A Thing of Evil Beauty

And yet, lingerie mannequins in Mumbai have a right to life

It was eight months ago that your correspondent noticed an intriguing social phenomenon in Mumbai and was compelled to comment on it in these pages. At the time, elected corporators of the Brihanmumbai Mumbai Corporation had taken a break from their regular duties of keeping a check on potholes and illegal constructions to turn their acid gaze on an evil unlike any this city had ever known— mannequins clad in lingerie.

Many reasons to eliminate them were put forward—they objectified and embarrassed women, aroused lust in men, confused everyone as sex toys—but the overriding one was that they led to rapes. These salient points found favour across party lines and a resolution was passed in the BMC Assembly asking for the extinction of this species.

That such a demand should come up might seem strange but it is not inexplicable. The Delhi gangrape had put sexual violence on top of the national consciousness, and by the time it filtered down to Mumbai’s corporators, all the legitimate causes had already been spoken for. These corporators thus had to find new causes and if they chanced on a scantily clad sensuous plastic body, then that was just the mannequin’s luck.

The lingerie industry was not pleased, but then everyone has to grin and bear it when called to sacrifice in the larger interest of society. But their travails did not end. It was argued that this was hardly a check: men could still be perverted by the sight of them through the glass front of a shop.

At this point, something finally came out in support of mannequins—the law. Municipal Commissioner Sitaram Kunte told MidDay last week that he was helpless: “The BMC allows neon signboards, commercial advertisements or signboards of shops with various terms and conditions, but there is no mention that types of statues or articles or clothes should not be displayed.”

Any mannequin that had daily prayed to God for succour must have felt relieved, but when it came to sexual violence, the Maharashtra government was not willing to show compassion. A report in DNA on 2 February said that there were plans to insert a clause into the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, to deal with mannequins. This, according to Labour Secretary Arvind Kumar, was “to protect the dignity of women, so that they do not feel objectified… Once this is passed, the BMC can implement it effectively.”

There might actually be some convoluted merit in the objectification argument. Developed societies seem to have considered it. Last week, AP reported that in many US cities, mannequins are fat and tattooed to make them as representative as possible. Some also have ‘pubic hair peeking through their lingerie’. This is not to turn on men, but so women can identify with the mannequin. It is the direct antithesis of objectification, but you can take a safe bet of any amount on the labour secretary applauding this evolution.

The objectification logic is a bureaucrat’s shrewd tactic when forced to implement an idiocy. That women should not be objectified can be a value society encourages, but the corollary that anything that objectifies women should be banned opens up a road to unending absurdities. Why not ban movies with sexy actresses? If a curvy plastic form can make a man a rapist, then how much more powerful an influence is real flesh? Why not do away with industries that claim to protect or enhance beauty, like cosmetics, botox, plastic surgery or lingerie itself?

Objectification is hardly at issue here. This silly exercise is just a new incarnation of the most medieval of ideas—that the female form should be hidden because it is responsible for corrupting the morals of men. The irony is that those who want the ban couch it in the language of female emancipation. That is why, even if lingerie mannequins are dumb, those with tongues must speak up for their right to life.

About The Author

Madhavankutty Pillai

•