The social media was ablaze with discussions surrounding the controversy sparked by the Times of India after it posted a controversial picture of Deepika Padukone and captioned it -- "OMG! Deepika Padukone's cleavage show!" to which the actress retorted and lashed out at the giant media house for it tried to "attract readers using the power of influence to proliferate recessive thought".
The event followed with ToI publishing its "point of view" and explaining its position on the internet publications, but still defying and unapologetic.
Now the debate that has been set rolling among people of honour and other laymen is whether the incident is a publicity gimmick or if ToI has touched a new low in entertainment journalism, too!
ToI has been known for its flamboyance and how at times it has kept ethics and moral codes of journalism at bay and instead went ahead in quest for catching more eyeballs.
Call it immaculate on the leading English paper's decision making body that every time they did some bizarre reporting their work has paid off and objective achieved, well almost. To them it seems, any publicity is a good publicity! Well, now you have almost all media -- rivals, alliance, national, international -- taking up this red-hot issue and giving ToI what it has always sought.
But, that is one side of the story.
Deepika, on the other side, expressed her anger over the distasteful story through Facebook and Twitter, where she has followers in millions. Nowadays, celebs prefer using social media to express their stance or to make any statement and this understandable.
But the point in this case being that the incident seems perfectly timed for two of her films' release. That Deepika is a star and has featured in multiple box-office blockbusters is an undeniable fact. But then again, to deny any possibility of she using her fame for 'Finding Fanny' - an offbeat looking film - would not be a sensible thing.
Moreover, her "point of view", has made the entire episode more an issue of women empowerment and how ToI is disrespectful to the entire woman fraternity. Which of course has generated a spiraling effect of endless debates with mostly the 'politically correct' ones edging out the other.
So what could have been resolved and made a good precedent for benefit of society at large has been converted into a mass movement (on social media platforms) with almost everyone affirming politically correct statements and using rationale that coincides with the pious theme of empowering women and gender sensitisation.
Well, the collective wisdom of people at large has always been a point of discussion and more so when in India it concerns Film industry and media.
Morality at the level of media, showbiz and society is now under utter doubt. The point in this case being how we have kept a large number of people engaged in "an issue" which might well in time emerge as something non-issue.
To quote Buddha, "The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook."
Well, the Lord knew it too well but his was a time of meta-physics and now we are in the age of swift communication and defamation suits!
The actress still can file a defamation suit against ToI if the incident has left her genuinely bewildered and if she is in for some substantial gender sensitisation. Moreover she could express her indignation by offering to return the TOIFA Best Actress Award which ToI had conferred on her in 2013.
"I am not naive about my profession: it is one that requires lots of demanding things of me. A character may demand that I be clothed from tip to toe or be completely naked and it will be my choice as an actor whether or not I take either. Understand that this is a 'Role' and not 'Real' and it is my job to portray whatever character I choose to play convincingly," Deepika had said in her Facebook post.
Now there seems to be a problem of understanding that she might have in case incurred. The demarcation of role and real is a vague, thin line as far as audiences at large understand. There are film-stars who have learnt this the hard way. You can't have the best of both worlds, you just can't!
While in my recent reading of Dilip Kumar's autobiography I came to know that the legendary actor, considered epitome of acting in Indian cinema, had rejected many assignments because they were too crass to be done by someone well identified with public.
"I strongly subscribe to the belief that an actor should be aware and conscious of his social responsibilities and contribute as much as he can to build the character of admirers who look up to him," Kumar wrote in the book.
Here, too, as much it is a case of ideology (of the actor, the media house and society) it is a case of diagnosing the right wound and medicating it the right way.
A day in future--
"The Honourable Court, referring to the judgement in The Deepika Padukone vs The Times of India case (2014), pronounced its decision that the media house was lax in its reportage and that the constitutional protection for speech and expression is not absolute and that it is subject to reasonable restrictions based on considerations of 'public order', 'defamation', 'decency and morality' among other grounds thereby leading to deviant behaviour which would adversely affect notions of morality..."
But this case lies in the courtroom of future, if only it does.
On a better day.
