Fashion designer Karan Torani, celebrated for his lavish traditional designs and beloved by fashion enthusiasts worldwide, recently received a storm of online criticism over his latest promotional campaign, “Chandni Raatein”, featuring actress Tanya Maniktala as one of the models for the campaign which was inspired by the lives of sex workers.
Many have expressed their outrage on social media, with Outlook Magazine Editor Chinki Sinha (@chinkis) tweeting, “To glamorize sex workers’ lives in the name of fashion is just something deeply disturbing and ethically and otherwise wrong. Perhaps one should research more about things before making them a fashion narrative.”
While the use of sex workers’ stories in fashion may have rightly triggered a united feminist backlash against the objectification and commercialization of women’s bodies for utilitarian purposes, I decided to delve deeper into the historical factors that led to the emergence of this profession. Specifically, I wanted to examine how the power dynamics of the gaze have transformed over time, from pre-colonial eras to the present day.
The Tawaifs of a pre-colonial era: A respectful (?) profession
Before the term ‘prostitute’ was coined, there existed a variety of professions that served similar functions. They were known as ‘devadasis’ in Tanjore, ‘tawaifs’ or ‘courtesans’ in Awadh, ‘kalavanteen’ in the Maratha state, among other names. Their prominence in the courts of regional rulers during pre-colonial times suggests that these institutions were actively supported by the state. These women were celebrated for their artistic abilities, often performing as dancers and singers during courtly and ritualistic events. Some of them even paid taxes, indicating that they were respected members of society rather than marginalized outcasts.
In her article “The ‘Beshya’ and the ‘Babu’: Prostitute and Her Clientele in 19th Century Bengal,” Sumanta Banerjee compares the profession of prostitution with other vocations within the capitalist system. Unlike other workers who rely on specialized skills and labour division, she argues, prostitutes are primarily responsible for providing sexual entertainment.
The Colonisation of India and Stigmatisation of sex work
The various categories of this profession were lost in processes of cultural translation during the colonial period and came to be called simply “prostitution.” The British imposed stigmas on the bodies of a wide range of women whom they clubbed under the broad term “prostitute.” They considered them women of ill repute, according to their ideas of morality. With the advent of colonialism, these women lost their prestige. Their traditional sources of patronage dried up, and later on, many of them refused to pay taxes. This sometimes led to their arrest, but they often avoided arrests by developing strong relationships with the police.
Many historians have tried to understand the cultural and political significance of the various women who were labelled “prostitutes” and how this ignorant generalization transformed their lives. Veena Talwar Oldenburg, in her essay “Lifestyle as Resistance: The Case of Courtesans of Lucknow,“ attempts to address the historiographical and methodological limitations of such studies, especially within the subaltern school. She writes: “…they have ignored the invisible activism in the domestic arena where women invent and use covert strategies to resist and undermine the oppression and drudgery of the average patriarchal household.”
While this may be looked at as romanticization, Oldenburg emphasizes the independence of these women, as well as their personal wealth:
“I found myself engaged in garnering their self-perceptions as powerful, independent, even subversive women, while I observed and learned about their way of life, rituals, and celebration of womanhood in the privacy of the kotha (upper-storied apartments) and their liberation from the rules of the patriarchal world beyond their own walls.”
Resistance and the need to appropriate the power of the gaze by the sex workers
Oldenburg argues that the “resistance” by the courtesans of Lucknow involved women claiming full control over their spaces. One of the courtesans that she interviewed elaborated:
“…men long to see our faces. If they could brag among their friends that they had seen Gulbadan or Amiran in the bazaar without a covering, they would go up in the esteem in which their friends hold them. We are not in the business of giving them cheap thrills. While we walk freely and anonymously in public places, looking at the world through our nets, they are deprived because we have blinkered them. We do not, as you know, bestow anything on men without extracting its price.”
These women, Oldenburg concludes, “had appropriated the power of the gaze while eluding the leer of sexually frustrated men.”
The Politics of ‘Choice’
“When are women to be considered as victims needing protection and when as active agents engaging with power and carving out their own space?” writes Nivedita Menon in her seminal work, Seeing Like a Feminist. She argues that a thin line separates the idea of having the freedom of choice and having the complete agency to exercise that choice. This, for the feminists, becomes debatable, when faced with institutions of sex work, abortion, pornography, modelling, etc. The dynamic between ‘choice’ and ‘force’ works differently under these conditions.
Delving into the Marxist interpretation of ‘commodification,’ she expands it to the feminist concerns regarding the commodification of the bodies/labour of women, objectified through the male gaze. According to her, capitalism feeds on the exploitation of commodities, because unless surplus value is extracted from labour, there will not be any profits:
“Under capitalism, the ‘choice’ that the labour market offers is between more and less arduous, more and less meagerly paid work. If women choose then, to take up professions like modelling, sex work, or any other profession in which they commodify some body parts rather than others, should feminists not stand by them in demanding better conditions of work, more pay, and dignity in their professions, rather than going along with misogynist values that demean certain kinds of work altogether?” — Nivedita Menon.
Conclusion
While the fashion industry continues to grapple with exploitative practices and harmful beauty standards, it can also serve as a platform for social and political commentary, amplifying marginalized voices. Karan Torani’s controversial campaign has sparked a necessary conversation about the complex context of sex work and the struggle for autonomy and dignity. By addressing the historical and social factors that shape our understanding of women’s bodies and professions, we can move beyond objectification and celebrate agency and power.
It is crucial to recognize the historical roots of these issues and work towards creating a more just and equitable society for all women. Instead of condemning fashion campaigns that touch on sensitive subjects, we should encourage thoughtful dialogue and critical engagement. By doing so, we can foster a culture that respects and celebrates diverse narratives, ultimately leading us toward a more inclusive future.
With a Master’s degree in Indian History, Shruti has worked as an Editorial Associate for the Indian History Collective and a Social Media Account Manager at Oijo Media Private Limited. She currently runs a blog dedicated to books on history and feminism and can be found tweeting @bookishruti.
The Analysis (TA) is a legal advocacy and research group working on the issues of environment, health, gender, law and human rights. Feel free to share your submissions with us at contact@theanalysis.org.in
TA is a Bhopal-based policy and development consulting group. We are on a mission to make the development space more inclusive and democratic for students and professionals. Join us on this mission.
