Lyrical Cacophony: Sexuality and Objectification in Bollywood’s ‘Item Numbers’
A still from Stree (2018).
While the discourse around the ‘item songs’ in Bollywood films usually revolves around the sexually explicit videos, Ankur Choudhary argues that the bigger issue to be tackled is the lyrical content that leans towards the objectification of women.
Presented here are what could’ve been a few lines from the rejected poetry bin—but they are regrettably not so.
“Body teri makhan, khane mein tu butter khaye” (“Genda Phool”).
“Meh toh tandoori murgi hu yaar, gatka le sayiyaan alcohol se” (“Fevicol Se”).
“Aayi chikni chameli, chupke akheli pawwa chaddha ke aayi.” (“Chikni Chameli”).
From wedding receptions to college fests and parties, we often find ourselves dancing and singing along to these lines from ‘item numbers’. Most of the videos accompanying these songs are similar. Let’s take, for example, last year’s chart-topper, “Kamariya”, from the film Stree, featuring Nora Fatehi dressed in skimpy attire, dancing in the centre around desperate youngsters who stare at her filled with lust. Or how about a blast from the recent past, “Dard E Disco” (Om Shanti Om), where we have Shah Rukh Khan dressed as a firefighter, bare-chested with his eight-pack abs flashing for the cameras.
Item songs are seen to ‘titillate’ the audience with lustful and enticing images of ‘Bollywood A-listers’. However, beneath this celebration of sexuality, can one find the cladded ‘normalisation’ of the male gaze and female objectification? In his article “Why the debate on item numbers doesn’t end just at that, Bollywood celebs react”, Subhash K. Jha talks about different takes on whether item songs should be banned. The trend of a presumably rising depiction of ‘sexually charged’ women in these songs led to the decision of censoring these songs by the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Based on this decision by CBFC, Bollywood celebs gave their contrasting opinions on item songs through the lens of morality, provision of employment, expression of women’s sexual agency, censorship, and desire.
The bigger issue that needs to be tackled here is in the crassness and objectification contained in the lyrics and choreography. The narrative around these songs describes women’s body as butter (“Genda Phool”), or as a piece of chicken (“Munni Badnaam Hui”). The shell of a peanut is seen as a euphemism for their virginity (“Aa Ante Amalapuram”), or ‘item’ girls are fetishised for drinking in secret (“Chikni Chameli”)
Colloquially, the term ‘item’ refers to a woman who is sexually appealing, with a ‘corrupted’ sense of morality. It is a music-and-dance performance that lies at the heart of masala potboilers. Usually, such a song has no direct or indirect connection with the main plot of the narrative. It introduces a skimpily clad woman, who is apparently, more ‘enticing’ than the female protagonist of the film. This ‘special appearance’ usually lasts for three to four minutes in a three-hour movie and serves the purpose of entertainment in the film.
The usual depiction of women in these songs as sexually-charged females breaks away from the prevalent societal notion of the monogamous woman. This portrayal is thus a source of contention, and leads to the need of banning such songs before they ‘corrupt and deprave’ the society.[1]
However, what I found problematic here is that these songs are under the radar of censorship not for the objectification contained in their lyrics and choreography, but for encouraging ‘harmful images’ of sexuality, which challenge the so-called traditional Indian values. As actress-filmmaker Soni Razdan says, “Women as objects of desire have been around for decades and the celebration of sexuality is a natural impulse. To ban or suppress it would have even more damaging consequences. What is required is a more liberal attitude, better sex education, and less secrecy around the topic of sex.” [1]
On similar lines, Shohini Ghosh argued against anti-porn feminists, saying, “by focusing exclusively on ‘harmful images’, anti-porn feminists understand neither harm nor the complexity of images. Instead, by framing sexuality within a discourse of violence, they encouraged sexphobia and victimology.” [1] Thus, images by themselves are neither positive or negative; the meanings are produced by a complex negotiation between the spectators and the audience. Banning these songs will only encourage social structures that we are part of to depict a limited and narrow aspect of our sexuality.
Perhaps, I believe the bigger issue that needs to be tackled here is in the crassness and objectification contained in the lyrics and choreography of item songs. The narrative around these songs describes women’s body as butter (“Genda Phool”), or as a piece of chicken (“Munni Badnaam Hui”). The shell of a peanut is seen as a euphemism for their virginity (“Aa Ante Amalapuram”), or ‘item’ girls are fetishised for drinking in secret (“Chikni Chameli”).
It’s interesting to note here that most of these songs are written by male lyricists who define female sexuality in their own language. Popular songs like “Aao Kabhi Haveli Pe (by Badshah), “Munni Badnaam Hui” (Lalit Pandit), “Chikni Chameli” (Ajay Atul), “Zara Zara Touch Me” (Sameer) and more ‘item’ songs describe women’s sexuality as perceived by men. As Shabana Azmi argues “It’s time our heroines exercised some discretion in the choices they make.” So, in writing and choreographing an item song, it’s important, again, to take the view and opinion of the actress dancing in it. They should have agency and autonomy over how they want to be described in these songs.[2]
Another issue here has to do with the question of censorship with regards to item songs performed by male and female actors. Actor Sharmila Tagore rightly points out that “men do a lot of vulgar dances” too.[2] As seen, the latest ‘trend’ in Bollywood is of showing bare-chested men, with eight-pack abs (like Khan in “Dard E Disco”). Tagore questions as to why women’s morals are put on a higher plane than men. Why is it not a problem of commodification when men dress up as firefighters (Desi Boys)? Why are women expected to not provoke lust of men? Why a song by Ranbir Kapoor and Sanjay Dutt (“Baba Bolta Hain Bas Ho Gaya” from Sanju) not seen as an ‘item’ number? “Men are also commodified,” said Kabir Bedi. “Handsome hunks are taking off their shirts all the time. Bollywood has its own style of entertainment.” [2] Tagore’s stand is a good way to move forward, as it encourages the highly impressionable audience to “normalise” sex and desires, and not see it simply as a social taboo.
However, the discourse around commodification has mostly centered around females, failing to see men at the receiving end as well. In tracks like “Subah Hone Naa De”, Akshay Kumar and John Abraham are shown as strippers, while “Baba Bolta Hai” sees the star-men casually dissing newspaper articles. A special song like this by male actors in a film is never called an ‘item’ number.
We live in a society where an understanding of what can be seen as obscene, objectifying and vulgar varies from person to person. It’s easier to perceive a sex worker or a bar dancer as objects of male desire, with no agency and autonomy. This debate on what can be seen as commodification, as Krishna Menon points out in her book Seeing like a Feminist, does not extend to let’s say, a construction worker who is selling her labor, to a teacher who is selling her intellect.[3] Women who break out of the societal dictates and exhibit their sexual desires freely are thus always put on a check and treated as commodities by their male counterparts.
Female actors in the Bollywood film industry have for long been complaining over the tag ‘item number’ that is often given to their ‘dance numbers’. However, replacing the word ‘item’ with ‘dance’ is not the solution to solve the problem of the objectification of women. The innate misogyny that some of the lyrics in these songs convey cannot be eliminated by simply replacing few words.
I believe the problem lies not in depiction of sexually charged characters, but in how they are described in these item numbers by the male lyricists. Item songs surely give women and men a platform to express their sexuality and desires, but this medium should be used to break away from the unidimensional portrayal of women to a more inclusive depiction of sexuality, femininity, and the ideal of what is desirable. It is, thus, important for men and women to own the word ‘item’ and make it their own.
Sources
[1] Ghosh, Shohini. “The Dissident Pleasures of Pornography.” Himal Southasian, 9 September. 2009,
[2] Jha, Subhash K. “Why the Debate on Item Numbers Doesn't End Just at That, Bollywood Celebs React.” Deccan Chronicle, 9 Mar. 2018,
[3] Menon, Nivedita. “Victors Or Agents?” Seeing like a Feminist. Published by Zubaan in Collaboration with Penguin Books, 2012.
***
Ankur Choudhary is a writer and Delhi-based Structural Engineer. He writes about movies in his blog, fridayreviewer.com. You can reach out to him on Instagram: @_ankurchoudhary or mail at user.ankur@gmail.com
