What next for Anushka Sharma after marrying Virat Kohli is none of our business

In the midst of an ugly poll battle, malfunctioning EVMs, shooting-off-the-mouth PMs, came the beautiful, soothing spectacle of a radiant Anushka Sharma marrying a glowing Virat Kohli, both in pale pastels, in the verdant greens of Tuscany.

As the PM spoke of Pakistan getting a “supaari to bump him off”, even those normally not blinded by stardust found themselves gratefully turning to Anushka’s “gulkand burgundy” saari for a topic of discussion.

The news media obliged, keeping us up to date with what the couple wore – Anushka sported an “iconic micro dot bindi” at one function, Virat a “fuchsia pink textured silk Nehru jacket” at another – how much the venue cost (over Rs 13 lakh a night), and who was the main priest (a man from Kapurthala).

So far, so much fun.

But even this thing of beauty did not remain a joy forever, as along came the inevitable “will Anushka continue to act” pieces.

One article in a national daily discussed if Anushka would work after marriage, while another hailed the movie industry for “accepting” married women as actors.

It is appalling that such regressive and pointless articles continue to be published in 2017. However, if you think it is unfair that no one discussed Virat’s career, they did. Concerned folks wondered what kind of influence Anushkha has proven on Virat’s cricketing skills. The stars’ stars matter. Only, there was no article discussing how Virat’s planetary alignments might impact Anushka’s career.

Seriously, just stop

Every time a woman actor gets married, The Question pops up – will this be the end of her acting career? “Progressive” news articles tell us she might not have to, the world is a more accepting place now.

Old pieces are dusted to give us shining examples – Madhuri Dixit, Kajol, Vidya Balan, Sridevi and Aishwarya Rai. Kareena Kapoor gets a special mention – her first shoot after marriage was a decidedly non-matronly “item number” (the execrable Fevicol se, but that is a different issue).  

However, one of the articles about Anushka made this important distinction – when Kareena got married, she was already past 30; Anushka, 18 years after Kajol, has taken the brave step of marrying in her 20s.

Eighteen years later, Anushka is facing the same questions as Kajol. It would have been easy to dismiss these articles as silly and pointless, if they weren’t dangerous too.  

Managing a household is a woman’s duty more than a man’s is an unfair, regressive notion. However, it is one that still has a lot of currency in our country. By routinely having such discussions about celebrities – actors, sportspersons – ostensibly more empowered than a lot of other women, the media is guilty of giving legitimacy to this idea.

Speculations that an actress may have to give up work post marriage are based on the notion that her husband and in-laws get to take her life decisions, and her first duty now is to the home and the hearth.

News organisations, as opinion-makers, should ideally be leading the charge for equal rights for women. Endorsing patriarchal gender roles for the sake of readership is irresponsible and harmful.

Also, it is extremely unfair to the people in question. Starting a married life is daunting for any couple, there are too many unknowns, an entirely unchartered terrain.

Having to make the journey in full public glare is bound to be even more nerve-wracking. At such a time, burdening Anushka with added expectations about her and her husband’s career is entirely wrong and uncalled for.  

What Anushka Sharma or Virat Kohli do with their careers is their business alone. Anushka can continue acting, or be a homemaker, or take up some other pursuit, and nobody else has a say in it. Why is this still so difficult to understand?

Viewing married actors differently problematic

If the same few names are trotted out as successful examples of actresses who “made a comeback” post marriage, the internet is overflowing with names of women who bid the silver screen adieu and “settled down”.  

So why does marriage make an actress unpalatable to the audience?

First, of course, is the notion – applicable to all women– that her prime duty now is to tend to her husband and in-laws, bear children, and nurture her family. Devoting time and attention to her career is a distraction from her primary role and natural destiny.

However, equally problematic is the idea that a married woman is “taken”, and her doing romantic sequences with other actors is wrong. Also, men apparently find it uncomfortable to lust after an actress who belongs to a fellow man.

This is doubly troublesome – first, the idea that a married woman is her husband’s property, and second, that an actress is nothing more than a sexy, desirable figure.

The fact that Kareena Kapoor, Aishwarya Rai and several other actors are smashing these regressive barriers and getting on with their lives and their careers is proof that the Indian audience is changing, even if slowly.

However, all these victories are hard won, achieved almost solely through the charisma and star power of the actor.

At such a time, news portals continuing to churn out such stories are doing a disservice not just to their credibility, but also to the cause of women empowerment at large.

Also read: NGT’s Amarnath Yatra decision brought confusion, not clarity