Recently the hot (pun certainly intended) subject of nudity made headlines in Kerala, the Southern Indian state, also paradoxically called ‘God’s own country’.

Before I begin, I must admit that the conservatism and orthodoxy in me might annoy people, especially those belonging to the ‘fairer sex’, who might be allergic to clothes in varying measure-one of the symptoms of assertion of women’s bodily autonomy.

This blog is not intended to deliberately annoy them or to get under their exceptionally thick (unclothed) skin.

Nudity recently found an unlikely sponsorer in a woman in Kerala. ‘Unlikely’ because nudity is something women would not like to clothe themselves with. At least, in Indian society, except when she bathes, or makes love.

Biblically, the first woman to walk on the planet attempted to hide her nudity when knowledge dawned on her on eating the forbidden fruit. Illustrated Bibles Christians are familiar with as children depict Eve attempting to cover her nudity by placing leaves in strategic landmarks of her anatomy! This was later adopted by Jane in those Tarzan movies and comics.   

Women of Indian society seem to be increasingly developing some kind of anaphylaxis to the leaves Eve and Jane tried to cover their nudity with, and their more evolved fashionable versions.

The story dates back to 2020, when a video by Kerala-based ‘activist’ Rehana Fatima appeared on social media. In the video that understandably went viral, Rehana was seen partially nude with paintings done by her minor children on her body.

The video created massive outrage with the Kerala State Commission for protection of child rights asking the police to file a case against her under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. Multiple FIRs were filed, and her anticipatory bail was rejected. She was subsequently arrested. Later, she was granted conditional bail by a special court.     

In her appeal to the Kerala High Court, Rehana asserted that the body paintings in the video were meant as a political statement against the default view of society that the upper body of the female is sexualized. She argued that the male body is treated differently, by being not sexualized or objectified. She even claimed that her video was meant to impart sexual education, according to the quint.

These outlandish arguments can only be perceived as excuses of the activist to flaunt her skin.

Who is Rehana Fatima?

She is an ‘activist’ who frolicked in public attention.

She participated in the 2014 ‘kiss of Love’ protest against moral policing in Kochi, accompanied by her partner Manoj K Sreedhar.

In October 2018, Rehana along with Hyderabad Journalist Kavita Jakkal was among first women to visit the Hill Shrine of Sabarimala amid heavy police presence following a landmark Supreme Court order that allowed women of all ages to enter the temple. However, she had to return just 500 meters away from the temple’s sanctum sanctorium, after a rightwing mob blocked the women’s attempt.

In the same year, when a male college lecturer compared women’s breasts to watermelons, the activist retorted by uploading a photo covering her breasts with only watermelons.

Is women activism allegorical of allergy to clothes? Many wondered! 

She was also one of the first women to take part in Pulikkali in 2016, the annual tiger dance associated with Kerala’s festival of Onam. This dance form is usually performed by men, whose bare torsos are painted as tigers.

Rehana who worked as a telecom technician with BSNL was axed from her job in May 2020 following an internal inquiry into criminal cases against her, as reported by the Indian Express.

She has also acted in the art film, eka, which dwells on intersexuality.

According to Indian Express, she counters lewd comments on her photographs, mostly from men with more provocative images. ‘The more you pay heed to regressive comments, the more freedom is chained. It is my body, and I have the right to wear what I want’. The activist told the Times of India in 2018.

Was she oblivious of an unaproving civil society, or was she feigning ignorance of the same? Or, was she attempting to establish that watermelons and painting her torso like a tiger would suffice to vouch for her brand of civility?

According to Indian Express, posting the controversial video on her social media with the hash tag, body art and politics, Rehana wrote in June 2020, ‘no child who has seen his own mother’s nakedness and body can abuse the female body. Therefore, vaccines against false perceptions about women’s body and sexuality should be initiated from home.’

If that is the case, logically, majority of men who have been nursed by their mothers as infants should be respecting women. Exceptions could be sons ‘born’ to women through surrogacy or male children adopted by women who choose surrogacy or adoption over pregnancy to preserve their anatomy from ravishes of motherhood.  

To people with some common sense, this seemingly impulsive activist was attempting to tag her tendency to disrobe herself at the drop of the hat, or whatever, under the umbrage of motherhood- one of the most sanctimonious concepts known to humankind.

One fails to understand in the wildest of dreams how a woman by permitting her children to paint her seminude body instills ‘respect’ for the female body. Won’t the naïve children tend to equate their mother’s body to an easel? It is hard to believe they would be inclined to respect the feminine body merely by painting it!

It was when the less-informed and confused public debated on the no-holds-barred methodology of Rehana the ‘activist’, which bordered on violating well laid down and time-tested social norms by flaunting feminine nudity that the judiciary saw sense in her attempts.

The learned Kerala High Court, on June 5 2023 dismissed the criminal case against Rehana for posting the controversial video which showed her minor son and daughter painting on her seminude body.

As per Bar and Bench, Justice Kauser Edappahath observed that ‘it is wrong to classify nudity as essentially obscene or even indecent and immoral’.

A woman permitting her children to paint on her seminude body is certainly obscene. Whether the act is indecent or immoral depends on if that woman is decent or moral herself, or what she makes of those two noble virtues.

‘Nudity should not be tied to sex’, the justice continued. Even a kindergarten toddler knows that nudity is closely associated with sex. One is yet to behold an immaculately dressed indulge in sexual act! The closest one who came to that is probably the dapper British Secret Service agent 007!

‘The mere sight of the naked upper body of the woman should not be deemed to be sexual by default’, the court observed. What is special about the upper naked part of the woman? While it can certainly be special on certain counts, will nudity stop short with the upper half in the ‘heat of things’?

The Court seemed to deliberately let the activist off law’s hook.

‘The depiction of the naked body of a woman cannot per se be termed to be obscene, indecent or sexually explicit. The same can be determined to be so only in context’, the Court went on. Is that ‘context’ definable, according to the Court? What are the contexts in which female nudity can be publicly flaunted? In that case, the Censor Board which confers adult certification of movies soaps, magazines and other media will need to undergo course correction.

Moreover, were women of lower castes who fought the ‘breast tax’ levied in early 19th century Kerala out of their minds?

Significantly, the High Court pointed out, through its judgment, the differing attitudes of society towards male and female nudity. ‘Painting men’s bodies is an accepted tradition during pulikali– the tiger dance during Onam festivities, and theyyam performed in temples. We often find men walking around without shirts. But these aren’t considered obscene or indecent’. The Court wondered.

Yes. My father used to walk around at home without wearing his shirt. My mother chose not to imitate him, because she respected her womanhood and ladylikeness, something which are foreign, and probably unknown to the likes of ‘activist’ Rehana. My mother who refused to let us children paint on her seminude body, inculcated in her children the virtue and the importance to respect the gender to which she belonged to, more effectively than the impulsive activist in question.