Most nasty review of Chetan Bhagat's new book

The pain from waxing and an electric shock from a hair-dryer give Marshall the unnatural capacity to tap into the innermost thoughts of all girls.

The pain from waxing and an electric shock from a hair-dryer give Marshall the unnatural capacity to tap into the innermost thoughts of all girls.

Even if one disregards that waxing is something guys increasingly get done too (and not only the metrosexual type); a man becoming grown to comprehend girls is like a girl shaving her head to understand men. The book's "feminist" protagonist, Radhika Mehta, sees waxing as step one in her metamorphosis from a nerdy moth into a seductive butterfly.

So far so awful.

The central plot of this novel, Bhagat's seventh, is successful women like Radhika have difficulty in finding men who aren't endangered by her success. She states in the opening chapter that the reader will not enjoy her because, "One, I make lots of money. Two, I have an opinion on everything. Three, I Have had sex. You'll be fine with all this now if I was a man. But since I'm a girl these three things do not really make me overly likeable do they?"

Based on Bhagat all Indian women desire a swayamvar to make up their mind.

Radhika's oh-so-amazing candour could have been admirable if it were simply present elsewhere in the publication. This opener made for a great hook in the blurb and in the novel's promos, but unfortunately, the rest of the novel finds her grovelling to men in her life. You know those girls who always assert that "I am not like other ladies! I drink, smoke and party!"? Radhika's faux bravado is equally as bothersome. You know who don't call themselves a nerd? Nerds.

Her occupation in the Distressed Debt section at Goldman Sachs is where her character actually starts to take shape. Bhagat worked for a decade at Goldman, so I'm sure the heroine of his novel working at the Best Firm in the World is simply a coincidence.

It's possible for you to tell that this is a book written by an IIM grad because, at times, it seems like a vehicle for product placement. The characters don't simply take a flight, they fly Cathay Pacific. The lingerie is Triumph. The hotels are Marriott and Shangri-La. The restaurants are Dishoom, Harry's and Nerai. Flower bouquets from Armani. The fitness center wear is Nike. In the puerile imagination of Bhagat , even a romantic walk in Central Park requires a reference of the Apple store.

Their incessant mention only makes one hate her for her affluenza although these brands are, maybe, assumed to be markers of Radhika's accomplishment. Bret Easton Ellis shows his protagonist's brand devotion as a symptom of his neurosis and urban malaise. Chetan Bhagat seems to mention his taste to be showcased by the brands for the High Life; by making his character an overachiever, he's really stroking his own ego.

Potential suitors are shot down by her because she does not need to marry individuals who have middle class businesses such as drugstores or restaurants. As a reader, you do not find her unlikable because she's sex or makes money or has opinions but because she's become a stuck-up snob who has forgotten her humble origins.

In his previous novels, Bhagat presents the middle class Indian male as a sensitive type who only needs to hang out with his buddies and get married to a nice girl after studying in highest education institutions. In One Girl that is Indian, he had to pitch the middle class humility in order to adapt a powerful, independent woman. But because this powerful, independent girl is as big a douche bag as the strong, independent men she summons this experiment has seemingly neglected against. In the way everyone is always congratulating Radhika for coming up that the Class 10 Trade student could come up with moreover, the publication is silly.

Hell, even viewers of Shark Tank would make better financial projections.

You can not call your book "feminist" simply because it features a girl. If Radhika is a feminist then why did she agree to an arranged marriage in the first place? Where was when she was getting her feminism waxed merely to please a guy? Where was the feminism when she kept moving between cities to break free from guys? And finally when her future groom mansplains that the right term is humanist, why does she agree with him and that feminism is misguided?

In the long run, it doesn't matter whether Radhika is a feminist or nerd or an investment banker because, according to Bhagat, all Indian girls want a swayamvar to make their head up.

Another cringeworthy aspect is how Radhika keeps referring to herself and the other girls as "sluts" (sample: "Instead be a spent and finished slut than the usual good but disappointed Indian girl."). That is in poor taste because the author is trivialising the term.

Radhika's feminism is all bark and no bite because she's the creation of Chetan Bhagat aka Mr I-don't-see-why-odd-even-rule-doesn't-use-to-girls. This paint-by-numbers feminism is made even more cardboard with Bhagat conveniently using a nervous, tomboyish figure whom he can become a confident swan in the span of 272 pages. The Bell Jar it largely definitely is not.

For all its feminist aspirations, One Indian Girl is a dildo of a novel.

You know that irritating man who totally sides with your wife/girlfriend when the two of you are having an argument? He will invariably say things like, "Girls are the future" or "We wouldn't last one day as girls" or my personal favourite, "Women are complicated creatures", to win brownie points because he is a turd. Unexpectedly, your partner looks at you and says "why can't you be more like him?" etc etc. Chetan Bhagat is being that guy because female-centric books become female-centric movies.

The fact that Kangana Ranaut was at the book launch and claimed to have wept at some parts of the novel says everything you must understand. It is just a shame that we've arrived at this peculiar junction where it takes the male vantage point of an Amitabh Bachchan or Chetan Bhagat to dish feminism to girls.

Chetan Bhagat is n't hated by me, I just hate everything he stands for. I hate his cabbage mediocrity. I hate how he's fooled an entire generation of readers into reading dreadful publications. Most of all, I loathe his Seth Ghanshyam Das smile; it is since they're busy writing something of material in contrast to making appearances on Nach Baliye the kind of smile which is missing on the faces of most writers.

The film director John Waters once said, "If you go home with somebody, and they do not have novels, do not f*ck them". I wonder what John's stance would be on people who have Chetan Bhagat novels.