Outrage, obscenity and our selective morality

ILIKE humour, though I could never quite take to the phenomenon of ‘stand-up comedy’. Whenever I chanced to watch stand-up comedians, I often felt the humour didn’t land well. Comedy is a tough act to pull off, comic timing is supposed to be the key, though that appears to have been replaced by a generous use of expletives to generate audience reaction.

I am aware of the popularity of the genre and I believe in “In joco veritas — In jest, there is truth.” Since my knowledge in this form of truth-telling is rather limited, I must admit I had no idea of who Ranveer Allahbadia was, except when I first saw his name in the news. I assumed him to be a poet. His utterances were far from poetic, though he seems to have taken the liberty of ‘poetic licence’ very seriously.

I was told that Allahbadia also goes by the name of ‘Beer Biceps’ and is a popular podcaster who has gained political heft of the right hue. He manages to get people in high places on his show. Even PM Narendra Modi shared the stage with him at an award function and had a long conversation with the podcaster. But now that Allahbadia is running for cover, the regime he pandered to doesn't have his back.

His joke (I still haven’t got the joke!) on a YouTube show, India’s Got Latent, about parents and sexual intercourse has ‘offended’ many Indians, who have liberally got FIRs registered in several states under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indecent Representation of Women Prohibition Act, 1986. (Incidentally, another comic, Kanan Gill, reportedly made the same ‘joke’ a decade ago and no one paid any attention).

Following threats and charges, Allahbadia approached the SC for relief, which was granted to him, though his freedom of speech was restricted and he was made to surrender his passport. It is now that the plot thickens.

The Supreme Court inadvertently, or with clear intentions, stoked a dangerous fire when Justice Surya Kant told the Additional Solicitor General: “We would like you (government) to do something, if the government is willing to do something, we are happy. Otherwise, we are not going to leave this vacuum and barren area the way it is being misused by so-called YouTube channels and YouTubers.”

The government didn't waste time and has already announced the strengthening of its grip over OTT platforms that had in some ways succumbed to censorship. The government has now asked OTT platforms to adhere to an age-based classification of content, ensure self-regulation and follow the Code of Ethics prescribed in the IT Rules 2021. This is only a prelude and the parliamentary panel has asked the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to submit a note on the efficacy of the existing laws and suggest amendments to bring online platforms under legal scrutiny.

Over the last few years, many journalists have taken to such platforms to produce news related content, much to the ire of the current regime. YouTubers like Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh and Apoorva Makhija have been served notices by the Assam police. It is not surprising, given that the CM of the BJP-ruled state has been proactive in grabbing attention that gives him some national space and allows him to play to the gallery.

Once free speech is restricted, it will set a dangerous precedent. Whether it is Allahbadia or Umar Khalid, everyone should have their right to free speech. It is almost Faustian how everyone in this matter is happy to defend free speech, but is still putting on record how offended they are by his remarks.

The controversy has singed not just the contours of free speech but has also invaded another space. “The words you have chosen, parents will be ashamed, sisters will be ashamed. The entire society will feel ashamed. The pervert mind. These are the levels of depravity you and your henchmen have gone,” said Justice Kant. He not only led the government to twist its censorship knife on freedom of expression but his observations on obscenity also take us back to colonial India. Colonial India continues to survive through laws on sedition, obscenity, blasphemy, etc.

It is telling how Saadat Hasan Manto’s comment on cases of obscenity against him still rings relevant: “If you find my stories intolerably obscene, it is because the society you live in is obscene.”

Manto had frequent run-ins with the law over his writings. The colonial state tried to punish and silence him in line with the emergency legislation of the period. His friend Ismat Chugtai was also summoned under the same charges for her story Lihaaf. The court could not quite define ‘obscene’, though an attempt was made. As a magistrate in Lahore put it: “The test of obscenity in all cases is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.”

Obscenity is not explicitly defined under the criminal law or the IT Act 2000. The erotic art of Khajuraho and Konark may appear obscene to some, but we have lived through centuries with erotica in public view.

I have not understood why the depiction or mere mention of sex offends the average Indian even though there is only an occasional outrage over routine sexual assault. Or, why hate speech is not considered obscene.

Justice Krishna Iyer attempted to articulate this grey zone in Raj Kapoor & Others vs State (1979), where the court quashed criminal proceedings against the makers of the film, Satyam Shivam Sundaram. He observed: “The relation between reality and relativity must haunt the Court’s evaluation of obscenity, expressed in society’s pervasive humanity, not law’s penal perspective. Social scientists and spiritual scientists will broadly agree that man lives not alone by mystic, squints, ascetic chants and austere abnegation but by luscious love of beauty, sensuous joy of companionship and moderate non-denial of normal demands of the flesh.”

While the jury on obscenity will continue to seek refuge under legalese, free speech is slowly but steadily being chained and gagged.

As an aside, Allahbadia may have truly assumed the role of ‘disruptor of the year’ (an award he won last year) for shifting the focus from the Maha Kumbh, where lives have been lost and there is an alert for toxic water.

He may have done the PM a favour by distracting the bad press on Kumbh, but will the joke now be on free speech?