Decoding the queen of controversy Kangana Ranaut


The purpose of this piece is not to defend or criticize Kangana Ranaut's utterances, there are plenty of experts doing that. The goal is to comprehend if there is a pattern and a motive behind her words.

The reactions following Kangana Ranaut’s latest controversy, when she claimed that India’s independence in 1947 was the equivalent of alms being given to a beggar, was predictable.

One section was almost combusting with outrage.

Epithets such as ‘crazy’, ‘unhinged’, ‘unstable’, and ‘lunatic’ were tossed around while her statements were characterized as a deranged rant. She was described as a professor of the 'WhatsApp university'.

On social media, some people had had enough and wanted Kangana committed to a mental asylum. Others wanted her Padma Shri award to be revoked. Some called her a traitor.  Some wanted criminal action to be initiated against her for insulting India's freedom fighters. As always FIRs were filed.

There was another section some of whom were in the audience at the summit that applauded her. People from the same group on social media saluted her for her 'bravery'.

So why can't Kangana be like other actors, who strive to not offend a soul?  

Is she really unhinged, insane, unintelligent, and ignorant as her detractors claim?

Let’s accept the premise that she is mentally unstable causing her not to be in control of her senses or her words.

If that was the case, her insanity would have caused her to be incoherent. She would have attacked and praised various individuals indiscriminately and without any explainable motive. There would have been no logical narrative to her utterances. She probably would have used foul language. 

But that emphatically was not the case, she was kind and cordial to her interviewer and the audience, she was strictly complementary to the Prime Minister and the party in power at the Centre, while she lambasted those out of power and in the dustbin of politics. 

Irrespective of what she appeared like this was a disciplined and well-thought-out presentation.

Also, this isn’t the first time she has been in the eye of the storm. She has often made similar statements which have caused her to develop a loyal base who believe and applaud every syllable she utters.


Her detractors call her remarks hateful and bigoted. They attack her verbally and personally. They share photos of her in skimpy outfits, perhaps hoping to hurt her in the eyes of her base whom they think is very traditional. They serve her legal notices and FIRs.

She then turns to her base says she is being persecuted by the mafia for being a patriot. She says it is her supreme sacrifice for the nation. Finally, she brands her detractors with pejorative epithets.

Her status in the eyes of her base is elevated further while her detractors almost implode with rage.

Clearly, her comments at the Times Now Summit aren't an accident.

She knows exactly what she is doing. She knows how to play the media and the limelight.  

We are living in the age of persuasion where, persuaders appeal to their targets' emotional core of anger, resentment, and bias to elevate themselves. 

This is what Kangana is doing. It is impossible to know if she plans what she has to say in advance or if it is pure instinct. 

But she is certainly impactful in appealing to and charging her base.

Noted cartoonist and author Scott Adams who is also an expert in persuasion and hypnotism coined the term linguistic kill shot. This is when the attacker highlights the weakness of a target by branding him with a terse set of rarely used words or phrases. 

Adams says that it is essential that these words are repeated to create a lasting impression across the board. It works better if the attacker is confirming the subconscious bias about the target within his audience. In time whenever the word is uttered, a mental image of the opponent appears. This is when the persuasion is complete.

President Trump was quite the master in this tool of persuasion.

Kangana most certainly is an effective persuader.

In one of the episodes of Koffee with Karan a few years back, Kangana Ranaut hit headlines when she branded Karan Johar ‘the flag bearer of nepotism.’ She further added that Johar would play the role of an antagonist in her biopic who cannot tolerate outsiders in the industry. She called him the leader of the ‘movie mafia’. It was a frontal attack that caught Johar by surprise.

Most regular people have suffered because of nepotism. They toil all day knowing that their work will earn them very little appreciation. At times the boss’s friend or relative is promoted to a higher position despite being less deserving. The boss’s son will always be leading the firm irrespective of capability.

They know they will never be able to afford luxuries and the elite institutions of education for themselves or their children which causes a glass ceiling in their progress. Irrespective of their efforts, there is very little chance of great upward mobility both socially and economically.

It builds resentment, bitterness, envy, and anger over the years.

When they see Kangana taking on the 'mighty' Johar on TV, it resonates and causes a sense of satisfaction which is founded in schadenfreude.

This is much like how they felt when Amitabh Bachchan took on the system in his films of the 70s and 80s.

It has to be remembered that the word ‘nepotism’ isn’t a word commonly by regular Indians. But it is the perfect choice for the linguistic kill shot. It is terse, it is rare, and rebrands the opponent in a negative light.

There was a time when people adored the children of film superstars when they made their film debuts. There was always a slight undercurrent of resentment but the adulation surpassed the hard feeling.

Kangana’s words actually rebranded star kids as undeserving and untalented. Their stardom and riches were not earned but served to them on a platter. Kangana on the other hand never tires of reminding people that she was completely self-made.

There is no denying that her statements are rooted in fact.

The film industry’s reaction to her comments should have been replete with humility. They could have begun by accepting that they benefitted from their family connections. They should have expressed eternal gratefulness towards their audience and even said they are who they are because of their audiences and that the bond cannot be broken.

But instead of groveling with gratefulness, their reaction was brimming with snobbery. Johar and several others scoffed at her with derision. They perhaps unwittingly ended up proving Kangana's point that these were a bunch of entitled elitists who looked down upon her and perhaps even their audience. 



After learning the impact she had during her first round, her attacks were taken to another level following the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. Kangana made a series of statements against the top dogs of the film industry and beyond. Some responded much later by serving her a legal notice for defamation.

She upgraded her previous linguistic kill shot by coining the term 'nepo-kids' which had a better impact and wider reach.

For people trapped at home during the lockdowns, this was a way to channel their frustration. 

In time, it devolved into a tsunami of anger against the film industry on social media and beyond. TV news channels eager for easy ratings provided Kangana with a platform. 

The resentment still prevails, there is an account on various social media platforms dedicated to 'exposing' the film industry that has over 100 thousand followers.

Kangana did not cause this wave, there were always feelings of resentment towards the film industry but it has never been expressed in the words it was always whispered among few. Social media was a catalyst here.

Kangana with her skills in persuasion managed to mainstream the wave.

During that phase, a few faded stars tried to imitate Kangana by ranting against the film industry, but they couldn't repeat her success had because they simply didn't have her stack of qualities of charisma, able wordsmithing, popularity, and delivery.

She frequently puts herself in a situation where she cannot lose, also the signs of a master persuader.

If the films are successful it is because she is a superstar and the highest-paid actress and if they fail it is conspiracies by the mafia.

All this is music to the ears of her base who think of her as the only patriot in the film industry and the lone crusader who is leading the fight to clean up the film industry which in their minds is replete with corruption, crime, and junkies.

Her choice of films is certainly interesting and she is a fabulous actress, people who haven’t watched her film in the cinema hall will catch them online and most certainly will be impressed.  

Do you still think she is crazy or stupid or vacuous? 

While she does have several films in the pipeline, from her utterances it seems obvious that it isn’t a question of if, but when she will join politics.

She has three elements that are essential to be successful in politics, nationwide recognition, a strong base, and extraordinary persuasive skills. 

For a nation perpetually looking for new heroes she may just be what the masses are looking for.

Should she take the plunge, do not be surprised if she has an instant astronomical rise, perhaps even right up to the top with the promise to Make Bharat Great Again!

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments