Serious business of comedy
Till the other day, he was social media’s blue-eyed boy. Today, he is everybody’s pet peeve, dubbed as Internet’s most disgusting outcome. Ranveer Allahbadia’s comments on Samay Raina’s YouTube show ‘India’s Got Latent’ have not only outraged the ‘morally superior’, but it seems the Supreme Court too. While granting Allahbadia interim relief from arrest, the apex court has bashed him almost as if one would reprimand a schoolboy. Only, the observations perhaps have far-reaching consequences.
Even before the court observed, “There is something very dirty in his mind that has been vomited by way of this programme”, he had already been labelled a pervert by voluble TV anchors. There is no denying that Allahbadia’s comments were both unfunny and distasteful and he is no comic either. Only, it’s not the first time the question — ‘where society should draw the line between free speech and vulgarity’ — raised by the two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has found traction. Comics have been on the social radar almost coinciding with their rising graph of popularity. ‘Mind your dirty language,’ the universal cry of the moral brigade, invariably finds an echo. Back in 2015, the All India Bakchod (AIB) came under fire for its roasting ways and found itself amid a barrage of criticism as well as a target of several FIRs.
Kunal Kamra, too, has been in the eye of the storm for vocalising his anti-establishment views. Vir Das’ intelligent humour has irked many on the right side of the right-wing. His ‘Two India’ speech became a convenient tool to bash him and question his nationalism. Till he won an Emmy International and silenced his critics, he was another one of trolls’ favourite whipping boys.
Does humour have its limits? Yes, say not only the easily-provoked listeners who suffer from herd mentality, but a whole lot of comics too. ‘Comedy is not just serious business but a sacred one, not to be trifled with’ is the collective response of many in the business of laughter. “The humour that sails on the oars of abuses and vulgarity is no comedy at all,” asserts Sunil Pal, comedian and actor. Winner of ‘The Great Indian Laughter Challenge 2005’, he even goes on to call stand-up comics who employ short-cut measures of obscenity and nudity to fame as ‘kalankaar’ and not ‘kalakaar’.
“The first thought that comes to mind is that it’s certainly not comedy. Humour, like any other art, requires honing and sharpening,” feels yet another popular comedian, Jaswant Singh Rathore, who learnt the art of comic timing from his guru, Chacha Raunki Ram. Blessed with an innate funny bone, noted comedian and actor Gurpreet Ghuggi goes one step further and argues, “If you are a performer, you ought to know the syllabus of comedy and can’t go beyond the limits prescribed by it.” Just as the licence to drive is not one to kill, he believes that freedom of expression is not a permit for claptrap. They all hail the humour of men like the late humourist Jaspal Bhatti and point out how effortlessly he minted satire with rib-tickling barbs, exposing societal flaws but not once crossing the line.
Sanjay Hegde, senior advocate, Supreme Court, however, observes, “What people forget is that it’s not acceptable speech which requires protection, but one which is unacceptable.” He reiterates the words of Voltaire, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ What to talk of defending the rights of those we perceive are not in alignment with our thought process, as a nation, are we prone to selective outrage, and that too way out of proportion at times?
Politicians often get away with murder. In their public speeches, they make the most disparaging remarks about women, religion, and even justify heinous crimes like rape and often utter the reprehensible. Hegde reminds, “But then, we don’t like to take on the powerful.” Artists, on the other hand, are an easy target. Is only blaming them for our moral depravity like missing the woods for the trees? Many point fingers at the new crop of stand-up comics for trivialising humour. But filmmaker Anees Bazmee, who has given us many a laugh riot comedies, states, “Stand-ups are a talented bunch.” He singles out the talent and writing of many like Varun Grover and Munawar Faruqui. Yes, the same Faruqui who was arrested for a joke he never told.
Should religion and sex be taboo in humour? While Bazmee does not defend Allahbadia, yet he adds, “Sex is a natural thing, so why can’t it be a subject for jokes?” However, it’s not just the Hindutva brigade that believes the Indian culture is unlike the Western, where irreverent humour is a norm. Even many comics argue, “Western parameters of comedy can’t be applied to our society. We Indians are emotional people and our sentiments are easily hurt. Our job is not to enrage but provide succour.” Hegde argues how by its very nature, the art of humour lies in its shock value. No doubt, freedom of speech has limits and the Constitution itself lays down restrictions, but he cautions, “These can’t be used to eat away the rights.”
Could the present hullabaloo then become reason enough to further curtail the rights of artistes? Rathore shares how each time they do a show for a channel, many dos and don’ts are handed out. “There is a whole list of words we can’t use and people (powers that be) we can’t make fun of.” Could the Raina-Allahbadia incident further pare down what they can say? Could this be an inflection point where comics will have to mind their comedy and bear the consequences of not toeing the social/political line? Surprisingly, Ghuggi asserts, “It could be a cleansing moment for comedy and while some comics could suffer individually, the cause of comedy will be a gainer.”
Hegde, however, believes, “People like Dhruv Rathee and Ravish Kumar could become the real victims of the Allahbadia controversy.” Singer Vishal Dadlani is not alone in thinking that the uproar over Allahbadia could become a ruse for controlling online content and pushing the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024. Never mind that Internet is ungovernable and even ‘walled gardens’ can’t quite work in this realm. Ghuggi, all for prescribing limits, agrees that measures for uncensored Internet content will not be easy to devise. Bazmee anyway is a votary of creative freedom. Busy writing a sequel to his laugh-a-minute comedy ‘No Entry’, he believes there is a censor within him “and in all of us, which we should pay heed to”. For now, even the Central government has asked the OTT platforms to follow age-based classification and self-regulation.
The debate on freedom and limits is not new. Noam Chomsky, social critic and linguist, once said, ‘If you’re in favour of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for the views you despise.’ British politician Winston Churchill remarked, ‘Hardly a day passes without free speech being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.’
Somewhere between these two contrasting viewpoints lies the need to be mindful and sagacious in not only what we say, but how we react and respond.
Nonsense begetting an equally nonsensical response is as regrettable. Besides, as Hegde avers, “After all, one who says nothing stupid will not say anything profound either…” Silence can be golden, provided “people choose it of their own volition, but they can’t be silenced into submission”.For now, Raina and Allahbadia join the long list of those facing infamy not only by select sections of media and public, but also the law. Speaking before thinking is possibly a transgression but not an unpardonable crime a sincere apology won’t cover up. Or time. American satirist Lenny Bruce, labelled a ‘sick comic’ in his lifetime, went on to earn the number-three spot on the list of the ‘100 greatest stand-ups of all time’. Pay heed to what he said: “The ‘what should be’ never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no ‘what should be’, there is only what is.’
