Advertisement

The second edition of the piece was heavily edited to remove the above excerpt, including any mention of Chopra as a “scam artist” or Jonas as a victim. In fact, entire paragraphs disappeared, including these:

Advertisement

The writer, Mariah Smith, is black, but the Cut’s editors, and their perspective, are mostly white. This likely contributed to their ignorance about Chopra’s worldwide fame, or that Bollywood dwarfs Hollywood by sheer size. While Hollywood nets more money (a fact partially attributed to the low cost of tickets in India), Bollywood is the world’s largest producer of films, churning out 1,602 in 2012, compared to the U.S.’s 476 films, with sales of 2.6 billion movie tickets annually in India. Chopra is a rarity in an industry built on nepotism, rising from middle-class obscurity to become one of its biggest female stars with a 20-year career that is almost as old as Jonas himself. Her net worth is more than his. The presumption that Chopra is chasing Jonas (or any other white American) for his success is absurd.

The piece also belies an ignorance over Indian customs and traditions. It acknowledged Chopra as a brown Indian woman, yet hoisted upon her the rules and expectations of Western customs. It is written skeptically of both the multi-day affair that characterizes all traditional Hindu weddings, and the fast nature of their engagement. But in India, where arranged marriages are common and engagements are relatively short, Chopra’s decision isn’t particularly noteworthy (her own parents were engaged 10 days after meeting each other). The piece’s only valid point of cynicism around the engagement and wedding, that the couple is posting SponCon and “finding ways for their relationship to make them money,” is not exactly remarkable. But rather than delve into the culture of influencers monetizing their most private moments, the piece instead fell back on nasty stereotypes about brown immigrant women who marry white American men.

Advertisement

Indian and Indian-American outlets, meanwhile, have expressed skepticism that Jonas can keep up with Chopra. Brown Girl Magazine recently posted an article explaining Bollywood to Nick Jonas that begins:

Dear Nick Jonas,

The Brown Girl community is pleased to inform you that you have WON THE LOTTERY. Confused? Didn’t buy a ticket? We’re not referring to money, but to the Indian goddess who you’ll soon be able to call your wife – Priyanka Chopra.

Advertisement

Every Indian woman I have spoken to about Chopra and Jonas—which includes every Indian woman I know, including my therapist, who promptly said she’d be reaching out to her Indian girlfriends to process the news—has pretty much the same reaction, which plays out something like this:

Who is Nick Jonas?

*looks up Nick Jonas*

Does this white boy understand that he is marrying into royalty?

*ponders for a moment*

I... guess if Priyanka sees something in him....

Look, if he fucks this up, he’s dead.

As an Indian-American woman, it is exciting to see one of our entertainment icons celebrated in the mainstream publications read by my non-Indian friends. Though we are slowly gaining visibility in the media, Chopra’s wedding—and all of the manic media coverage around it—is the first time we’re seeing an Indian woman in the spotlight in this country. (Previously, we were most identifiable as Apu from the Simpsons). That an Indian woman is dominating news controlled by white outlets is hugely affirming, and openly celebrates a culture that most of us have to cultivate in private. The Cut’s piece, though just one miserable bad take on the internet, is emblematic of the type of ignorance that we continue to fight.

Advertisement

One Tuesday, after major backlash from the Indian-American community and other publications, the Cut gutted the essay and posted this update, leaving the “Scam” tag intact:

Advertisement

Early Wednesday morning, Chopra’s soon-to-be sister-in-law, Game of Thrones star Sophie Turner, tweeted disapprovingly about the post:

Advertisement

By mid-Wednesday morning, the Cut deleted the essay entirely with a note that said, “Upon further editorial review, we found this story did not meet our standards. We’ve removed it and apologize.” The tags that remain: “Searching” and “Culture.”