Standup comic, Vir Das delivered his iconic monologue “Two Indias” in Washington DC on 12th November 2021, highlighting the contradictions that plague India today, which had essentially shown a mirror of the hypocrisy of the same. It did not take time for him to be labelled as an anti-national, conveying his disrespect for India on a global stage. His monologue did not fit into the assertive ideology of the ruling dispensation; it drew enormous criticism from the authorities and their sympathisers, ranging from verbal denunciations to scathing Twitter trolls and harassment. What was not at all well received by these self-appointed custodians was when Das remarked that “people worship women during the day but gangrape them at night”. A series of legal cases were initiated against the comedian for maligning the image of India on a global stage and insulting women in India. Threats of physical injury were also issued by other such groups. This is one such example of the threat that free speech, especially delivered by comedians and satirists face in new India, where thoughts that challenge authority and dare to question the ones in power about the socio-cultural realities, are fiercely suppressed.
The rise of assertive political ideologies throughout the world has almost always been accompanied by the stifling of the voices of resistance. Dissenters resort to a multitude of methods, ranging from protests and demonstrations to satire and comedy, to make their voices heard. Historically, the grim situations that have sparked off resistance, and the seriousness of the protestors’ claims and demands have often held back laughter. Sense of humour is also subjective and determined by circumstances, thereby running the risk of not being perceived by everyone alike. This, instead of uniting, may turn people against each other. Humour often acts as safety valves, lessening discontent and inhibiting other forms of protest. Nonetheless, satire has historically been applied as a tool of resistance. But the use of humour is not exclusive for dissenters. Even establishments, whether it be corporate production houses or the media, resort to humour to meet their ends. For example, scholarship has shown how American sitcoms have been effective in using satire to maintain existing social structures, by portraying them as inevitable. Nicholas Holm, Senior Lecturer of Media Studies at Massey University notes that satirical elements in television shows are no longer an echo of the suppressed voice of the people classes, but rather are squarely linked with the aims of managerial control in democratic capitalist societies. As a result, the inevitability of existing structures gets embedded in the psyche of the masses, and questions gradually cease to exist. This demoralises dissenters, which works for the establishment’s own benefit. The use of satire in shaping public opinion has not received the same critical scrutiny that other methods have, and thus its effectiveness has not been fully evaluated. Nonetheless, both establishments and dissenters resort to satire to further their objectives and reach their ends.
The history of satire in India dates to many centuries ago. Jagadesvara Bhattacharya’s Hasyarnava Prahasanam of the 14th century is one prominent example that celebrates political disorder characterizing the reign of a weak ruler. The legends of Akbar, Birbal and Mullah Dopeyaza are also a satirical reflection on the orthodoxy of the Ulemas and Islamic conservatives of the Mughal court as opposed to the integrative ideologies initiated by Akbar. Thus, in pre-colonial times, satire played a significant role in denouncing different forms of authority, and, through laughter, offered a brief relief from the chains of social and religious restraints. Contact with the colonizers brought in new changes in the cultural and literary domains, which were also reflected in the expression of humour. New forms of satirical writings and cartoons started to be increasingly used. Pamphlets served as an important instrument in conveying the messages of Swaraj, and fostered resentment towards the British colonial government. Many such pamphlets were circulated in Bihar in vernaculars during the Civil Disobedience Movement in the 1930s, and the rhetoric of local folk satires were used to build public opinion in support of the Civil Disobedience Movement even among the illiterate masses. In response, Lord Irwin revived the Press Act and promulgated the “Unauthorised News-sheets and Newspaper Ordinance, 1930” or the Press Ordinance to ban the circulation of these vernacular pamphlets. After Independence, notable Communists like Hemanga Biswas resorted to humorous melodies like the Mountbatten Mangalkavya to mock the transfer of power of 1947, which he perceived to be a “compromising attitude of the Congress towards British-American imperialism”.
Thus, to infer, India is no stranger to satire. It has been used as a powerful medium to highlight socio-political realities and express dissent. While satire has been employed for a long time, documented use of censorship is scarce and fragmented. Unlike present times, it was never a concerted effort. The rapidity with which present ruling dispensations censor humour is alarming. Be it Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra’s arrest in 2012 for forwarding an email containing a cartoon spoofing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, to the scathing attacks ushered on stand-up comedians like Munawar Faruqui, Kunal Kamra and Vir Das for their satirical takes on socio-political realities, censorship of satire is on the rise.
Recently, it is the stand-up comedians who are facing different kinds of censorship. Most of them take a political stance that is either critical of the government or the ideology that runs the government. The world is no stranger to the recent events that have unfolded in India, whether it be the constant targeting of religious minorities or the growth of ethnic nationalism. Secularism and plurality have been a field of mockery, and any voices raised against these recent developments are being enthusiastically put down. This is an uncomfortable reality for a country celebrated as the world’s biggest democracy. It is for the same reason why comics, who have satirically expressed their dissent against these recent developments, have received tremendous flak. Why are these realities uncomfortable? As Akhil Sood, cultural writer and columnist based out of Delhi, argues, “our instinct…is to reject the existence of anything we dislike, to deem it incorrect and dishonourable, to call it vile and disgraceful”. This attitude stems from conformism. Varun Grover, lyricist and comic, argued how conformism keeps the mind aloof from questioning. Conformism causes existing structures to embed into people’s mentality, effectively colouring them as inevitable and hence, any form of dissent that questions existing structures receives severe resistance from these mentalities.
The self-appointed custodians of national pride, to whom any question critical of the ruling dispensation is considered anti-national, have repeatedly targeted comedians. Needless to say, these groups often have the blessings of powerful politicians as well, who employ these groups to stifle opposition and further their political agendas. The attacks are often strategized beforehand and are well-coordinated; the apparent massive public outburst that immediately follows a comic’s performance is often not a spontaneous reaction of common people. The most controversial among those names is probably Munawar Faruqui, who was arrested in Madhya Pradesh and detained for over a month for alleged comments on certain Hindu deities. Later, the authorities confirmed that they had no evidence to substantiate their claims. Apart from state actions that are initiated by police and official statements of different political parties, other more demeaning extra-legal steps are undertaken by hundreds of different groups. The comedians, through their social media handles, are threatened of assault, rape, and death threats, against which the authorities are almost always reluctant to act. In the face of such threats from different right-wing outfits, organizers often cancel shows. Kunal Kamra, who was scheduled to perform in Noida on the 17th and 18th of September, 2022, had the show cancelled after right-wing organizations decided to protest against him whom they accused of allegedly insulting Hindu gods. A couple of weeks prior, Faruqui’s show was also cancelled following similar tensions.
The over-activism by these groups is threatening to the art of stand-up comedy, as it strikes right at the roots of artistic freedom of expression. The frankness and spontaneity that a comic requires to effectively convey humour remains absent. Nowadays, comics often get their skits scrutinized by lawyers before they are finally delivered to an audience or published online. This is detrimental to the art. To quote Kunal Kamra, the “immense beauty of laughter is being penalized and criminalized”.
Censoring humour should be evaluated by keeping the larger picture in mind. Censorship of any form is detrimental to a country’s democratic structure and undermines people’s freedom of expression and choice. It deters people from expressing themselves freely, even if it means criticizing the policy of the government. A demoralized opposition inevitably results in an autocratic setup. Favouring one set of thoughts and vehemently opposing the other takes away the plurality of thoughts necessary for the functioning of a healthy democracy. On the other hand, humour has been increasingly used by ruling dispensations to target opposition leaders in an attempt to delegitimize their voices. Members of the opposition, especially the prominent ones like Rahul Gandhi and others, have been extensively portrayed as a ‘pappu’ or naïve. A jibe that was once used by then Minister and former Vice President of India, M. Venkaiah Naidu, during a discussion in Parliament, was soon used by the ruling dispensation to mock Rahul Gandhi. He was portrayed as naïve, dumb and immature, and hence incapable of running the country. The same covert methods of Twitter attacks that are used to target comics were employed to poke fun at Gandhi, to delegitimize him as a leader, and to jeopardise his political future.
Thus, it can be argued that satire has historically played an important role in complementing resistance movements and conveying messages of dissent often more powerfully than other forms. Hence, autocratic ruling dispensations have always felt the need to suppress them. In India, comics critical of the government have received condemnation from self-appointed groups which often have politicians operating from behind the curtains. These attacks range from online abuse to threats of physical or sexual assault. The authorities have also participated proactively in suppressing these voices of dissent and quell all forms of resistance towards the government. This is not only detrimental to the art of stand-up comedy but also to the environment needed for a healthy democracy to operate and prosper. On the other hand, the same vigilante groups resort to derogatory humour to mock and delegitimize opposition political thoughts. Thus, it is no longer funny in India: comics live in the constant fear of censorship, threats and police action.
Sharanyo Basu
Sharanyo Basu is an undergraduate student of History at Presidency University, Kolkata. He is a history enthusiast with interests in social and cultural history, literature and films, and histories of interactions, conflicts and accomodations.