The Film Federation of India’s official citation for Kiran Rao’s Ladies, submitted as the country’s Oscar entry, has caused a stir for its sexist, reductive and wildly out-of-touch description of Indian women. Describing them as a “strange mix of submission and dominance,” the statement uses the type of language steeped in patriarchy that continues to hold our public institutions in its vice-like grip. Marinated in decades of condescension towards women and reeking of chauvinism, the citation isn’t just cringeworthy, it’s a glaring example of how gender blindness is a blind spot and how deeply ingrained patriarchal thinking is, even in progressive spaces that are supposed to represent creative industries. It also betrays its hopeless mediocrity, but I leave that out for another occasion.
As some social media users have pointed out, the FFI perhaps resorted to AI to generate the citation. If it did, perhaps the higher-ups at the august institution should have had the good sense to run an eye over it and flag the deeply problematic and awkward turn of phrase that traps women in a tired binary (a binary that casts them as inscrutable objects, whose personalities need to be defined in relation to man), simplifies their multifaceted identity into narrow tropes, and perpetuates outdated power dynamics. Here’s the subtext: women are submissive when they conform to what men expect, and dominant when they defy that role. Congratulations, FFI, on reinventing the wheel of stereotype.
This framing not only infantilises women but also underpins the notion that their worth in the society is contingent on how well they balance its expectations of docility and control. It also reflects a toxic male gaze that objectifies and categorises women based on their perceived adherence to submissive roles or ability to command authority. It dismisses the individuality and agency of Indian women, reducing them to caricatures in a broader narrative that refuses to recognise the real, complex selves of the fairer sex.
The rest of the poorly-written citation, in which ‘jury’ is misspelt as ‘juri’, reads; “Well-defined, powerful characters in one world a LAAPATAA LADIES (Hindi) captures this diversity perfectly, though in a semi-idyllic world and in a tongue-in-cheek way. It shows you that women can happily desire to be home makers as well as rebel and be entrepreneurially inclined. A story that can simultaneously be seen as one that needs change, and one that can bring about change. Lapataa Ladies (Hindi) is a film that can engage, entertain and make sense not just to women in India but universally as well.” Yes, this is the official take of the ‘parent body of all the leading film associations of India’ on one of the finest Hindi films made this year. Read this and rest assured: Indian cinema is in very safe hands. Thank you very much!
A bizarrely reductive framing
“Indian women are a strange mix of submission and dominance.” What does that even mean? It’s the kind of wording that suggests women are some mythical creatures, unfathomable to the male eye. And the kicker is, it’s the first sentence of the citation, as though it were the most essential point about the film. Are we really supposed to be grateful for this ‘acknowledgment’ of female complexity? Or should we roll our eyes at the ineptitude and silliness of it being used to justify why Ladies, a film centred on women empowerment and their right to choose a life partner or a career path, is an Oscar-worthy submission?
It feels like the citation was written in a tearing hurry. And who, you ask, made this brilliant observation? A jury of 13 men. Thirteen. In a nation of 1.4 billion people, the FFI could not find a single woman to be on the panel judging a movie about women. It’s like asking a group of lifelong, committed vegetarians to pick the finest cuts of steak — perhaps you can admire their enthusiasm, but their perspective is bound to miss the point. Maybe the esteemed men on the jury thought describing women as both submissive and dominant in one breath was an enlightened take on the female experience. Someone should tell them: It’s not.
We must commend the consistency of the jury, though. The all-male lineup reflects the same outmoded sensibilities as their citation. Why bother including women in the process of selecting films that represent India internationally? Clearly, women are best left being talked about rather than being heard. The irony of this setup is almost too much to bear, and the absurdity is not lost on the very audience this film is meant to celebrate.
The idea that a woman’s role, her choices, or her identity must be squeezed into this constricting dichotomy is nothing new. It reflects the worldview of an average Indian male that looks at women as either the “submissive wife” or the “dominant career woman” — two sides of the same coin. We’ve been battling it for centuries. But this entire incident is more than just a misstep for the FFI — it shows how cultural institutions continue to be bastions of patriarchy. The fact that these male jurors see women as both submissive and dominant speaks to their own confusion about the changing role of women in the 21st century. Perhaps the jurors are grappling with a cognitive dissonance of sorts, torn between the atavistic expectations of women’s roles and the modern realities of female autonomy and power.
A reflection of the gatekeeping by men
One can argue that the jury isn’t just suffering from confusion; they are products of a system where such thinking is normalised. Surely, the all-male jury isn’t an anomaly, but a reflection of the gatekeeping across industries that allows men to dominate decision-making processes. A citation for an Oscar pick is not just about choosing a film — it’s about presenting your country’s best cultural output to the world. The Oscars, for all their controversies, remain one of the few truly global showcases of cinema. To represent India with a statement that reduces half of its population to a “strange mix” of two ludicrous tropes isn’t just embarrassing — it’s regressive. It undermines the film — a brilliant exploration of women’s lives in the hinterland — itself.
Also read: France shortlists Payal Kapadia’s All We Imagine As Light for Oscars; A moment of shame for India
The citation throws into sharp relief the absolute disconnect between the content of the film and the institution tasked with taking it to the world. Its gaffe only tells us how far we still have to go. In a year when films by women like Payal Kapadia’s All We Imagine As Light — which has been rebuffed by the jurors — and Suchi Talati’s Girls Will Be Girls have pushed the boundaries of filmmaking, the FFI’s citation reinforces the very patriarchy these films seek to dismantle. It’s tragic, to say the least. Also, it’s a truth that while cinema is starting to open up to new voices and perspectives, our film bodies are stuck in a time warp, holding back progress rather than promoting it. Perhaps it’s time for institutions like the FFI to brush up on their language and reevaluate their entire framework.
Women, they must understand, are not an enigma to be defined in terms of ‘submission’ and ‘dominance.’ And their experiences cannot and should not be simplified for the sake of a tidy citation. Let’s hope that by the time the next Oscar submission rolls around, the FFI will have learned its lesson. A modern, feminist film deserves modern, feminist language — and maybe, just maybe, a jury that doesn’t reek of a bygone, fossilised mindset. So, here’s to the hope that someday soon, citations like these will be relegated to the archives of cultural cringe, right where they belong. And if we’re lucky, the FFI will one day include women not as subjects of baffling descriptions but as equals in the decision-making process.
Comments are closed.