Khushboo battles twin demons

Tamil actress Khushboo files lawsuit against Maxim for publishing her morphed pictures in a bikini.

PRAVEENA SHIVRAM

18 February 2006
CHENNAI, INDIA

When it rains, it pours. This maxim couldn't have been truer in the case (pun unintended) of actor Khushboo and the recent spate of controversies she has braved. Starting with those infamous lines on pre-marital sex that resulted in a public outrage in Chennai that eventually spawned a debate on a national level, the recent deliberation over her morphed picture in the Indian edition of the London-based magazine, Maxim, has generated a debate on an international level, borrowing from the dubitable topic of the right to privacy vs the freedom of speech and expression.

It all began with the recently launched men's magazine, Maxim, publishing an image, that has now come to be defined as an "immodest" image, of actor Khushboo. For their inaugural issue, a morphed picture of Khushboo wearing a bikini was featured. Khushboo was quick to file a defamation case against the magazine, pressing for charges amounting to Rs 3 crores. Despite the magazine offering to publicly apologise for what they simply call " a '100 per cent fake' page, a matter of artistic expression like a caricature, that projects failures and celebrities in a humorous light. The intent is never to cause hurt, which is the reason we have offered our apologies to Khushboo immediately on hearing her distress", Khushboo refuses to accept a mere apology, stating that "the damage has already been done" and is pressing for charges nevertheless. 

This brings to light the question or rather the definition of right to privacy, and the right to freedom of speech and expression. As a celebrity, how much space can a person really define as private space? Or, to pose the question differently, how much can one extend this right to freedom and expression, in a bid to attract public attention and gain popularity? How does one delineate between the two and identify that thin line, if the thin line exists at all in the first place?

In Khushboo's case, that thin line remains elusive, as she continues to battle for two issues that are apparently at the two far ends of the spectrum. In the first scenario, it was clearly her opinion on pre-marital sex that was completely blown out of proportion. She simply expressed her views, and found herself at the receiving end of the cultural debasement bombardment. Question? What happened to freedom of speech?

In the second scenario, the publication of the picture is damaging to her image, to her image of maintaining that very same culture that cornered her a month back and her dignity. Question? What happened to the right to privacy?

What makes this so interesting is the ambiguity it functions on. But then again, for a country that continues to follow archaic laws set by the British during colonial India, ambiguity is hardly a problem.