Why I hate Priyanka Chopra

UPDATE: I just want to clarify, this is not an article that gives a full overview of the situation, or that tries terribly hard to address alternative perspectives.  It’s just trying to explain my perspective on it.  So, if you already dislike Priyanka and are looking for a better way to articulate your argument, READ ON.  Or, if you know someone who dislikes her and you can’t understand why, READ ON.  But, if you like her, DON’T BOTHER.  I’m not going to give you any new information, or an argument that will convince you.  And if you know nothing about her past or personal life, DON’T BOTHER, I assume you have some basic background and I don’t include a lot of details.  It really is an article that is just about why I, personally, dislike her.  And unless you also dislike her, or know someone who does and want to understand them, it probably won’t make sense or interest you.


UPDATE 2: Okay, apparently UPDATE 1 didn’t work, and there are all sorts of people reading this who very much do not agree with it.  I have learned my lesson!  I will keep my biased personal opinions for my living room, not the internet!

I’ve left the comments up, because a lot of people made really good points.  If you read the article yesterday and have something else to say, feel free to comment.  And if you are curious about my other writing, which is much much more boring (mostly box office analysis, birthday posts, and detailed film summaries), feel free to check out the homepage of the site to see the latest posts.



38 thoughts on “Why I hate Priyanka Chopra

  1. Pingback: News Round-Up: Aamir and the cops, PC owes money, Wazir opens, and Amitji mildly injured! | dontcallitbollywood

  2. I think this article is perfectly written. As a fan of Shahrukh for the exact reasons listed above, I felt he ruined his image by being himself around this one female. Many people have asked me the same question and I’ve only ever replied with the personal statement above and have been told that I only hate her because of my love for Shahrukh (which is partially true but these people were completely unwilling to listen to any other explanations). I love that there are people who hate her for the same reasons I do because it makes me feel that in the myraid of Gauri haters there are a few who can at least respect her and her status. I just hope that Priyanka’s selfishness hasn’t completely ruined SRK-Gauri’s relationship (at least the relationship the public think it is because we never really know the truth.


    • Thank you! Every once in a while I will run across a srk Priyanka fanvids or a comment about their “true love”, and it aways surprises me! Why would you ever support someone who is destroying a marriage? And it’s not about the actual affair, I know that, if it happened, they are equally to blame, but it’s about talking about the affair and using it for her career without regard to the effect it has on gauri, or their kids, or srk’s career and fans.


  3. Pingback: New Girl and Silk Smitha | dontcallitbollywood

  4. Pingback: 2015 in quantities: What movies did I watch most? | dontcallitbollywood

  5. I was surprised at this post. I came here from GFY, interested to see what reasoning you would present from theory and evidence, for why Chopra does not deserve her stardom. I was quite disappointed.

    First, your dislike of her is based entirely in gossip. The truth of her relationship with Khan will never be public. What we know of it would come through various PR machines and should never ever be sufficient proof to construct character sketches – Chopra’s, Khan’s or Gauri Khan’s.

    Your second point seems to be that Chopra propagates the formula of beauty queens. I would argue that she has used it and, in fact, done exceptionally well in two major entertainment industries, where her chances of success were low. For India, she was deemed too dusky, not pretty enough, when she started out. For instance, most of her contemporaries with similar credentials (Diya Mirza, Lara Dutta were both either prettier or more articulate) fade in comparison. For the west, well, she was a foreigner! Yet, she managed to use the beauty queen formula to her advantage. She comes across as articulate and charming in her media interactions. You claim that “She never acknowledges her ambitions, or her sexual desires, or really her desires for anything.” And yet, you criticize her for her very stated desire for doing well in music, movies and TV shows (ambitious indeed). If you watch her interviews you will see her very clearly state that she likes to do things that are uncoventional. Whether or not you agree with her choices and their unconventionality is a different matter of course (a debut as a villain is quite uncoventional, I would argue). You suggest that “She looks perfect in every interview, never too loud, never too strong, never contradicts a man, always laughs at his jokes, always just right.” I do not agree that the metric of being likeable is being obnoxious in interviews, being loud or strong. Interviews are not the place for stars to laugh at men’s jokes. They are the spaces for stars to crack their own jokes, and she does do it. Sushmita Sen may have a different formula for life, and not everyone can or should stick to it. In any case, Sen is not regarded as someone with a particularly successful entertainment career.

    On the contrary, you could look at her as a star who has made it alright to be dusky . She made it Ok for a woman to do a sports movie where she was sweaty and unattractive (Mary Kom). She was openly lusting after a man in Aitraaz. She was ‘tainted’ in Fashion. And then she made it possible for a South Asian woman to be adaptable enough to get a PCA, while also playing a 17th century housewife, and without regrets too. It was okay for this Indian woman to be a presenter at PCA while also being seen unapologetically as a traditional housewife in a saree – showing us how versatile the Indian woman and actress is. If anything, her career has been impressive, exceptional, and very successful. We should be glad that there is an actress playing the lead role as a police officer in a forthcoming movie.


    • Thank you so much for commenting! I really appreciate you responding in such detail!

      Of course, Priyanka’s professional choices are open to multiple interpretations, and the way she presents herself and determining the meaning of the characters she presents on screen is subjective. I can definitely see ways in which her career could be seen as progressive, in terms of her acting roles and her current position in the industry.

      However, I think our disagreement as to her “personal” choices hinges on whether the version that was presented to the world, which I agree does not necessarily have any relationship to “reality” and is nothing that any person outside of the few people involved can ever know the reality of, or should have any right to know about, was created by a faceless PR machine, or by the people involved. From my understanding of how the Indian industry functions, I believe that the stars themselves are primarily responsible for and in control of how they are presented, much more than celebrities in any other industry. So, with that assumption, I feel like I can assign responsibility for how the whole “affair rumors” were handled directly to Priyanka.

      And from that, comes my distaste for her. Not because she may or may not have had an affair, or even because she may have used the possibility of an affair to promote her own career, but because by promoting it, she destroyed a valuable public statement about what modern Indian marriage can be.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I am glad we agree to disagree .

        Just another minor point about her role in destruction of a marriage: if our knowledge and perception of the entire episode is indeed the sum of what we know through newspapers and PR machine , we have to remember that she was up against the collective PR machines of Khan, Gauri Khan and Karan Johar. How well her solo PR would be able to defend her against these giants of the Hindi entertainment industry, is anybody’s guess. And if there was indeed an affair, I doubt whether she or Khan would actually want publicity out of it. They are both lead actors who cannot afford to be seen as home-wreckers or divorcees. In fact, any other woman would have finished her acting career through an extra-marital affair (would producers cast someone in a lead role, when she comes with the image of a homebreaker?). If anything, she made it seem okay to emerge from the huge setbacks, and even work in the industry without the backing of any one male star or a male producer.
        I cannot remember her last role with a Khan, and yet , like Aishwarya Rai Bachhan, she is a major star in a male-led movie industry. This would not be easy in a male-dominated industry. More power to such women, I say!

        See you on GFY 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks again for commenting! I’m glad to have an alternative perspective represented. I know the original post was much more of a preaching to the choir kind of thing, more about articulating a position than actually a well balanced discussion of the whole situation.


  6. … Well, this is probably the most misogynistic thing I’ve ever read, and it claims to be feminist. Not really going to comment about the first part because it’s not my place but the second part… Hating someone for having an affair with SRK is something so absurd I can’t even wrap my mind around it. She has nothing to do with his fans or his image, she owes nothing to his fans, it’s really funny how you only have good things to say about SRK, the guy who cheated on his wife, and only bad things about Priyanka, who owed nothing at all to Gauri or anyone else, HE was the married one, not her, she didn’t ruin a marriage, HE DID, she was not even in that marriage to destroy it, HE WAS, he owed fidelity to Gauri, SHE DIDN’T.. Men are NEVER shamed for cheating on their wives, men have been cheating on their wives publicly for decades, and the ones shamed are ALWAYS the mistresses, so I have NO clue where you take the idea that those rumours almost destroyed his career from.
    Shahrukh respects his fans, but doesn’t seem to respect his co-stars does he? Almost single-handedly destroying Aishwarya Rai’s career because her abusive boyfriend forced her to leave the sets of Chalte Chalte, dragging her by her arm, and did Shahrukh do anything? No. Actually, he did, he replaced her in the movie without even warning her, and made sure that she was replaced/removed from all the movies they had together. He really respects women doesn’t he? Almost destroying a women’s career because of her abusive boyfriend (who was his fucking friend, isn’t it cute? This feminist guy was besties with an abusive guy, who beat the shit out of his girlfriend, there should be a picture of SRK in the dictionary right next to the feminist word.)
    So yeah, I don’t really like Priyanka that much, she’s an average actress, and not a particurlaly bad person, and I’m a fan of Srk, or was, don’t know, but being a fan of his is not puting the blame of things HE does on other women, I am so surprised that someone who talks about a lot about feminism in this thing can be so misogynist, you should know better. The worst thing about this is people actually thinking it’s accurate because it’s well-written.
    (And “her best friend is a super gay”, my god.)


    • Thanks for commenting! And for providing an alternative perspective, I am aware that the original piece is very one-sided.

      As I said in reply to lifeundone, my issues with the possible affair are not with whether or not it happened. If it did, obviously they are equally at fault, or SRK was more to blame. But as a member of the public, I will never know the truth of that, nor should I know the truth of it.

      All I can deal with is the way the situation was presented in the media. And that is where I have issues. I feel like, for women, Shahrukh’s public message of respecting his wife and his marriage is an important message. And that Priyanka’s people (presumably) destroyed that message by allowing the affair rumors to spread.

      I also agree that other actions Shahrukh has made in his life towards women may be questionable, but again, I am dealing with his public message and persona, which we can know, and not his personal actions, which we can never be sure of. And I am also taking a somewhat unusual slant on his image and saying that by being a “romantic hero” he is actually making a feminist statement. Not in the specific way that Aamir Khan does, but in a more general way, by saying he is not afraid to be seen devoting himself to women, to be seen caring about them, and to focus his career primarily towards a female audience.

      However, many of my conclusions are subjective, you may disagree that there is value in a romantic hero being seen respecting his co-star, or that the affair rumors damaged his career. And that’s completely fine! I just want to say, again, that my dislike for Priyanka is NOT because she may have been with a married man, but because of how she publically handled the rumors about it. I agree with you completely that women are always punished more than men for affairs and it is a travesty. And I will go further and even say, so long as it takes place between two consenting adults, it is nobody’s business what people do. That was actually my main point, that I do not care what happened and it is none of my business, I only care about how it was represented to the press.


      • I guess we’ll agree to disagree, because I don’t really think she controls her P.R like that, and we have to agree that even bad publicity is publicity, I still don’t think that’s reason enough to hate her like that, because again, even if she is considered a “homewrecker” by the media, she isn’t one. I would like to say just one more thing: even as a romantic hero type of actor, most of Srk’s characters disrespect women in so many levels. Starting with DDLJ, where he told Simran that they had sex (or basically that he raped her), making her cry like a baby, or not leaving her alone in the train despite her not being insterested in him. KKHH, never ONCE looked at Anjali or cared about her feelings when she had her tomboy image, and when she has her transformation he magically falls in love with her, well, not with her, her beauty. Devdas, hit Paro and felt superior to her multiple times, shamed Chandramukhi and humiliated her multiple times as well. His character in KANK was probably the most annoying and misogynist ever, cheating on his wife bc she earned more than him?? Like… And finally Happy New Year, the fuckboy who would always say all kinds of stuff about Mohini, (and also Nandu, even tho they were so important to his plan and were really trying to help him) basically calling her a slut for being a dancer, even tho she did it only to survive, and then using his english to persuade her. I hope you understand my point here, Shahrukh IS considered a romantic hero, but few of his characters are actually heroes or even good, so saying that his movies are a feminist statement is illogical, since most of his movies teach men that disrespecting women to “get” them is a good thing, that it is romantic, that you call trick them into thinking you had sex, that you can talk all the things you want behind her back, that you can only fall in love her because she’s pretty, that you can not leave them alone until they give you what you want. His characters don’t actually idolize these women, his characters shames them, manipulates them and even hits them. So not even his romantic heroes are an example to be followed.
        But kudos to you for having a well-written text, I would just say that there is plenty of misogynistic things there, you could work on that and the text would be really better.


        • Thank you for replying! And for saying my text was well-written. While I think there are other ways to interpret ddlj and kkhh, I completely agree about Devdas and Happy New Year, and even KANK for the most part. They are my least favorite srk films for exactly those reasons. DDLJ, I would offer that if you look at the film as a whole, he is constantly allying himself with woman and putting himself in female spaces, the kitchen, the children’s singing, even the end of Mehndi Laga ke, which is a feminist move (that’s not my argument, by the way, it comes from the British Film Institute book on the film). But absolutely, on a scene by scene level, his character does all sorts of things I dislike. Similarly, I would argue that kkhh is a feminist film as a whole because the driving forces of the plot are women, Anjali, Tina, little Anjali, and Shahrukh’s mother make all the big decisions. Which has nothing to do with his particular character in the film, but more with his willingness to just be in a film that is so oriented towards female characters while his character is passive. And in a larger sense, there is an argument to be made that any romance film at all is feminist just because it must deal with women, unlike, say an action movie which can choose to ignore them entirely if it wishes. But all of this is open to interpretation, and if for you these films are regressive, then definitely he is not a feminist hero and the rest of my argument does not follow.


      • I really wish feminism was that easy, darling. But it’s not. Those feminist moves that you talk about are really not feminist. He does that because he wants Simran’s family to like him, not because he thinks it’s not their obligation or something like that, there’s nothing feminist about helping women only when you want them to like you. Also, the movie having a lot of women or focusing on those women is not the same thing as being feminist, there is NOTHING feminist about KKHH, because it’s basically “what matters is in the outside, it doesn’t matter that you’re his best friend, he will love you only if you’re pretty”, and it’s really not that female-centered.
        And no, romance films are in no way feminist unless there’s an actual feminist act in it (like Shaandaar and the constant men defending women/women standing up for themselves), the movie is not feminist just because it’s for women.
        I really advise you to study feminism a little more, because it’s really not that simple, also back on Priyanka, if you really consider yourself as feminist I think you should think a little about your hatred for her.


  7. This the the most pathetic piece of writing I have ever seen in my life. “Now that’s the Indian-heritage female role model little girls should look up to!”
    Why what’s wrong in wearing a bikini during swimming? You are saying that she is manipulating young girls and is a bad role model. Sorry to say even Kareena, Kajol, Katrin, Deepika wore Bikinis. On thge other hand, Chopra wore a SWIMSUIT. There is a huge difference here. Plus saying bad role models to girls? Deepika did a video suggesting having sex besides marriage, having pre-marutal sex and etc. But did you said anything there. THIS SHOWS YOUR INSECURITY TO HER AND YOUR JEALOUSNESS TO HER, BECAUSE YOU ARE A LOSER, WHO CANT STAND ACHIEVERS.



    • Thank you for commenting! I have removed some of the abusive language from your comment, but otherwise left it in place.

      I wish this was paid writing! That would be awesome! It’s actually just something I wrote, just for me, and maybe 12 other people read it, and then I put a link to it in a comment on an article about Priyanka on another blog I read a few days ago, and now today suddenly dozens of people are reading it! It’s a little surprising to me, I was really just trying to articulate my issues with her and expecting to maybe have a few other people read it and go “oh, that’s interesting! huh.” and then go about their day.

      Going back to your first point, I actually think Deepika is a fabulous role model for girls because she suggests having sex before marriage. I think Priyanka would be a much better role model if she did that. One of my issues is that she presents a very sexualized image, but never addresses sexual agency or rights.

      And in terms of “blaming” a woman for an affair, see my previous responses, I don’t even want to know whether or not there was an affair, I just want to deal with how that potential affair was presented in the media.

      And maybe I am a female chauvinist? I’m certainly not a male one, and as a woman, I find it easier to identify with women.


    • “Plus saying bad role models to girls? Deepika did a video suggesting having sex besides marriage, having pre-marutal sex and etc” There is literally nothing wrong with that.


  8. I respect your opinion but I don’t think you understand what feminism is. Judging by your personal reason to hate Priyanka Chopra, you aren’t even a feminist.

    I’d first like to clarify, although I do like both SRK and Priyanka Chopra individually as actors, I am an avid SRK fan. Have been since I was a kid. But you do realise its always mostly the partner’s fault when they cheat and not the third-party’s. If you think its the “mistress’s” fault, you are not feminist. Priyanka does not owe anything to Gauri, SRK does. Even if these rumours aren’t true, and just due to their closeness in demeanour, SRK is at more at fault than Priyanka because he is the husband and should see how it might affect his wife and his fans(although he does not owe any explanation about his personal life to his fans).
    I love SRK from the core of my heart but I can not as a feminist blame her for this.

    Now to SRK not being a feminist anymore since he cheated. Also not valid. Feminism is the thought that you think females are equal to males. He still projects that thought. He still respects women as equals. You can see that from his demeanour in any interview, any pr ops for movies, any movie where he ropes in a commercial actress he tries to maximise their roles as well. There is a reason all the 90’s actresses said if they had to “avoid, marry, rakhi” to any of the khans, they woud have married SRK (what koffee with karan). All the women he works with have the utmost respect for him. That represents his respect for women.

    Also his movies dont represent feminism per say, although some may-chak de india. His movies represent romance. Whereas Aamir’s movies represent social issues and Salman’s action (bajrangi bhaijaan was a one-off).

    Now on to Miss India, Priyanka’s representation of women, etc. I don’t think Priyanka understands feminism and social issues for the most part due to her being in the limelight and having special privileges since she was 17. But she has played a major part of breaking through women roles in India due to her job. I don’t know where you got that she doesn’t share her ambitions. She been sharing her goals in her career for a really long time. Or do you mean more along with personal ambitions? Because actors do not have to share their personal life with the public. You wouldn’t expect a normal businesswoman to do it, why an actress?
    She has done movies like Aitraaz, Fashion, Mary Kom, GaangaJaal 2. She breaks the stereotype of traditional female roles than any other commercial actress in India today other than maybe Vidya Balan.
    Yea, she was in Miss India/Miss World, but she was a child when she entered. When her mum made her enter. Again she was a victim like you said. And the image you say she follows, the softspoken/no opinion on social issues is something she doesn’t fit in. She has stood up, she has made comments, she has made campaigns. She is not the regressive Indian woman but an actress who is quite vocal about gender issues.

    You can hate her, you have every right to express your opinion. But don’t hide behind feminism. Feminism is not that backwards.


    • Thank you for your thoughtful comment!

      In terms of Priyanka’s career choices, absolutely it is subjective and open to multiple interpretations. Mine is that she has presented herself to be more palatable to India’s patriarchal society in a variety of ways, but that can be challenged, and maybe as her career progresses further, it will be clear that it has a more feminist trend than I am seeing at the moment, and your interpretation is correct.

      Going back to the feminist/not feminist issue. I actually think we agree on some main points. As you say, part of Shahrukh’s image for years is that he is the star you would want to marry, he respects his co-stars and all other women. My conclusion (which you may disagree with) is that that is a feminist statement. Just by being so actively and publically respectful to women, he is making a statement about how a man should be in a relationship, and there is value in that. Especially since his fan base comes from many countries (including India) where women are not in the best position after marriage.

      My issue with Priyanka is not that she had an affair, or may have had an affair. That would absolutely be the fault of them both, if it happened. And, as you point out, even by just allowing images to come out and behaving in certain ways in public, Shahrukh also helped the rumors. Which would make him more at fault, as the married man.

      But, I don’t care about an actual affair. I care about how it is presented in the media and press. And, to my mind, Shahrukh’s message of being the most popular and powerful entertainer in India, and also being respectful of his wife and his co-stars, is more valuable than Priyanka’s people arranging for news of a possible affair to leak out. In this one instance, I think the correct thing to do would have been to weight the value of SRK’s image as an example of respect and faithfulness against a need to get the “truth” out, and remain silent.

      But that is also subjective and you are totally free to disagree with me on that as well! I just wanted to clarify, again, that I’m not blaming her for the actual affair, but for how it was handled in the press which was.


  9. I am not a Priyanka fan nor a detractor but I do have my issues with her and this article added to her already problematic nature for me. I doubt I will be able to articulate as well as you but I will attempt it, regardless.

    I actually liked Priyanka initially but her interviews changed my perception. It began with Koffee with Karan, when it became clear that she crafts her accent continuously and it is why Kareena called her out (though she herself is no angel) and then in her third KWK appearance, she kept on ‘blushing’ at the mention of SRK’s name because to me it felt disingenous (and if you are fond of conspiracy theories, I think this was her laying the groundworks for affair rumour mill). Her subsequent interviews, especially in the West, irked me even more. I think it was Good Morning America! where she claimed that ‘brown people are all over the world and taking over’ infuriated me and I think it’s because it is essentially implying that being ‘Asian’, Westernised and successful was commonplace in the West (so she isn’t a special snowflake, except that she certainly has the airs and graces of one). So while she tried to do away with that Asian stereotypes in an overly simplified and generalised statement, yet she followed it up with a dance to BW tunes at the presenter’s request, as if she was some performing chimp, and for me, it only reinforced to the public the popular perception of Indians. What annoyed me further is that her comments were entirely dismissive of tokenism that is rampant in the West, where one successful non-White person apparently represents the supposed collective success of the entire community. Moreover, she was awarded a role in a mainstream show that so many struggling American Indian actors are still waiting for. Mindy Kaling and Aziz Ansari have had to work so hard to get where they are and Priyanka waltzes in and takes a role because of her built-in fanbase. I admit that the onus of this lies entirely on the channel and the production company but if Priyanka looked at the wider implication of her choice, then she wouldn’t have opted for this role.

    Despite her claims that she takes pride in being Indian and is happy to be representing her ‘culture’, she has done no such thing when it has truly mattered. When she launched her music career, she opted for the West instead of India. Why? She was clearly attempting to fall into the ‘exotic’ mold and sell her brand, which she wouldn’t be able to do in India. Her song was not evocative and nowhere was her heritage to be found barring a few lines in Hindi, which spoke of acceptance of an Indian woman by a non-Indian man (which only re-asserted the idea that women have no sexual or emotional agency, especially if they are Indian). She could have included her heritage while being mainstream. Shakira managed it with ‘Wherever, Whenever’ and hasn’t looked back since. Priyanka’s music is very much like the image she has cultivated: homogenized, autotuned to ‘perfection’ and devoid of any depth.

    Undoubtedly, Priyanka has some phenomenal connections in HW for her to have the opportunities that she does have. I mean there is no shortage of producers looking to ‘find’ the next big thing. However, her success thus far feels superficial and hollow. While the PCA might be genuine since it is based on a multiple-voting system and zealous fans can make anything happen, but the rest feels remarkably like Aishwarya’s story, who was launched by Harvey Weinstein (the man behind Jessica Alba, Gwenyth Paltrow and now Alicia Vikander). All of a suddent Aishwarya was being honoured right, left and centre and landing ‘impressive’ projects yet at that point she had not done anything so remarkable (minus Devdas) and yet she became the international face of L’oreal but in the four years of her foreign projects she did not produce any content worthy of note (contrary to the press) and despite the media constantly playing up her importance, the reality is that her Oscar red carpet appearance was bizarre and is a fixture at Cannes because she is Indian yet her aesthetic is European enough and her presence encourages Southeast Asian business to engage in dialogue with Western markets looking to expand profit margins.

    Also, like Aishwarya, Priyanka has had to look elsewhere because of the problems she faces in India. Aishwarya was unfortunately a victim of Salman’s vendetta and abuse so she intelligently looked elsewhere for work (which is what increased her profile and market value back in India thus allowing her to resume her career when she returned). Priyanka, similarly, has burned bridges right, left and centre. Salman, Shahrukh and Akshay are amongst the big players and none of them seem to be willing to work with her. While I understand SRK and Akshay, Salman’s unwillingness seems strange to me. She can’t work with Ranbir Kapoor as he refuses because allegedly she is the one who told Deepika about Ranbir cheating on her with Kat (an ironic turn of events given what she has done). Kareena and Priyanka do not get along (though in her defence, Kareena isn’t exactly blameless in this situation), so it is unlikely that Saif and Priyanka will ever work together. This leaves Hrithik Roshan, Aamir Khan, Ajay Devgn, Farhan Akhtar, Ranveer Singh, Fawad Khan, Arjun Kapoor, Siddarth Malhotra and Varun Dhawan (I’ve left Abhishek Bachchan and Imran Khan out because they are not really ML actors). Arjun Kapoor, Fawad Khan, Siddharth Malhotra and Varun Dhawan are up and comers are usually paired with up and coming actresses. She has been in a fair few films with Hrithik and Ranveer and given how selective those two are about films, it diminishes her chances of her being paired with them again for a while, leaving only Aamir Khan, Ajay Devgn and Farhan Akhtar and severely limits her options.

    While she has been successfull in quite a few films where the ML was not a major player, in order to sustain a credible career in BW you need a mixture of critically-acclaimed content as well commercially viable projects and that cannot happen if half the industry is shunning you as persona non grata. I doubt she will be able to do with Aishwarya did because at the end of the did Aishwarya didn’t alienate the industry but rather it was the industry who failed her by siding with Salman.

    I don’t doubt Quantico will do well because it is the kind of shallow, dramatic procedural that the West laps up (we need to look no further than NCIS and CSI to know it will be successful) and she will have a career there but her move to the West has little to with representation of Asians but more to do with sustaining a career that would be on its last legs if she stayed in India.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for saying I articulated well! I think you were just as good. And thank you so much for your comment, it sounds like we fall very closely in line as to how we interpret her public appearances.

      Actually, you did a better job of explaining it than I did! Whenever I see her own talk shows, both in India and in America, I have this vague sense that she is putting on a show for us, doing whatever she thinks this particular audience will want. But I couldn’t put my finger on how that was happening, which is why I had to fall back on just using the “Exotic” video as an example. Your two mentions are perfect, I have noticed her accent sliding a bit depending on the show, but I didn’t know it had actually been called out already! And her “blushing” and other subtle ways of saying things without saying things are why I feel comfortable blaming her for the continuation of the affair rumors.

      That Good Morning America appearance sounds awful! And exactly what I was trying to articulate when I said she presents the New India Woman as having no problems in the west. You can be proud of your community and your accomplishments, while still acknowledging the struggles and difficulties that exist. That is what bothers me most, that she seems willing to be whatever form of Indian the west will accept instead of the kind of representation that Indian-Americans need.

      In terms of her career in India, you and I are on exactly the same page. Her solo films have met expectations, but of course expectations are low without a major male lead, because that is how the Indian film industry functions. This year, she had DDD, which was an ensemble piece with no big names, and Bajirao, which was the same. Next year, she has another solo film coming out. She needs to find another two lead film with a major name if she wants a big hit. My impression (based purely on mannerisms in interviews and that they have not been seen at social events together for a while) is that Hrithik is also unwilling to work with her. I would be surprised if she took a role opposite Ajay because, excepting his occasional dramatic role, his heroines tend to be a bit light weight. So now she is down to just starring opposite the younger newer actors, Ranveer (who I have also heard rumors of disliking her), Siddharth, Varun, etc.

      When you run out of good roles and good costars is the point in their career when most actresses marry and retire, allowing them to take on a few challenging roles when they want them but not constantly be searching for a new project (Sridevi, Kareena, Aish, Kajol, Madhuri). It feels like Priyanka looked at her option of letting her career slowly decline, or marrying and retiring, and decided to go a third route and see if she could get a few more years working in the West. I also wonder if the affair rumors damaged her viability as a spouse. Not because she may have had an affair (I just assume most actresses had affairs at some point, and they all managed to get married), but because the kind of powerful public figure who would marry an actress is going to want to be sure that his wife is capable of keeping things out of the press.

      Liked by 1 person

      • This criticism is hard to digest. Accents do slide. No matter where you live, your accent does tend to slide depending on who you are talking to. We have different conversations, different accents, and different reactions depending on the context. I have an Indian accent and live in the west and also tend to visit rural towns in India. Within each context I have to emphasize different parts of my speech, so that I can be understood. My own accent, conversation and the nature keeps changing. Does that make me a bad person? I hope not. I would see that as signs of adaptability and flexibility.

        Your criticism sums to (pardon my paraphrasing): “she does not have good career prospects, and that is why I do not like her. She appears un-Indian in her videos and film. But she also appears too Indian (by singing in Hindi in an American single). She does not acknowledge struggles of being in the west. ” I see these comments less as criticism, more as accusation, embarrassment and discouragement. I agree she did not talk about struggles , but may be she did not have too many struggles – she did directly go and play lead roles. BTW, she is not India-American . She is an Indian person who has started working in the West only very recently. It is a little rich to criticise her for lack of opinion and also criticise her for the opinions she has expressed.

        Also coming back to the original point of the post: “I dislike Chopra because of the way her PR handled the affair with SRK because the SRK marriage was important for the Indian feminist”. The dislike seems to be based on supposed roles of a hypothetical PR team, amid the noise of an extra-marital affair between two major stars. How you isolate the actions of one team in that din is unclear. I wonder how you filtered the actions attributable directly to the team of Chopra? If at all, she should be given credit for keeping her career alive even after getting into the wrong books of a male superstar, in an industry where female stars were quite disposable until a few years ago.

        Peace 🙂

        Btw: let us also call out to Ananya for an unnecessarily aggressive comment. The author of this post has a right to write what the heck they want on their own blog. There is no need to be aggressive.


  10. Hi. So I’m not going to call you out on certain factual parts of your article, as others have already done, and I’m not anywhere near as educated on the gossip culture of Bollywood to even be able to do so. So I’ll stick to more, the way you’ve reached your conclusions. Keeping in mind that I’m not a Priyanka Chopra fan either, and am in the minority of people not showering her with praise for ‘Quantico’, as I point out on my own site:


    However, the fact that I still disagree with your over all position, right away refutes your updated assumption that an anti-Priyanka Chopra audience will agree with your points.

    You state multiple times that your conclusions are subjective, based on assumptions, derived from gossip, as presented by the tabloid media. So you can then also acknowledge, that your conclusions could very well could be so far removed from the truth, as to make them completely invalid. Yet you continue on to make even more assumptions and conjecture, that seem to be made to fit your own personal viewpoint and dislike for a specific actress.

    You say in one breath the various ways that the SRK-Gauri marriage could be a sham presented to the public, but then in another breath, talk about how him (hypothetically) cheating on her is like a personal betrayal to you. You acknowledge that you’ll never know the truth of what happened between SRK & PC as presented by the media, but then you go on to make detailed accusations directed at Priyanka Chopra, personally for the way the media presented the story / rumour. You credit Femina, and a misguided corporate perception of women as being responsible for the representation of Priyanka Chopra’s image to the public, but then personally blame her for stories about her in the media, perpetuated by her ‘people’. You hold up Sushmita Sen as a better non-traditonal representation of a modern South Asian woman for choosing to forego her career and instead choose to stay at home to raise a family, (which is the opposite) but then bring down Priyanka Chopra for being a career orientated woman, who has unanimously achieved success in two different entertainment industries, both commercially and critically, and on the cusp of starting her own production company?

    The presentation of your ‘facts’ are anything but. You acknowledge uncertainty of truth on one hand, but then make harsh judgements and assumptions based on that uncertainty. Your entire article is full of these contradictions, that just make it seem like you’re attempting to use logic and rationale to justify a very personal dislike for someone. Which is completely unnecessary, as you are entitled to your opinion, irrational or otherwise. Attempting to articulate your opinion and personal feelings, using information that is rumour, hearsay, anecdotal, unconfirmed and the truth of which can never be verified, (as you admitted) is pointless and undermines anything relevant that you may have to say in the future.


    • Thank you for your detailed comment, especially from the perspective of someone who both has no liking for Priyanka, and does not agree with my points.

      I just want to clarify two points in response. First, as I have said to many other commentators, I do not care about the “truth”, and think that is impossible to ascertain, and in fact is none of our business. But what you describe as the “tabloid media” is actually the only area I am focusing on, on purpose, because that is the only area I have access to. And what I am proposing is that, since in India stars have much greater control over PR machines, the version presented to the tabloids is a result of decisions Priyanka herself made about how this story should be reported. You can feel free to disagree with me about that, both that Priyanka would have any motivation for presenting herself in such a way, and that it was her PR group driving the story (some of the other commentators do disagree on these points, and defended their arguments eloquently), but I want to clarify that I am not, and would never, deal with this on the level of determining the “truth” or “reality” of events. Because that is a hopeless task. Moreover, it is inappropriate to criticize anyone, celebrity or not, on how the conduct their personal life. But I feel we can critique how they decide, as part of their profession, to present that personal life to the public.

      And secondly, and this is minor, I wanted to make sure you understood that I was complimenting Sushmita Sen for how un-traditional she is, not for how traditional. She is a single mother who works. She has never married, and lived openly with her boyfriend for several years. I applaud her for embracing her agency and sexuality. My issue with Priyanka (and again, this is subjective and open to interpretation, and some of the other commentators have already presented alternative views) is that she presents herself in a sexualized fashion, but has not acted as a spokeswoman for women’s sexual agency, which creates a conflicting message.


  11. Hey. No need to thank me. Spirited film discussions are great. Especially when they can be done civilly. Which is rare.
    Now, I tried not to bring up your previous responses to other commenters, as you somewhat avoided their direct criticisms to your article and instead just re-clarified your position. Similar to what you’ve done with my comment.

    In response: If you don’t care about the truth, and are forming an opinion out of assumed hypotheticals based on non-facts, then I circle back to how your entire opinion is then invalid.

    Media control: Your assumption is based on a generalization that Indian Film Industry stars have greater control over the PR machine. Some do, some don’t. Unless you have specific insider knowledge about how Priyanka Chopra conducts herself professionally in her professional relationships behind closed doors, you cannot form an opinion based on that generalization. Much less go off on an attack of her character.

    Also: the only area of professional actors’ lives that we, the audience, have 100% access to is their professional body of work; films. Marketing campaigns, PR events, interviews, talk show appearances are all supplemental to that aspect of their career. So to criticize the presentation of an actor’s ‘image’ beyond their work, is like firing an English teacher for not being able to chaperone the Prom.

    Sushmita Sen: I realize what you were complimenting. What I was pointing out however, is that choosing family over career, is the traditional mentality of what women have been expected to do. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But to contrast that to the professional International success of Priyanka Chopra, and say that Sen’s decision to stay at home and raise a family ‘ is a great way to be an example to young Indian girls’ is perpetuating the toxic chauvinistic attitudes of women that are far more damaging than a professional actress who is good at her job.

    Your selective choosing of certain actions of Sen’s and attributing her to be non-traditional, but also overlooking certain traits of Priyanka Chopra’s to accuse her of being misrepresentative, further makes it seem like you are just trying to find justifications that fit your pre-existing conclusions.

    Opinions are formed through some sort of basis of truth. If you openly acknowledge that you care nothing about the truth, or the reality of the situation, then any opinion you’ve formed is based on fiction. Rendering it about as valid as an opinion about how good a father Batman is.


    • So, first, I am all about having a discussion of how good a father Batman is! If such discussions are rejected, because they can’t find “truth”, than the entire internet would collapse! And that is the same level I am using here, something that is impossible to ever resolve, but can create an interesting discussion. The point isn’t to find the “truth”, the point is to consider how varying interpretations of a product reveal things about their creators, their audience, and society in general.

      To address your criticism, I would say that opinions are formed less through a basis in truth than through a particular background and perspective of the person holding the opinion. Therefore, my opinion in this piece is less about any “truth” I may know, and more about explaining how someone who is an Indian film fan, and a follower of Shahrukh Khan, may approach Priyanka Chopra. The title is “Why I hate Priyanka Chopra”, not “Why you Should Hate Priyanka Chopra” or “Why Priyanka Chopra is Hateful.” It really is just about my opinion, based on my perspective.

      Now, on to your particular points:

      Media control: I don’t know what particular control each star in India has, but I know in general it is more than any other celebrity of their stature would have elsewhere in the world. Priyanka in particular (and this is not an end all/be all argument, just something I can point out about her in particular) has one of the most active twitter accounts in Indian film, which seems to indicate some level of control and interest in reaching her public.

      Star image: Star image is not part of an actors job, but I would say that it is part of a Star’s job. If that differentiation makes sense? Especially in India, where the Stars are so widely known, and constantly reported on. And I would say that their interviews etc. are part of their body of work. To use your example, if an English teacher is wonderful at teaching their class, but refuses to chaperon Prom or take on other responsibilities outside of their limited area, then they should absolutely be fired! While a large part of their job is teaching an English class, part of it is also chaperoning Prom and doing everything else. In the same way, part of a movie star’s job is acting, but part of it is also giving interviews, presenting a particular face to the world, and maintaining that particular face. If they wanted to limit discussion to their acting, then they have the option of remaining primarily an actor rather than a “star”. Or, again using your English teacher analogy, if you just want to teach an English class, you can be an adjunct or a part-time. But if you want to be a full-time teacher with benefits and vacation days and so on, your job responsibilities will be expanded.

      Sushmita Sen: For India in particular, I feel that the message that a woman can raise daughters alone, even that daughters are a desirable thing to have, is important (as part of the general Save the Girl Child effort). Far from choosing an easy socially acceptable path, she actually had to fight a court case for the right to adopt as a young single woman. And also, again, Sushmita did not choose to retire and raise her children. She chose to have children, alone, and continue working. I know in other societies, a female celebrity adopting children sounds like pandering, but in India, it was shocking. That’s why I used Sushmita as an example of the most scandalous and progressive of the former Miss Indias, how one could take that level of fame, and then reject the processes that got her there. I have no issues with Priyanka working, being single, and having no children, I just wish she was more vocal about those choices and more aggressive in presenting them to young girls.

      So, going back to your conclusion, I agree that my opinion is exactly as valid as an opinion on how good a father Batman is. That is all it is meant to be. I have no power or authority or anything, I am just expressing my opinion on a constructed public narrative. I think explaining this opinion matters, because how the narrative is constructed can have an effect on the real world (just like Batman as an absentee or involved father may give comic book readers a model to follow in their own lives, or indicate how society in general has changed in its attitudes towards fatherhood). But I don’t think I can possibly create an opinion on such topics that is based on truth, because I reject the premise that opinions are based on “truth” rather than perspective.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Just adding to your points about Sushmita Sen and female agency.

        I did a lot of research on her when my friend was a launching a fansite for her and in a print interview she recalled a story where her father told her the vision he had for her future, which included a really successful career and she told him that she was going to be a mother first. Sushmita wanted to be a mother long before she wanted to be anything else and it wasn’t because she was conditioned in such a fashion by her family, who encouraged her to pursue her dreams (in fact, it was her mother who convinced her to enter Miss India after she retracted her application). After becoming Miss Universe, she did films and she didn’t shy away from ‘scandalous’ roles which so many actresses refused to do and instead of putting her eggs in one basket, she launched business venture: a jewellery boutique in Dubai, a restaurant and bar in Mumbai and an ad company.

        Sushmita is the epitome of a modern woman with female agency. She chose to be a mother and a business woman. She didn’t want to be a wife so she didn’t become one. She has chosen to be in the relationships she was in (some more scandalous than others) and she chose to end them when they didn’t work out, rather than marrying because it is what society demanded. She has taken responsibility for every decision she has made, even the less savoury ones. She didn’t blame other people for her choices.

        They key point in all of this is choice and categorical acceptance of it and that is what is at the crux of female agency: the right to choose. A woman shouldn’t have to reject motherhood because of some extreme notions of feminism, that in itself is taking away female agency because you are denying a woman the right to choose, even if it is being denied by fellow women.


  12. I hate PC too😷
    Reason 1 : She always pretends to have achieved everything by her hard work but the truth is that she mostly gets her way through the bedroom.She always runs behind successful men (infact taken men) to get work in B-town. Infact ,she got to sing in the album with Pitbull (which was an earsore btw) because of SRK’s influence. Otherwise why would Pitbull select her to sing along with him in spite of knowing that her earsore voice will make the album flop?
    Reason 2: She started the rumors of her affair with SRK during Don 2. She wants to remain in limelight even if it’s for wrong reasons.Though I agree that SRK too is at fault (infact bigger fault) but PC is the one who kept the affair rumors floating even after it ended through her PR machinery. PC even got an article published in which she is directly called Gauri insecure and insulted her.Like seriously! Can it get lower?
    Reason 3: I don’t think she is that great of an actress as she is made out to be. She acted well in only few movies. Her acting looks very rehearsed and lacks spontaneity. I watched the Quantico teaser 2…and her fake American accent made me cringe!😷 How do people even watch that show? I couldn’t bear her voice even in that one minute long teaser! She definitely got this show also through some powerful person’s influence. Otherwise the producers would have signed an actual Indo-American actress who could speak properly in American accent and not this PC who was as good as an unknown actress in America.


    • firstly why would pitbull litsen to srk?
      and who from bollywood is curently in the position to get anyone roles in the american tv , that to a lead ?
      she even bought the people’s choice award didnt she.
      and talking about the fake american accent , it was currently the most viewed show in america , and i think they care more about thier accent than you.


  13. I don’t like Priyanka for the reason’s below:-

    1. She is a Man-Eater
    – I don’t understand her obsession for liking or wanting to have a married man (Akshay Kumar, SRK, etc).

    2. Fake
    – She may have studied in USA but she tries too hard to not sound Indian but more American.

    3. Her Sluttyness.
    – She dresses like a slut. Always wanting to look sexy but never classy (it’s her wish but it’s disgusting).

    4. Arrogance.
    -There’s a difference between Confidence & Arrogance. Priyanka is too Arrogant.

    5. Forgets her roots.
    – Now that she’s gone to Hollywood, madam has seem to push Bollywood to the side & acts like she’s from Hollywood instead.

    6. Beyond Pathetic & etc.
    – She’s always trying to play Victim. She makes sure that people know that she’s a “Star”. She good at acting but Deepika Padukone is way better at acting than her!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.