“I am done with Kangana playing the victim card at every given point of time with a sad story to tell about being terrorised by the bad people in the industry; if it’s so bad, leave it”, pronounced Bollywood director Karan Johar at a public venue earlier this year.

The pompous declaration came in response to a statement by the national award winning actress Kangana Ranaut, accusing him of the being “the flag-bearer of nepotism” on his popular talk show Koffee With Karan.

Ranaut had touched a raw nerve by daring to address the touchy subject of nepotism in a country where social mobility can be unimaginably difficult without the right pedigree or connections.

“The Indian film industry is not a small studio given to Karan by his father when he was in his early 20s”, responded Kangana. “That is just a small molecule… He is nobody to tell me to leave it. I’m definitely not going anywhere, Mr Johar.”

“What is important to understand is that we are not fighting people, we are fighting a mentality. I am not fighting Karan Johar, I am fighting male chauvinism.”

Ranaut was on a roll. She had called out that other big elephant in the room: Patriarchy – in a country where sexual violence, domestic abuse and rape are endemic and make regular headlines. Knowingly or not, she had opened a Pandora’s Box which had been clamped shut for way too long.

Simmering with resentment at having been told off by the impertinent outsider, Johar along with star kids Varun Dhawan and Saif Ali Khan churlishly yelled out ‘Nepotism rocks’ at the IIFA film awards in New York. This was followed by tacky barbs at Ranaut, perhaps to be expected from a trio known for tawdry, mawkish films like Race 2, Humshakals, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, among others.

To make matters worse, Khan published a tone-deaf article to explain where he was coming from, displaying a total disconnect from reality. “I think it’s extremely relevant in a conversation on nepotism, which means family favouritism, to talk about genetics and eugenics. Eugenics means well born and in a movie context, the genes of, let’s say Dharmendra’s son or Amitabh Bachchan’s son or for that matter, Sharmila Tagore’s son come into play”

“So yes, maybe I got a chance because of my mother, but that is more genetics than nepotism. It’s a genetic investment that the producer was making”

Eugenics – or controlled breeding – was once touted by Adolf Hitler and scientists employed by the Nazi regime as an effective means to maintain racial purity in Germany – by weeding out contaminants like Jews, Gypsies and other undesirable breeds.

That Khan was oblivious to the historical and political connotations of terms like ‘genetic investment’ in a caste-ridden country like India, shows a startling level of ignorance and hubris.

But it didn’t stop there. Khan continued to embarrass himself with ludicrous comments which would have perhaps ended his career anywhere but in India, where privilege and entitlement are seen as the natural order of things: “If you need another example, then take race horses. We take a derby winner, mate him with the right mate and see if we can create another grand national winner. So, in that sense, this is the relationship between genetics and star kids”

Khan then dug himself into a deeper ditch by claiming that aristocracy meant “the rule of the best, which is what this industry is. Ruled by the best”. Wrong again. Aristocracy refers to the highest class in certain societies, especially those holding (unearned) hereditary titles or offices – an apt description for Khan, Johar and their ilk.

It did not take long for the irrepressible Ranaut to respond: “I fail to understand how you can compare genetically hybrid racehorses to artistes! …. Are you implying that artistic skills, hard work, experience, concentration spans, enthusiasm, eagerness, discipline and love, can be inherited through family genes? If your point was true, I would be a farmer back home”

This hackneyed reality show playing out on social media and the blogosphere is emblematic of a much larger malaise. The ingrained nepotism and lack of accountability in all spheres of Indian life have led to abysmally low standards that we see all around us; in the arts, politics and business.

Auteurs with stunningly original ideas languish for years before their efforts are recognized, and often fall by the wayside in sheer despair, while connected insiders secure plum gigs on the strength of their name alone.

Out-of-the-box films have a hard time securing funding from timid producers. In an industry driven by formulaic tropes, being bold and original can be seen as a handicap. Lipstick Under My Burkha, a sexually frank tale about the perils of feminism in small town India, was banned by Pahlaj Nihalani, Director of Central Board of Film Certification before it was finally released with several cuts.

When Johar said his job was not to nurture talent, but only to grow his legacy, he was merely echoing the sentiments of those, who like him, believe that they have no responsibility to society at large, only to themselves. Until this mindset changes, the outlook for all realms of public life, and not just entertainment, remains bleak in India.

The author can be contacted on Twitter @Getafix2012.

[opiniontag]