Cinema and Feminism

Why the woman is actually not on top in 'Dum Laga Ke Haisha'

In the end, the feminist parable must also collapse, for the position is not a mainstream one and cannot be allowed.

On a recent Sunday afternoon, the multiplex in my small town was booked to capacity. A disappointed young couple who could not get tickets got ready to go back home when the woman turned to the man and said, “Even one ticket would do. I could sit on your lap." A wistful joke.

The boy then pulled the girl by her hand and said "Dum Lage Ke Haisha". The girl made a face and stepped on to the escalator while the boy gestured to her to walk back to him. Not a bad prologue to what I would be watching for the next two hours – the Woman on Top.

The film is about a romance, or rather the lack of it, between a medium-sized young man, Prem, and an overweight young woman, Sandhya, in Haridwar. It is 1995 and Prem runs an audio cassette store and spends most of his waking hours with Kumar Sanu singing in his ears. Sandhya goes to college and wants to be a school teacher. Prem does not like Sandhya but has to give in to his father’s persuasion.

So Prem has decided, even while saying yes to the marriage, that he won’t be able to love his wife because she is fat.

The plot progresses through a series of tragicomic comments and circumstances, including serving a divorce notice and the consequent six months of let’s-fix-it, to Prem, the almost good for nothing’s success in a race where he beats his friends and enemies by carrying his overweight wife in an amateurish shortened Hardwar version of a decathlon.

What I found most interesting about the film is its constant invocation of the Woman-on-Top visual rhetoric. Of course the Woman on Top is a fun sex position and all that, it might even be a feminist statement, but to incorporate this into a film set in Hardwar, a town known for its religious references, is a bit surprising. Even more surprising – and delicious – is the decision to use this in a film about what clothing companies like to call ‘plus size’ woman.

Dum Laga Ke Haisha therefore literalises the burden of the woman on top position, the trials of a marriage from a male perspective – that is why Sandhya has to be overweight, bulky, difficult to carry, eliciting taunts. We cannot forget that “Dum laga ke haisha” is a male anthem of collective masculinity, to carry, to break, to tear, to bear. Who has heard women sing “Dum laga ke” after all?

This is how the Woman on Top optic plays out:  

Sandhya climbs up a ladder in the library and looks “down” at her man reading in a room below; after their marriage has soured, she sleeps on the bed while Prem sleeps on the floor; the only instance of lovemaking we see in the film is when the woman initiates it – her face on top of the man’s; in the “Dum laga ke haisha” competition, when Prem and Sandhya fall into the water filled pit, the woman climbs up to the “shore” and lends her hand out to the man below.

When they are crying over their personal failures towards the end of the film, we first see Prem hiding behind a wall and weeping. When he hears muffled sounds of weeping, he gets up to see Sandhya sitting on the stairs and crying. The director plays this leitmotif throughout the film, the woman on top parable brought to us by clever camera angles or raised perspectives, on a staircase, on the ladder, and so on.

There is only one scene where the man is on top, and such is the failure of this “position” that it leads immediately to the crisis in the marriage.

Prem is with his friends on the terrace, his wife is dancing with the womenfolk below. A couple of drinks bring out Prem’s frustration with his wife’s size – imagine sleeping with a woman like that, he tells his friend. The result is a slap from his wife who’s climbed up the stairs and overheard the conversation. A show of equality follows: it is in the ethic of tit-for-tat, a slap for a slap.

Prem’s problem is not with the “size” of her body alone – he also cannot handle the size of his wife’s CV. Sandhya’s education throws his lack of it into relief in such exaggerated measure that it makes him take his board exams again. The marriage begins to get lubricated only when the man has found success – would the dum have lasted had the Prem-Sandhya pair not won the race?

When Prem and Sandhya discuss the possible contours of their separate lives after the end of their marriage, Sandhya makes a telling, even preachy, statement against lookism, about there being more to love and relationships than the indulgences of the eye, of a cookie cutter approach to beauty and size. A male voice in the audience came to annotate my viewing of that scene: “It’s her brain that is large – that is her problem.”

Sexist as that comment is in a certain way (Would that comment ever have come for a man?), there is an element of truth in it: The brain is, after all, right at the “top” in the hierarchy of the body.

Which patriarchal society has ever wanted to make love to a woman’s brain after all? And so we have an exhibition of Sandhya’s cerebral acrobatics – not just her academic results and the worldly success they are expected to bait, but the lovely scene, for instance, when Sandhya uses the word “metabolism” to explain her body weight to her husband’s aunt – but never of her body.

The man’s body is made visible to us in instalments – his legs jutting out of his RSS shorts, and when he comes out of the bath twice, wrapped in soap lather and a towel. The woman remains all covered apart from a hint of cleavage in the prologue of a lovemaking scene.

The “doh jism ek jaan” ethic that drives the Bollywood metaphysical machinery is here literalised and then subverted in primarily two ways: the optic of a bulky woman on a rather slim man makes him look like a poor coolie lugging this heavy baggage for a promised handsome fee; the surnames of the married man and woman are, surprisingly, different – Prem is “Tiwari”, and Sandhya retains her maiden surname “Varma”.

There is also something else: one human carrying another immediately brings in the connotation of dependence, and the person being carried is infantilised in our eyes – the infant, the child, the sick. But Sandhya resists being infantilised throughout the film.

Shakha-babu illustrates the essence of the competition, for instance – he demonstrates the demand for the partner’s infantility by making a young boy climb on him. In my mind, Hindi cinema’s most striking image of the woman climbing on the man’s back is Jackie Shroff carrying the petite and eroticised Urmila in Rangeela. Sandhya is, of course, no Urmila, and in spite of the VLCC weight shedding package advertised during intermission at the INOX in Siliguri, where I watched the film, she remarkably reveals no ambition to lose any body weight.

The film must end with the end of the woman-on-top position, and so the kissing scene where the man and woman share a kiss on an “equal footing”, and the concluding Dard karara song, modelled on 1990s Hindi cinema, have both the man and woman sharing “top” positions – a rock by the riverbed, a raised platform, and so on.

Only success will convert a man and consequently bring success to a marriage. Sandhya must plead with her husband to ask her to stop going to Meerut to take up a schoolteacher’s job. By giving up on her professional achievement and indulging her husband’s inconsequential success in a rather silly competition, she has to save her marriage.

In the end the feminist parable must also collapse – the woman cannot be on top. The camera jerks back to the same eye level as the man and the woman standing in front of the bathroom. For woman on top is not mainstream and cannot be allowed to be.

Sumana Roy writes from Siliguri, a small town in sub-Himalayan Bengal.

We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.


In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.


Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.


The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.


The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.