from talking about Khar and imagine that an Indian had displayed these accessories. Suppose Nirupama Rao had gone to Pakistan for Secretary-level talks and had worn lot of expensive diamonds etc. at public function. Wouldn’t we have talked about it? Assume Sushma Swaraj came to Parliament carrying a handbag that cost Rs 10 lakh or so, do you think we would have heard the end of it?

 

"Perhaps it is fine for the Foreign Minister of one of the world’s poorest countries to appear in public carrying a handbag that costs more than the annual income of most of her country’s citizens."

   Nor is this restricted to women. Assume that the next time Manmohan Singh went on a state visit to a foreign country he wore as much jewelry as say, Vijay Mallya. Wouldn’t we make something of it? Suppose Pranab Mukherjee traded his bandhgalla for a sharply-tailored Giorgio Armani suit, wouldn’t this attract comment?

 

   The point is not about sexism or feminism. It is about incongruity.

 

   We expect certain people to dress in a certain way in certain situations. When they deviate from these expectations, they attract comments.

 

   We do not expect the Foreign Minister of Pakistan to dress as though she is going to a rich ladies’ kitty party. We think that Foreign Ministers should dress soberly for official events. When they don’t follow these rules, we comment on their appearance.

 

   You could take the line that we are wrong to have these expectations. Perhaps it is fine for the Foreign Minister of one of the world’s poorest countries to appear in public carrying a handbag that costs more than the annual income of most of her country’s citizens.  (Actually a small village in Pakistan could live happily for a week or so on the cost of a Birkin.)

 

   And I would be happy to participate in that debate.

 

   But let’s not pretend that the reason Ms Khar’s accessories attracted so much attention in India is because we are sexist or trivial or gender-insensitive. We commented on the way she looked because it was incongruous.

 

   Two other points need to be made. First of all, did we ignore the seriousness of the talks because of her handbag? I don’t think so. Nothing of any value seems to have come out of the talks anyway. She met the Hurriyat and this provoked loud howls of outrage. She made feeble excuses for Pakistan’s failure to act against the 26/11 accused and this too was adequately covered. So what exactly did we ignore because we were so focused on her handbag?

 

   And secondly, the fact that the Pakistani Foreign Minister should think that kitty-party style dressing is appropriate for a bilateral summit meeting tells us something about how far apart our two countries have traveled since 1947. No Indian minister would dress like that. And yet, Pakistanis seem to think it is entirely normal.

 

   So, are we really “just the same people” as the peaceniks claim?

 

   Or does the distance in attitudes grow with each passing year?