Here's what makes the craze about Pakistani chaiwala Arshad Khan so disturbing

Ranjan Crasta @jah_crastafari | First published: 19 October 2016, 21:29 IST
Jiah Ali/Instagram

For 3 days now, he has stared at me - a Pakistani phantom with piercing blue eyes haunting my social media feed. For 3 days, I have acknowledged his presence, avoided his gaze and gone about my day, refusing to be drawn into the mass hysteria surrounding him.

It's not because I don't acknowledge his good looks. It's because the way media (both social and traditional) has gone about "appreciating" him makes me very uncomfortable. It sticks out jarringly for its objectification and the exoticisation of 'the other'.

Objectification isn't a one-way street

Instagram constantly throws up new candidates for the "Internet's hottest *insert vocation here*". In most cases, they are Instagram users who are able to assert both their identities as well as their looks. This is why, when they blow up, it is not problematic as they are able to exercise and enforce their agency. Arshad Khan's case is strikingly different.

Also read -Meet the internet's latest craze: Khoudia Diop. Tall, dark, and beautiful

For starters, the way Khan, the 'chaiwala', has been treated in the media has robbed him of any shred of agency. For proof, one needn't even look past the headlines - "'Hot' Pakistani 'chai wala' is Internet sensation"[The Hindu], "This chai wala from Islamabad is the internet's latest crush" [Dawn] and the puke-worthy "There's hot tea in town" [Hindustan Times]. These headlines rob Khan of the most basic form of agency - a name.

Even in the original Instagram post he has no name.

Within this gaze, Khan's only capital is his looks. His story, his personality, heck, the most obvious question of all - is his chai any good?, are all things that have completely been ignored in our objectification of the man.

Even pieces aimed at providing facts about the man never go beyond the surface. After all, he's just another hot piece of ass, right? It's logic that would've raised the hackles of the liberal brigade had a woman been the subject, but it doesn't in the case of Khan - because he's a man.

"Objectifying a man does not make it reverse objectification. Objectification isn't gender specific."

Objectification may be a concept that is central to the feminist movement. It is something that happens to women every day across the world. However, it is not exclusive to women. When objectification happens to a man, it is still objectification. It's not even 'reverse objectification', there's no such thing, because objectification is not gender specific.

Anyone arguing that it's okay when the person on the receiving end of objectification is male - because men haven't had to suffer the oppression women have endured - is misguided. It's like arguing that it's all right to have white slaves because they haven't traditionally been victims of slavery. Anyone who can claim it as "feminist" is wrong, because feminism is about equality, not perpetrating that which you wouldn't like done to you.

A darker, classist aspect