Tanmay Bhat has every right to mock Lata Mangeshkar and Sachin Tendulkar. But a little sensitivity wouldn’t hurt.
Is comedian Tanmay Bhat’s video-spoof depicting a trash-talking Sachin Tendulkar and Lata Mangeshkar cause for offence? Before addressing this question, we may have to ask another one: Is it funny? The video shows Bhat playing Tendulkar and Mangeshkar. “Tendulkar” is upset about Vinod Kambli’s statement that Virat Kohli is ten times better than him, and he’s asking the public if they feel the same. “Mangeshkar” endorses Kambli’s opinion. A peeved “Tendulkar” tells her, “You are 5000 years old, so please stay the f*** out of this.” Unfazed, she sings her hit songs – only, the lyrics are modified into insults. He retorts that her face looks like it’s been kept in water for eight days. She gives him the middle finger.
I did not find any of this amusing, and it’s not because I revere Tendulkar and Mangeshkar. I don’t think anyone is above parody, and people who’ve achieved so much in life – love; fame; adulation; money; the honorific of a living legend, burnished by a Bharat Ratna – should certainly be able to brush aside the odd barb. At an awards show last year, the comedian Sugandha Mishra brought the house down mimicking Mangeshkar, whose speaking voice, as she’s grown older, has begun to remind one of a three-year-old who swallowed a squeaky toy. The audience was full of industry insiders – actors, singers – and everyone laughed. On camera. Mishra got some flak later, but the incident did not blow up into a controversy. In other words, Anupam Kher, self-appointed custodian of all things Indian, did not issue this tweet with smoke spewing out of his ears: “I am 9 times winner of #BestComicActor. Have a great sense of humor. But This’s NOT humor. #Disgusting&Disrespectful.”
For once, I am going to play devil’s advocate and try to see things from Kher’s viewpoint. I don’t think the video is #Disgusting&Disrespectful, but it seems to have no real point beyond provoking outrage. (And Bhat is too clever not to have anticipated these reactions. He got what he wanted: a video that went viral in a way it might not have had he spoofed, say, Ravi Shastri and Anuradha Paudwal.) Bhat is not wrong to have made the video. He’s not wrong to have acted on an impulse to make roast beef from a couple of sacred cows. His sin, if one wants to call it that, is that he did not live up to his job description. He’s a comedian. He’s supposed to make us laugh. Even given the extraordinarily subjective nature of comedy, I cannot imagine too many people being tickled by this display of second-rate mimicry and third-rate writing. Among the many hysterical tweets denouncing the video was this gem: “Show me humor in Tanmay Bhatt’s video on Sachin and Lata Di, I’ll show you a mechanical engineer with girlfriend.”
I feel odd not being unconditionally on Bhat’s side because I am a card-carrying believer in the freedom of speech, even if – or especially now that – the Supreme Court has said that the “right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other.” It sounds like a directive from North Korea. Aaron Sorkin’s great line from The American President comes to mind: “You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.”
But at what point does humour tip over into insensitivity? We are too vast, too diverse a people to be truly united by humour – unless it is just banana-peel comedy – and even the same people may react differently to different kinds of “defamation.” Tamilians react with exasperation when Shah Rukh Khan, playing Shekhar Subramaniam, tops his noodles with curd. The same Tamilians note, with a sense of pride, how Rajinikanth memes break the Internet. Because this isn’t a mockery of the man. It’s a gentle ribbing of his screen persona. Bhat’s video, on the other hand, gets personal in painfully unfunny ways. Mocking what a celebrity does is par for the course. Make fun of Mangeshkar, by all means. Make fun of her high-pitched voice. Make fun of her career that remained in the pink of health long after her vocal cords went on life support. But mocking what one is doesn’t feel fair. Mangeshkar cannot help the way she looks. She cannot help being 86 years old. Telling her – as Bhat did in the video – that “Jon Snow died, so should you” is just someone saying, “I’m so cool, I can make Game of Thrones references.”
I admit that the apoplexy over this silly video is like training a howitzer on a housefly. I admit that our country, today, is too thin-skinned. It’s also troubling to note that liberals, who should know better, are getting to be as touchy as conservatives, picking on every small thing (“Indus Valley gave us the word ‘industry’”) instead of laughing it off. But it’s important to recall Charlie Hebdo. There are rights and there is decorum – and even Bhat knows this. Following the controversy surrounding All India Bakchod’s (the comedy collective Bhat co-founded) roast of popular Bollywood stars and directors, the outfit made this statement: “We hope it’s clear by now that we never write with the aim of hurting people.” In other words, even these nihilists are aware of the concept of “hurt.” But who defines “hurt”? Are we saying that ad hominem attacks, in the guise of humour, are okay? So a Nirbhaya joke – would that come under free speech? A girl who’s been violated by an iron rod walks into a bar…
Bhat’s video is another reminder that there are two distinct Indias today. One is the Westernised India that wants India to be like the US or the UK (in their heads, they may already be living in that India), and thinks Saturday Night Live-style skits – the kind peddled by Tanmay Bhat and his cohorts, where anything can be said about anyone – are cool. The other is the Indian India, where Lata Mangeshkar is Mata Saraswati incarnate. It would help if both Indias were just a little more understanding of each other. This isn’t a plea for Bhat to apologise to Anupam Kher, or for Anupam Kher to retract his statements on Bhat. They are too irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, in a country that has far bigger issues to get outraged about. But this fracas is also a timely reminder that in a country as diverse as ours, it wouldn’t hurt to be a little – just a little bit – sensitive.
An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2016 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Anuja Chandramouli
June 1, 2016
Kudos BR! This is such a balanced and beautifully written piece. It is good to know that there are some amoung us Indians who are capable of rationale and putting thoughts across with a modicum of cool and calm.
Seriously, we could be so much more effective as a nation if we stop frothing at the mouth every time we get pissed off over issues whether it is the violation of a young girl on a bus or Sunny Leone’s right to bare her breasts and make a conscious effort to be a little more sensible, reasonable and proactive.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Supertramp
June 1, 2016
I think both parties know what they are doing, and people like Anupam Kher has the ability to make any issue is about them( read right wingers). If this has been an isolated incident I would have tried to understand the view point of Sachin/Lata supporters, and even while championing free speach I find some of Tanmay’s joke’s unfunny and offensive. But being unfunny or crass particularly in this case warrant a reaction like this?, if he mocked some other cricketer say Dhoni he would have got cheers, or someone like Kapil Sharma mocking Lata would elicit different reactions. Sachin nazis don’t care what others say about him for they would attack anyone who has he-is-no-god opinion about him( That includes cricket lovers like me), remember the Maria Sharapova incident? And people like Anupam Kher has missing the forest for the trees ability to twist everything in their favor. Eventually we are all discussing was it mutton or beef instead of talking about the murder that occurred. Making fun of icons is a 1% elitist level issue and far too much time is spend on it. Perhaps that exactly is what RWs want. So even if I find Tanmay Bhat unfunny and disgusting my opinion always fall on that side of the spectrum. That doesn’t mean I can’t criticize him for making jokes about babies, north easterners or Lata’s old age, which those who fall farther from the spectrum would never do. Cheers 🙂
LikeLike
Sudhir Srinivasan
June 1, 2016
Great balanced write-up, Baddy. I found myself wishing it were funnier too, and feel the same weirdness about not being completely in his corner. I’m more on his side, of course, than on the other, but really really wish the jokes were funnier.
Ad-hominem and humour work, but when there isn’t much humour, the ad-hominem stands isolated, waiting to be picked apart.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Baradwaj Rangan wrote:
> brangan posted: “Tanmay Bhat has every right to mock Lata Mangeshkar and > Sachin Tendulkar. But a little sensitivity wouldn’t hurt. Is comedian > Tanmay Bhat’s video-spoof depicting a trash-talking Sachin Tendulkar and > Lata Mangeshkar cause for offence? Before addressing th” >
LikeLike
Karthik
June 1, 2016
Hmmm… interesting. So, it took a Tanmay mimicking ST and LM to call for sensitivity and not a Kapil Sharma (who, I’d wager, is being seen my a LOT more people than Tanmay) steamrolling over women, LGBT, transgenders etc night after night.
LikeLiked by 9 people
satishkvasan
June 1, 2016
Once upon a time, we used at laugh at ourselves, bhat (pun intended) now you need to find a bakra.
Once upon a time, you used to raise a toast to achievers, Bhat now you Roast!
Jokes apart, you are spot on when you talk about the 2 Indias.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srikanth Govindan
June 1, 2016
For me, the video was the worst level of comedy. It was disgusting to the core. Whether the media has over hyped it or not, I would prefer not to watch either the guy’s videos or theirs (AIB) hereafter as I can very much guess this is their understanding of comedy. Mimicry is fine but stooping down to this level is terrible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
aravind86
June 1, 2016
Extremely well written, among all the supporting and accusing articles floating around!
On another note, Tanmay Bhat has indeed arrived, with even BR writing about him! 😀
LikeLike
rothrocks
June 1, 2016
I disagree because (a) on a personal note I am absolutely disgusted by Anupam Kher and his hollow nationalism so don’t mind anything that gives him a rise (may the lord forgive me but I was actually a fan once) and (b) how long are they going to take to grow up? I think when a baby starts throwing a tantrum the best bet is to simply ignore it instead of appeasing it. This is what our govt should do and by failing to do so, they make us more and more juvenile by the day. Even if the video is insensitive surely that is for the targets of the joke to decide. Why is everyone rushing to give Tanmay Bhatt a piece of their mind? Are there really so many velas in this nation?
LikeLiked by 4 people
udhaysankar
June 1, 2016
“Jon Snow died, so should you” is just someone saying, “I’m so cool, I can make Game of Thrones references.”….
Appo neenga GOT paakureenga. :-).
If you do watch, two or three sentences on your thoughts about it would be highly obliged.
LikeLiked by 2 people
geethagopal2014
June 1, 2016
I do not agree with anuja chandramouli. We should be pisssed off and angry if a young girl is violated that too brutally.some icidents deserve suitable reaction and “frothing in the mouth” and more is needed. We can’t be cool about everything. Pls do not give examples which hurt.
LikeLiked by 6 people
the beard guy
June 1, 2016
Reblogged this on The Diary Of A Philosophical Freak.
LikeLike
Vikram s
June 1, 2016
BR, very balanced write-up. A few points from my side.. the video is UNFUNNY…. and, by that token, it doesn’t merit an iota of response (from the liberal kind or conservative types) because, the more we discuss it, the more we help in prolonging it’s life…instead, it deserves a quick & ignominous burial…
LikeLiked by 1 person
happiestdk
June 1, 2016
Hi Brangan.
I always enjoy reading you but I only happen to comment when I disagree. And this time I do.
While I agree that people SHOULD be sensitive, that is such a subjective standard that comedians, film makers and writers are always likely to ruffle some feathers. So while I may find a sexist joke annoying, I might be willing to laugh at Big Bang Theory’s mocking of Stephen Hawking’s disability. And someone else may find that to be #Disgusting&disrepectful (even if Hawking himself does not).
So yes I find it quite easy to side with Tanmay Bhat here, not because his sketch is funny but because nobody should face the threat of arrest/ lynching because they said something that annoyed some people.
Also it IS quite impossible IMHO to anticipate what joke will get people’s goat. I have seen comments on your reviews where people take offence at stuff you probably did not mean (as your comments generally hasten to clarify). So you should understand this better than others.
For the record I also don’t think this offence taking has to do anything with 2 Indias. Unless both those Indias have the time and money to be on Snapchat/ Twitter.
Lastly, I thought bringing in Charlie Hebdo was uncalled for. But since I am not quite certain of what you meant, I will refrain from outraging on the basis of what I think you meant.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Sudha
June 1, 2016
I think Bhat has the right to make the crappy jokes he thinks are so funny. Kher also has the right to fume and turn purple with apolexy. What no one has, is the right to say that Bhat should be killed for this. Or do they? Does freedom of speech cover comments promising violence as long as no violence is actually done? Cape Fear?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sudha
June 1, 2016
It would be interesting to see if Bhat and the likes of him would be okay if also subjected to the same kind of crass “humour” – if someone make cracks about his weight, let’s say. Or would that be “hurtful” to him?
LikeLike
wise_munk
June 1, 2016
Tanmay Bhat is insecure motu who was bullied lot in school. Now he is over compensating his insecurities. He needs to be pricked with a pin to deflate his balloon body, then he will hit ground.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Naganaga
June 1, 2016
Taking off from TB is a comedian who did an unfunny bit, are we arguing these days that someone not being good at their job is a crime?
I don’t mean negligence or malice, just plain old incompetence?
LikeLike
AJ
June 1, 2016
Great piece BR, the balance between championing freedom of speech and being sensitive to the sensibilities of others in your community – that’s what makes a mature society.
Just wanted to add my two bits on the nuance in this. I think ours is an immature society, in great flux at this time. And I think it’s perfectly natural for such a society to have these turbulent moments, even if they look farcical from afar. We do have a wide spectrum, from people who cherish the American “I disagree with you but I will die to protect your right to speak” values, to people raised in a culture where what can’t be said or done defines your values more than what can be. On the whole, I don’t find this kind of noise unwanted. AIB has a right to make outrageous videos and the thin-skinned ones have the right to be outraged.
What I do find worrying, is how easily the outraged people have recourse to legal tools that can be used to bully the other. As a nation, if you profess a right to free speech, at least do a decent job of defending it. “Right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other” – what a joke! Free speech would not need legal defense unless it was hurting someone. I wouldn’t need the supreme court behind me if what I’m saying isn’t offending anyone!
As an aside, I thought the video was mildly funny. He did the accents pretty well. It was the kind of video that made me chuckle for 5 seconds and forget about it in the next 5. Not bad!
LikeLiked by 1 person
P
June 1, 2016
“It’s also troubling to note that liberals, who should know better, are getting to be as touchy as conservatives, picking on every small thing (“Indus Valley gave us the word ‘industry’”) instead of laughing it off. But it’s important to recall Charlie Hebdo.”
I re-tweeted your article, because I thought most of it was pretty balanced- I stopped following 90% of the comedy scene in India because they are all just potty-humor level people, never gonna rise above that. Still trying to understand what you mean by the Charlie Hebdo reference. Are you trying to say that they were in some way responsible for their own murders at the hands of insecure fanatics? Or are you saying that the same liberals who are springing to Tanmay’s defense now were wringing their hands during Charlie Hebdo?
LikeLiked by 2 people
piggie
June 1, 2016
Great article BR! As always, yours is a voice of reason.. This issue seems silly, but is actually quite scary..
I’m all for freedom of speech.. I hold nothing against Bhat and his AIB buddies.. I’m pretty sure many of us have passed many such judgements within the safety of our tiny personal thought bubbles.. But, the motive behind expression matters.. We have the right to speak up for ourselves when we’re being subjected to injustice.. We have the right to offer criticism or advice when someone else’s actions directly affect us.. We even have the right to make fun of others as long as it isn’t done with malicious intent and adds color to the larger picture of the social system.. But, personally, I think that before someone decides to put their opinions about other people out there for public consumption, there is one simple question they should ask themselves – is my statement going to add any constructive value to society as a whole? If the answer is no, there’s no real need to share these ideas..
Bhat’s video would have been relevant if it a) highlighted something interesting about these two social giants or about the psychological mechanics of hero worship, or, b) was actually funny.. The product did neither.. Hence, it was irrelevant.. And yet this irrelevant video went viral! Bhat’s intentions were surely not malicious, but they were definitely self-serving and the method was insensitive.. He wanted to create a mess and get noticed and he got what he wanted because of the egotism of all those who spoke for and against him.. All those who took sides only to project their ideals within the context of the issue.. This is what is scary.. The fact that the one prerequisite for sensationalism – constructive quality – has become irrelevant.. The fact that anything without value can become an issue of national importance.. The fact that the media, instead of being a platform for intelligent dialogue, has become a stage for all to parade their myopic stupidity and pride.. Hope we see better days, with more meaningful content and a more accommodating audience open to objective intellectual debate..
LikeLiked by 2 people
blurb
June 1, 2016
Nice writing. Dicey take. (I know people have been calling it a “balanced” piece, but as I read it, there’s definitely a take. And it’s Mata Saraswatiji Ki Jay, it seems.)
But humor is a tough nut to crack, no? Being a little sensitive is also very subjective, no?
Was there this kind of (in terms of magnitude) outpouring support when Aishwarya Rai was called an elephant 3 months post partum? I found that extremely hurtful and insensitive.
I find this insensitive too. But it’s bewildering to see the outpouring support.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 1, 2016
via email:
vishal: Hi Rangan,
I just read your article about Tanmay Bhat’s video spoof on Sachin tendulkar and Lata Mangeshkar.The points you have covered are really good and articulated in a really good manner.
But reading the article doesn’t give me feeling whether you are with or against his video spoof.I thought I would be getting this writer’s view at the end of article but I am still unable to figure out that.I understand that as an author you write an article from a neutral perspective but still want to know which side of story you are from personal POV .
Hoping for an affirmative reply.
LikeLike
brangan
June 1, 2016
via email:
Syed Ali Taher Abedi: Mr.Baradwaj Rangan
Hope you are doing well. Today morning I picked up my favorite newspaper “The Hindu “and saw your article on page 11 Perspective
words are inadequate to express my feelings, you really have drawn a very fine and thin line between mockery and sensitivity.
hats off
looking forward for more such articles
stay blessed and healthy Ameen
Bye for now
Syed Ali Taher Abedi
Editor-in-Chief
Judicial Quest Fortnightly Magazine
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 1, 2016
via email:
Venkatesh S: Dear Mr.Bharadwaj:
Greetings from Coimbatore.
I am S.Venkatesh, an Assistant Professor (Physics) and a regular reader of The Hindu. I just finished reading your interestingly written article titled ” A legend walked into a bar…”
I totally agree with your assertion that it wouldn’t hurt if a little sensitivity is followed. In fact, if you will, I think a little sensitivity not only hurt but would even strengthen the case of freedom of speech and help resolve issues.
In the sub headline of the article (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/tanmay-bhats-spoof-of-lata-sachin-sensitivity-wouldnt-hurt/article8673714.ece?homepage=true) it is mentioned “Tanmay Bhat has every right to mock Lata Mangeshkar and Sachin Tendulkar. But a little sensitivity wouldn’t hurt.”
I am just wondering if the “right to mock” is a constitutional right (India or any country) or something else. I am not aware of all the rights mentioned in Indian constitution.
I request to to please explain rational/logic for calling an act of mocking as a right. I understand that you may receive tons of emails/communication and hence may not have time to respond to all.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 1, 2016
via email:
Govind Kale: Hello,
This is with reference to the Mr. Baradwaj Rangan’s article named ‘A legend walked into the a bar’ published in The Hindu on 1st June 2016.
Mr. Rangan says that Bhat is a comedian & he is supposed to make us laugh. Does it mean that for making us laugh, he (Bhat) can target anyone & mock them in whatever way he likes, as if the person being targeted is a public property?? Common man’s mentality should not be like, “They are celebrity & that is why anything can be said about them”.
Using words like ‘fuck’ is crossing the limit. If someone uses these kind of words for Bhat’s or Mr. Rangan’s closed ones for the sake of making a third party laugh, then will it be tolerated by them? At least for moments, they will be angry.
I am not against freedom of expression through comedy. Take example of Kapil Sharma,the kind of comedy he makes is a natural, light hearted, which has genuine a intension of making people laugh.
Comedy is not picking one or two persons from the list of celebrities, using offensive words on them, & all that in the name `of making a third party laugh.
For some people, using words like ‘fuck’ is symbol of being modern, being of 21st century. Saying fuck would not make us like US or UK. Rather, we should try to be better than US & UK.
Thank You.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 1, 2016
via email:
PR Iyer: Sir
Baradwaj Rangan in his article on Tanmay Bhatt and Anupam Kher(Dt 1st June ) has alluded to a remark of a Korean, which literally says that a country that claims freedom of speech must allow its citizen to burn the National flag if he so chooses . This is not only absurd but even borders on sedition..May be the likes of Kanhaiya Kumar will go gaga on hearing this . Go to Kashmir and see if you can burn the ISIS flag in Lal Chowk in the name of freedom , Mr Rangan, and you will know a taste Charlie Hebdo style encounter . There will be no FIR .There will be just be fire..
Your editorial “No Jokes Please , We are Indians “too talks in the same vein . How does it become a joke when somebody calls a venerable elderly lady by the wrinkles on her face ? MNS may be a party in India which has a ” low threshold for taking offence”. But that does not justify Tanmaya’s ridicule carried to vulgar ends. MNS is right in asking for a FIR .
Let me narrate a joke and see the reaction of the so called secularists / intelligentsia/ campaigners for tolerance in India .
Just a joke Please ::.
I believe once Imran Khan said that if he had Kapil Dev and Gavaskar in his team he will defeat any team in the world . The repartee to it was ,” Give me the two Pakistani Umpires , I will defeat any team in the world.”
The so called intelligentsia in India has spread a canard just to malign anything or any body linked with Hinduism . None of them will dare to draw a parody on the utterances of Owaisi brothers .Lata and Tendulkar are the icons who have received international honours .To demean them by an outright slander cannot pass musters in the most liberal society .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aditya (Gradwolf)
June 1, 2016
Talking about the Sorkin line, won’t the “nationalists” then consider burning the flag insensitive? Yes, here it is against the law but I am not of the opinion that free speech or expression works on the lines of considering the “two Indias” or “the sensitive lot” and thinking twice before what you say. Especially in this situation and the political climate we have today, sitting on the fence helps no one’s cause. Any point you bring in decorum, it is slippery slope because whose decorum? There are a billion people here. Whose values or sensitivities are you exactly going to consider? Either you go all out and face the consequences, and we talk all we want about free expression or just be quiet. This whole make a joke but with a little sensitivity only pegs us back.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
June 1, 2016
Aditya (Gradwolf): I differ. For instance, I don’t think rape jokes are cool. I think one should be a little sensitive about the things they say and the cultural climate they say it in. Just because something works or happens in the US, it’s not necessary it works/should happen here — the cultural climates are very different.
By cultural climate, I am not talking about Hindutva or something, but about the way we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
June 1, 2016
As I read this brilliantly articulated, nuanced piece, what Gradwolf said is what I wondered too. When you have billions of people, there are billions of things you have to be sensitive about. Not bring too religious, I’d be cool if someone poked fun at my religion, but I’d feel un-comfortable if the same was done towards, for instance, LGBTs or people with disabilities. For my colleague, it may quite the reverse. Who decides the strength and flavour of sensitivity? Its impossible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aditya (Gradwolf)
June 1, 2016
BR: That is the point no? What is the cultural climate? Like you talked about the SRK/Rajini jokes. There is no one size fits all. So either we continue to remain sensitive or we go all out making jokes on anything and everything. I think the only way forward is the latter. And when someone argues that rape jokes are not cool, I think it is almost always because rape jokes are not funny because it is a serious issue. Same for fat shaming or jokes on transgenders, that Kapil Sharma routinely gains TRPs with on prime time TV. I think sensitivity is a word that encompasses too many things and once you bring in that factor, there are just too many issues that go out of the window.
I don’t think one should be resigned to “the way we are” and rather look towards changing how we are because there is a pressing need for that. Caring about the sensitive nature of Indians, in its broadest sense, is a roadblock to that. It is not because what works in US should work here. It is just important we remain teachable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
June 1, 2016
Aditya: You don’t have to convince me, personally.
But I am of the opinion that if you want to push the envelope, you should do it in stages — especially in a country like ours.
This piece isn’t saying that you cannot make fun of certain people. But when you know the kind of criticism it’s going to get, I feel “fuck off and die” type shock-jock tricks (the Howard Stern kind) are an icky choice.
And when someone argues that rape jokes are not cool, I think it is almost always because rape jokes are not funny because it is a serious issue.
So again, you are defining “serious” here. To you, rape is a serious issue. To someone else, it may not be, and they may be okay with a Nirbhaya joke. That’s a slippery slope right there.
People should do what they want to do. There’s no denying that.
But once that’s done, our reactions vary. Sometimes, we feel “what’s wrong” and we laugh. Sometimes, it makes us feel odd and we feel a line has been crossed.
I’m just trying to wrap my head around an issue that’s not so black-and-white to me.
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 1, 2016
blurb: When did the feelings of ‘figures’ ever matter? Cricketers and women who wear sarees obviously are more important.
^ was Sarcasm. Every one know that. Just saying.
BR: I kind of feel your stance has changed over the years. no?
LikeLike
Aditya (Gradwolf)
June 1, 2016
I don’t think the piece is saying you cannot make fun of certain people, either. Only that, it is an icky choice to not do something just because you know the criticism you are going to get.
This is the only time I am getting personal here – you too are in a creative field. Do you decide not to write something because you know the criticism you’d receive. It could be something you feel strongly about or something you wish to experiment (which I would think is what Bhat was trying. IMO he sure knew criticism was coming, his facebook post even had a disclaimer of sorts. But I don’t think he anticipated that Arnab Goswami would be discussing it in his show).
“Sometimes, it makes us feel odd and we feel a line has been crossed.” I understand the issue is not black and white, but this is the problem. Pardon the reference, whose line is it anyway? It’s not the same for everyone. So how does the creative person wrap his or her head around it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me Otherwise
June 1, 2016
I liked ur take on the video… a different perspective from what I have otherwise hearing. To me it was a senseless video, which seldom required much attention. Sachin and Lata have achieved a lot in their life times and a silly video such as this is in no was going to reduce the respect and love people have for them. Yes I agree that what could have shown sensitivity, but if he hasn’t it doeant mean we turn things ugly for him…
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 1, 2016
Aditya: Again, that’s too black-and-white a stand. I am not saying Bhat shouldn’t feel free to do what he wants to do. Yes, I am in a creative field too, but this time I am not the creator, and so this piece is about my response to an act of creation. (And even then, note the line where I say I am playing devil’s advocate.)
This video made me realise that I am not comfortable with jokes that make fun of the way old people look, jokes that ask them to die. This doesn’t mean Bhat shouldn’t make them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
abhilasha cherukuri
June 1, 2016
Note-i am all for freedom of speech.i laughed my head off when I saw the video and this is my halfbaked attempt to understand our society’s reactions to different types of humour.
This incident is quite similar to the nationwide wrath that M.F.Hussain had to face not so long ago,when he painted nudes of Indian gods and goddesses.The people who did not get offended by those nudes knew that painting nudes is a legit art form with no means of disrespect whatsoever.all the people hurt by bhat’s video do not know about the existence or understanding of insult comedy.i may be slightly biased here(I am a huge fan of tanmay’s work) but hear me out.insult comedy is a genre of comedy within the ambit of stand up/improv comedy that solely relies on making crass,filthy “non-veg” jokes about the audience,the comics and well known people.most of us have grown up listening,laughing or cracking jokes that are mediocre,scatological and filled with sexual innuendos.so why bring these jokes from people’s private spaces to physical and virtual public spaces? surely,this is not what our schooling or our upbringing teaches us to do.is there any purpose behind making insult comedy,apart from entertainment?
All forms of art strive to break the barriers and tags imposed by the society through their work.comedy does the same,by using modes of exaggeration,political incorrectness and dialogue that is frowned upon in civil society.and by doing the same,comedy brings out our fallacies,our hypocrises and lets us feel more human.sometimes comedy can satirise society to expose and explore bitter truths and sometimes comedy breaks the social constructs of deification (of gods and people)by bringing out what makes them human,like every one of us.
Was tanmay’s comedy crass?yes. disrespectful?yes.but by using methods of crudity and disrespect,he cracks our notions of godliness towards tendulkar and lataji by putting them in a situation where they would talk like normal people,by cussing,trash talking and showing the middle finger.the video was a frivolous,fictitious attempt to portray a possible”civil war” between two people where the comedy came from the fact that two people,two legendary people whom we cannot imagine trash talking or Snapchatting are doing both.the comedy is not personal.
One of the key points that has been expressed by many an individual is that no person,however big he or she is should not be exempted from comedy.that is true and also holds essential in a country where deification is wrongly substituted for respect.in fact comedy on famous people who are not uday chopra or rahul Gandhi is important as they help us understand that while respect is universal,constructs of piety are not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
June 1, 2016
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Ram-Gopal-Varma-comes-out-in-support-of-Tanmay-Bhat/articleshow/52533345.cms
LikeLike
KadaKumar
June 1, 2016
This is yet another piece that pretends to rise above the din and appear “balanced” and “nuanced”. Too many of such pieces popping up everywhere. All of them are loopy rambles with no real stand taken. You could summarize your whole article (and several others’) as “Tanmay is free to mock, but…ummm…he’s not very funny…Free speech is absolute and all, but…ummm…we must respect sentiments and draw lines…”. What is your point? Other than “Oh I’m too wise and cultured to take binary black-white stands on issues. Everything is complicated. Might as well exploit that ambiguity to show off my writing skills.”
You cannot equivocate on this issue.
Do you support his right to mock sacred cows like Sachin and Lata? I presume you do. As a card carrying member of FoE, you’re trapped there. Then what more is there to say on this? Why do you have to add disclaimers that even though you defend his FoE, you find it distasteful and disrespectful and unfunny? The merit of the comedy itself is irrelevant here. Why does it always have to be “I support freedom of speech, but….”? Our attempts at upholding freedom of speech are feeble at best, and always come with several rejoinders to appease the bullies. FoE has been reduced to a customary “Smoking is injurious to health” warning at the beginning of movies. As long as that is there, smoke all you want, eh?.
I realize that free speech is not absolute. So don’t throw the “shouting fire in a theater” argument here. But this is again an old universal debate, and nothing new or insightful is being said about it. We must at least try to push the limit of free speech as much as possible. Ideally to its absolute. Maybe if people kept hearing someone shout fire in a crowded theater more often, they’ll get more sensible about it and check first. That maturing can only come from exposure.
As for whether it was funny or not, thats a different discussion which must not get mixed up with this one. It depends on the kind of comedy you’re used to. Americans regularly indulge in this kind of low-brow comedy. Its a subgenre with its own group of fans. Nothing is sacred in this genre and flagrant political-incorrectness is part of its charm. It takes you back to an innocent era when you weren’t pounced on by PC-police reading between the lines and looking for an instance of sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, casteism, ageism, class-ism, blah blah. You know, the usual bogey. These days, just a transgression of these airtight restrictions imposed by the self-proclaimed custodians of morality itself evokes laughter. That only shows how much we’ve passively allowed the PC-bullies to dictate what can be said out aloud.
Anupam Kher, Arnab, etc. make their livelihoods out of these non-issues. Politicians make issues out of these non-issues. The media would play it up because everyone loves a fight.
But seriously, the issue itself is not one that merits a piece.
P.S. I fully agree with your opinion on the game of thrones reference though. That was pretentious and lazy.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Shyam
June 1, 2016
BR: Rights are not a matter of culture in a democratic nation state where the constitution should provide absolute rights(USA does). They should not be. If I run your analogy in the Right to life – “Since we have been culturally and traditionally disrespectful to other peoples’ right to life, we should not let a man kill another abruptly. Let us push the envelope slowly, one blow at a time is more respectful”. When the tradition of Sati had to go, it had to go. You can’t reduce the burning of the Sati one limb at a time to take care of sentiments.
LikeLike
sanjana
June 1, 2016
I am not in favour of free speech which lampoons any person celebrity or non celebrity.
Social media is full of trolls who use anonymity and no legal action to bring them to senses.
Comedians should not take shelter of humour to get away with anything.
The lowbrow comedy peddled in various comedy shows is nothing but insults masquerading as jokes. It is not about celebrities only. It is about common people who watch and feel worthless if they happen to be fat, old, physically or mentally disabled or gays and lesbians.
Did not India laugh before AIB roast came into existence? Will we die without it?
No one took serious objections when our films made fun of many things.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Raj Balakrishnan
June 1, 2016
Great piece Baradwaj. Very sensible and measured. I don’t care for Tendulkar/Lata Mangeshkar, but insulting someone is not comedy. Also, Hindu celebrities (like Tendulkar, Bachchan etc.) are soft targets for these ‘comedians’ who wouldn’t dare to mock SRK, AK etc., cause they will be accused of being communal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Raj Balakrishnan
June 1, 2016
Also, checked out your Twitter page. You follow 1 person (who is that lucky guy) and have 8K plus followers. Wow! that is an awesome ratio dude. Bettered only probably by the POTUS and PM Modi. Way to go.
LikeLike
Rahul
June 1, 2016
A few things :
1.I actually did find the video funny. Not hilarious, but yes, worth a chuckle. Specially the line about being under water. And two shrill voices talking to each other in a shrill tone.
2.It could have been his way of experimenting with snapchat , where videos are deleted after 24 hours.Our collective consciousness is like snapchat, though its cycle may not be as predictable. In his mind it may have been an interesting experiment to compare being offensive on snapchat to being offensive on youtube. Probably not much difference, as that video would land on youtube anyway , but the subject I find interesting.
The phrase ” roast beef from a couple of sacred cows” was very cool.
I think it’s ok to make noise about the insensitivity and bad taste of the video. We criticise movies, then why not humor? If one is hurt, one should feel free to go on about it, without being slapped with principles of FOE on their face like a restraining order. A nation that spends at least 10 % of its time watching cricket, should not be too judgemental about wasting time on idle pursuits.
I do not buy your point about two Indias . Firstly, insult comedy is a big part of our folk tradition. Secondly, political correctness is on the rise in us of a. I remember reading an article about how its making it difficult for comedians to perform in college campuses , of all places, because of the heightened sensitivity of students about pc-ness. On the other side you have an annual kavi sammelan in benaras on holi that roasts all sacred cows no holds barred. But its in hindi and bhojpuri.
Though I do agree that a certain hypocrisy is part of our culture. I am not using the word hypocrisy judgmentally. I don`t think there is anything wrong with behaving differently in different circumstances. I may joke about old people with my friends but I will also outrage when such jokes are mainstreamed. Nothing wrong with it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
June 1, 2016
via email:
usharani: Sir, Very good analysis in today’s the Hindu. Every thing I felt and could not express like you did.. As you said, though I am a liberal, lately I have been finding myself on Kher’s side a lot….
LikeLike
brangan
June 1, 2016
via email…
Ketaki Diwan: Sir, I write to you in relation to a recent article of yours, titled ‘a legend walks into a bar’. I found your article very apt and the first one that made sense. Being a psychology student, I always understood the struggle that goes on between Individuality (the so called individuality that the India full of values has) Vs. Conformity (The westernised India which many people of my age claim not to be or lacking to be -consisting of the nightlife, comedy that makes no sense.) Knowing all this, I could never put these things into exact words, I’m not a writer. I was delighted reading your article. It puts all the things into perfect perspective. Sensitivity, understanding and I think more than that, an objective critical outlook is what Indian society, rather many societies lack is what I feel.
Great perspective on the whole AIB and Tanmay Bhat issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
June 1, 2016
I found the video appalling, and couldn’t watch the whole thing, but this is what AIB and Tanmay Bhatt call humour. I don’t watch a lot of the American stand-up comedy shows because I honestly cannot stand the profanity. To me, that has never been humour.
Does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to make it? I would have to say, no. My choice is to watch, or not watch. The TV remote is under my control.
I do take exception to rape jokes. I don’t think they are cool. If you find them funny, I will take note of that mentally, and yes, I will judge you. If you’re a friend, I will call you out on it; it you are someone I don’t know, I will know to stay away from you. ‘Jokes’ about rape, about violence against a particular section of society – especially the more vulnerable ones – are troubling. Can you still make them despite my ‘sensitivity’ to them? Of course. Do I have the right to call you out on it? Yes. ‘Freedom of speech’ cuts both ways. (Or half the US will be in trouble for their opinion on Trump; the other half will be in trouble for endorsing him.)
Threats of being jailed? Of violence against someone for saying something you don’t like? Eh. Grow up. Take a leaf out of Lata Mangeshkar’s book and say, ‘I haven’t watched the video, so I will not comment on it. I have no intention of watching it, either.’
LikeLiked by 8 people
Srinivas R
June 1, 2016
On a tangential note, comedy has been reduced a series of verbal abuse thrown about unimaginatively.The sad part is we have juvenile audience that’ll laugh if a character in a movie mouths an abusive word. I happened to watch the AIB roast last year, that was taken off YouTube later, a few witty lines apart it was very monotonous but the audience was in splits. When all it takes is a few f words thrown randomly to elicit laughter no wonder we only have unimaginative insults as jokes. Like movie stars and politicians we get the comedians we deserve.
LikeLiked by 3 people
beyondthemaple
June 1, 2016
While I do find this article does sit on the fence, this whole incident has left people with mixed feelings. Personally I think AIB has done a good job of bringing insult comedy to India. But this video didn’t sit right with me – it felt like a feeble attempt to get nation wide fame, at any cost. All of a sudden people are waving their FOE cards around, but they would lash out in an instant if someone told them Jon Snow died and so should their grandmother. Even if it was “all in good fun”. All of this Freedom of blah and blah does indeed go both ways and all those upholding it in favour of Tanmay’s trash talk, are taking a by-the-book stance which is devoid of a sensitivity toward cultural and societal nuances.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anon
June 1, 2016
You have a nuanced position and are therefore not fit for the Internet.
(That’s a compliment, by the way.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 1, 2016
“You cannot equivocate on this issue.” – Nail on the head, there’s no midway position on this issue. You either police or you don’t police speech. I think expressing strong adverse opinions on a comedy skit is fine; they do that in USA too. What’s not is threatening arrest of the comedian for his act. That is not a sensitivity issue, that is an issue of long overdue reform but because we as a nation don’t want to look at the issue in those terms and just keep protesting, “But no, he shouldn’t have said that!”, politicians have got away with keeping draconian restrictions in the Constitution for years. And, as in this instance, they are the first to jump into the fray to misuse these restrictions to harass people. On an related note, anytime you read the word “reasonable” in an Indian statute with respect to restrictions or statutory powers, it really means “unreasonable and unlimited powers to harass the citizen” in practice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sravishanker1401gmailcom
June 1, 2016
BR :
Very nice article – measured and critically reasoned out.
Yes – making fun of the looks of an 86 year old is in bad taste.
And the thousands of Hindi films making fun of the “Madrasi” accent is also in bad taste.
Who’s to say which is worse ?
Freedom of Speech is the First Amendment to the US Constitution and with good reason.
Irving Wallace in his superb book ‘The Seven Minutes” said it best.
To the proponents of “there should be a LITTLE censorship” I say, “if you can convince me to become a LITTLE pregnant then we can have a LITTLE censorship”.
“I admit that the apoplexy over this silly video is like training a howitzer on a housefly.”
Vow !
LikeLiked by 4 people
Adithya
June 2, 2016
Just an interesting fact. The video’s concept is taken from the youtube channel Epic Rap Battles of History. They make music videos of famous people(played by actors) dissing each other in a rap battle. These “disses” include physical apperance, intelligence, parenthood and many more. My personal favorite is Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney. Give it a watch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
June 2, 2016
No passionate free speech absolutist (who seem rather numerous in these parts) has ever been seen standing up for the right of Kamlesh Tiwari (who has now been in jail for more than 5 months ) to air his opinions about Muhammad. Nor do we see any articles or public debate on this in mainstream forums. To those who don’t know who KT is, a simple google search will do. So any comments by free speech absolutists on this? Why aren’t more prominent people like the author of this blog taking a bold public stance supporting the FoE of KT and protesting his draconian arrest? I don’t think there has been a single article or even facebook or blogpost by any famous public intellectual or media-activist in a single mainstream paper boldly debating this issue. In fact, IIRC, the Hindu even apologized for mentioning the substance of KT’s utterance (that Muhammad was the first homosexual) and subsequently removing all reference to it from its e-edition. It amazes me that the actual arrest of a person for exercising their FoE triggers less public debate than these silly Tanmoy Bhat fits. Of course this is nothing new. After all Sitaram Goel was once arrested merely for publishing a book by Ram Swarup titled…., you guessed it “Understanding Islam through Hadiths”. Needless to say, the reaction then was the same as it is now with KT.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Santa
June 2, 2016
I don’t believe that T.Bhat is beholden to anyone to be sensitive. If anything, I believe that he is inadvertently performing a valuable public service by pushing the envelope and forcing people to have this discussion of free-speech in India.
Now whether he could have found a more effective way to do it is another thing. In my view, insult comedy is most effective when its targets have done something to deserve ridicule. To the best of my knowledge, neither Sachin nor Lata have been in the news of late for any (mis)deeds. So the choice of them as a target is curious to me. One thing I will admit, though, is that I found his mimicry to be better than 2nd rate, though definitely not first-rate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nitro
June 2, 2016
Of course he has the right to make fun of anyone. But free speech is a two-way street. Like Noam Chomsky said, those who don’t respect the freedom of speech of their critics, don’t believe in freedom of speech. AIB and their fans bullied everyone who didn’t like their AIB Roast. That was hypocritical of them. One thing media is constantly ignoring is AIB’s disregard of free speech. It’s ironic but true. Those who get enraged by their criticism have no right to accuse others of being sensitive. They police people’s taste in cinema, they bully their enemies on a regular basis, yet they are treated as liberals.
It’s a stupid idea to lodge an FIR against him. It’s exactly what he wants. This will get him sympathy vote and will make critics like me look mean. I hate their so-called comedy but I don’t believe in arresting them. In my opinion, the best way to respond to such things is with criticism, just like how Anupam Kher responded.
LikeLike
Nitro
June 2, 2016
I am not a fan of Anupam Kher. It’s just that the best way to respond is through the power of criticism, instead of filing stupid FIRs or lawsuits.
P.s. “In other words, Anupam Kher, self-appointed custodian of all things Indian” Lol. Ironically Anupam Kher blamed Aamir Khan for having an opinion of everything, whereas it’s Anupam who has more opinions than him, including Aamir’s freedom of speech.
LikeLiked by 3 people
harish ram
June 2, 2016
‘fracas’ – word of the day
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jabberwock
June 2, 2016
Baradwaj: nice piece overall, but I didn’t get the point of the Charlie Hebdo reference. Do you want to elaborate on that (only if you have the time, of course)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jabberwock
June 2, 2016
Okay, just glanced through some of the other comments and saw that others have mentioned the same thing (Charlie Hebdo), and probably discussed it at some length.
Just a thought about rape jokes/jokes about very sensitive or upsetting subjects. Does anyone here recall the joke about the paedophile/child-murderer and his victim in Blue Valentine? Absolutely freaking hilarious, I thought, especially given the context of the scene and Michelle Williams’s delivery of the joke.
As Mitali Saran put it in her Caravan piece a few years ago, “Gelotologists, who study laughter, point out that it is one of the best ways in which humans defuse tension […] It is possible to be genuinely anguished by starvation and still smile when someone says, ‘How many Ethiopians can you fit in a bathtub? None, they keep slipping down the drain.’ (Too far from home? Replace Ethiopian with the starving Indian of your choice. There are lots to choose from.) It is possible to tell a joke about a dead guy, or about an axe murderer. It is seen as more acceptable for a Dalit to make fun of a Brahmin; but it should also be possible for the joke to go the other way. It is possible to do these things when the cool eye puts the warm heart on hold, temporarily, and can see inherently funny paradoxes. It isn’t a permanent condition; it’s not the death of compassion.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
niranjanmb
June 2, 2016
@KadaKumar: I have to disagree with your summarization of this piece. The larger point here is about emphasizing the cliche,’Not everything is reducible to binaries’ (even though that is what we seek as an outcome of any debate), whether easily or otherwise. Most people here would hardly condemn AIB or Tanmay Bhat, let alone start baying for his blood. In fact, I would suggest BR is trying to play devil’s advocate to see if there is any argument from people claiming that the whole affair was denigrating, that is worth a point at all.
In my opinion, this kind of event brings to focus our relatively poor understanding of what exactly we mean when we use the word ‘free’. If Oliver Wendell Holmes’ paraphrasing is the only counterpoint to restrictions of free speech that is largely out there, then it means that the notions of free speech and FoE need further probing.
LikeLike
sakthi
June 2, 2016
“They are too irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, in a country that has far bigger issues to get outraged about.”The sad truth is : We are not outraged on things to be outraged at.
LikeLike
brangan
June 2, 2016
Answering a bunch of points brought up above…
(1) As someone said above, this is not a black-or-white issue… like most things in life.
(2) Movies are different from life, no? We read ‘Lolita’ with amazement, because of the literariness of the book, but the same set of events would be a very different situation in real life, in the sense that they would make us react quite differently.
(3) We may privately make jokes about various thing. But these same things, when unleashed in a public sphere, carry a different kind of weight, IMO.
(4) I think it is possible to believe in freedom of expression and still believe that there should be a line. And that line is not a slippery slope. At least, for me — and I get it that this may not work for everyone — the line is as stated in the article.
What someone DOES (in the public sphere) — completely okay to mock
What someone IS (86 years old, spastic, transgender, gay, is a leper) — i still defend your right to mock, and I will oppose anyone who tries to curb this freedom, but I am not in favour of this.
Corollary: Jokes about people in the abstract (gays) are easier to take than jokes about specific people (Bobby Darling).
I don’t think these things are contradictory at all. These is a complicated and far from black-and-white issue, IMO.
Look at the following images (they were posted on my twitter timeline). Should tanmay bhat or anyone else be stopped from making these “jokes,” or should he be arrested? NO.
But can I not seethe or wish these “jokes” weren’t made, while still believing in the basic right to freedom of expression? YES.
So this is what this article is trying to say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 2, 2016
via email…
Suraj Jha:Dear Mr. Bhardwaj,
I’ve just read your article in The Hindu regarding the whole shebang around Tanmay Bhat and his Snapchat video and i couldn’t stop myself writing this mail to you to appreciate that how accurate your views are and in sync with the general public. I am as a part of the general public too believe that free speech should not be fiddled around carelessly and the least we can do is be a little sensitive. I also think as you mentioned in the article that there are more pressing issues at hand in our country than this. The article was spot on. Loved it.
Thank You..
LikeLike
P
June 2, 2016
One must defend the profane (bad “comedians”) in order to protect the sacred (Free speech). Many many years ago Ayn Rand defended “hard-core” pornography (which she abhorred) thusly:
“It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right’s least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one’s loyalty to a principle.”
It’s interesting to note that many many many people’s loyalty to the principle of Freedom of Speech has so easily broken given the disgusting nature of the offender…
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
June 2, 2016
Roasting the roaster. This kind of humour can be called perverse. To get instant attention and fame. Where he is now? No soundbites from him.
LikeLike
Sharmila Rao
June 2, 2016
somebody should rape this guy….(referring to the twitter screen shot)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 2, 2016
“But can I not seethe or wish these “jokes” weren’t made, while still believing in the basic right to freedom of expression? ” – Absolutely you can and I would too as they were despicable to say the least. Actually he would have been forced to apologise for much less in USA because while they support free speech, there is also a strong PC movement and the social media would have eaten him alive there. I think the bone of contention is that you framed the sensitivity issue in more macro terms – of new/metropolitan India and old India requiring to be sensitive to each other. I think even the worst jokes by a comic pale in comparison to killing a man for possession of beef so in this case it is very hard to accept the argument that India should be sensitive to Bharat. Oh sure, to some extent, but the other side has a lot more walking to do to meet us half way. I am not even sure to what extent Bharat is the problem as is a conservative faction in the same metropolitan India which politicians pander to. Either got to be conservative or a Muslim in India (the world too?); hard times for liberals.
LikeLike
Enna koduka sir pera
June 2, 2016
I agree with BR on this point. Legally, am all for freedom of speech and one shouldn’t be punished for that. But, that is only one facet of the type of responses to a person’s statement/behaviour. The other is more personal, what you think of that person making that statement/behavior (character assessment if I may say so) and that as I said is more personal/intimate. BR and anyone else has every right to think that a joke is disrespectful/tasteless and form his/her opinion of that person. I think that we, as a society, are highly confused about these two very different things – legality and personal assessment of a person’s character. In the name of free speech, anything should be tolerated legally, but on an emotional/moral level, certain things are indeed tasteless. I remember Vairamuthu saying something to this effect once: Comedy is all too easy when making fun of others, but what is more difficult and pleasing is the kind of comedy which surpasses making fun of others. I am not saying one should not make fun of others as I very well know that one has every right to do so, but when one does so, I personally find it distasteful that one is having fun at the expense of the other (of course this is subjective) and it brings my respect for the person a notch down.
LikeLike
apala
June 2, 2016
BR-ji agree with you 100% and this is brilliantly balanced article. I just think that besides asking comedians to be a little bit sensitive, in general we should also grow little bit thicker skins and should be able to laugh at ourselves once in a while! Man, we (Indian Indians!) are a serious bunch!!! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vighnesh Hampapura
June 2, 2016
And then I watched Rowan Atkinson Live, Robin Williams and Russell Peter shows to reassure myself that humour hasn’t lost its meaning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sachita
June 3, 2016
Brangan:
But that is the problem with freedom of speech, it is absolute. Who determines what is a public space anyway? Only someone’s brain will be a private space. Everything else in this era is a public one.
As long as some one is not slandering/issuing a violent threat about some one- everything else is ok.
Stating some one’s sexuality incorrectly is wrong. ( not going to call it slander, though in the indian cultural context even constitutionally it would be slander). That is justified grounds for a lawsuit.
In Tanmay’s case, we can criticize his lack of humor, that he is such a bad comedian unable to invoke laughter. All of that is true. His lack of talent must have made him to resort to this where there is obviously not enough substance for comedy but onyl shock value as a commentator pointed out, “insult comedy is most effective when its targets have done something to deserve ridicule. ”
but there is no line – you of all people should know(based on your writing) there cant be any line because the bar is different for different people. In the art space, one is infact constantly shifting the lines.
Unfortunately both AIB roasts or Kannhaiyya’s speech are actually quite subpar to me. Wish fights were staged for worthier works. But this is what it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
arielsomebody
June 3, 2016
tanmay bhat was forced to apologize to a catholic bishop for a joke that offended him. A pertinent point that you omitted. Also as others have asked, whatever did you mean by mentioning charlie hebdo?
LikeLiked by 1 person
blurb
June 3, 2016
“Corollary: Jokes about people in the abstract (gays) are easier to take than jokes about specific people (Bobby Darling).”
I read something similar on Twitter – and I don’t quite get this. Isn’t “rape victims” an abstract as well?
Especially in that (positively repulsive!) tweet-screenshots included in BR’s comment, it’s ALL abstractions – no? There are no specifics, are there?
LikeLike
Nitro
June 3, 2016
@BR: But you are missing two key things. (1) Not everyone who hates his jokes wants him arrested or banned. But they have the right to criticise him and offend him, the same way he has the right to offend others. (2) Before becoming a champion of free speech, AIB should respect other people’s right to criticise them. But they don’t. They get morally outraged.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 3, 2016
“I think that we, as a society, are highly confused about these two very different things – legality and personal assessment of a person’s character.” – I agree completely that we are confused but I feel it goes the other way. We think that just because something offends us it should be banned which is really stupid. The simplest solution is not to watch it ever again. Why sacrifice the entire nation’s liberties just because a cartoon/vid/movie offended you? I repeat myself here but I just don’t understand why people go on asking govt to legislate on this and that as every new legislation only makes life more complicated. And then they will send touts and ‘consultants’ to deal with govt to get around these new rules that need not have been enacted in the first place.
LikeLike
Nee
June 3, 2016
I watched bits of the tanmay thingie (I think most of the “insensitive” stuff BRjee quotes was there in those bits) and I found it HILARIOUS….seriously hilarious.
However those tweets someone posted above were NOT humorous at all. Rape, CSA, pedo etc are NOT funny but seriously traumatic events in someone’s life.
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 3, 2016
Any opinions on this?
LikeLike
sanjana
June 3, 2016
Atlast I saw the video. It is lame and not worth the noise its has caused.
Undue and unwarranted publicity. I wonder whether you had to write a blog on this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sifter
June 3, 2016
On the Charlie Hebdo – Has been the target of attacks because they published contentious cartoons of Mohammed. Their publishing director and several cartoonists were killed due to this. I think the reference here is that MNS has threatened to thrash Tanmay Bhat for his latest video mocking the two that are considered living legends. Possibly.
LikeLike
Jabberwock
June 3, 2016
I’m sure everyone who asked Baradwaj about the Hebdo reference knows about CH and what happened to them. What I was questioning was the wisdom of making a throwaway reference to CH and their supposed lack of “decorum”, given the extraordinarily disproportionate response by the terrorists. It felt a bit gratuitous to mention the cartoonists in this piece – it makes the slippery slope even slippier, and seems to imply (though I’m sure Baradwaj didn’t mean it this way) that physical violence is an understandable response to verbal/written/drawn offence-giving.
Unless, of course, BR’s argument is that one should be careful while making tasteless/offensive jokes, only in the interests of self-preservation. That I would completely agree with. Practicality above all. (Assuming I wish to continue living for a bit, I would NEVER express my true thoughts about religion in a room full of fundamentalist Mullahs or Sanghis. More hypocrite me.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rm
June 3, 2016
The level of offense I take on the joke is based on the level of wit that is kneaded in that joke (plain mockery is not humour, IMO) and also on whom the joke is made.
If there is a plain mockery of RaGa or TR without any joke, I will probably chuckle.
If there is a plain mockery of, say, APJ Abdul Khalam, I will not and even become appalled.
RaGa or TR never intended their actions to induce humour (well, RaGa atleast), they are just two guys in public sphere going about their businesses.
So, I have this pre given notion about this person, such that, any expression of mockery or sarcasm about him/her, in an attempt to induce humour, even if it is not funny, does not offend me. On the other hand, if a joke is made on Abdul Khalam, I will probably laugh only if it is made in the wittiest way possible.
Make fun of that fat face, mimic that effeminate, imitate that funny walk of that rotund figure, I will let out a chuckle, never mind the fact that I don’t even know them, but mock someone I revere and be ready to face my wrath.
In the end, there are no ‘sensibilities’, there is only a measure of how crooked my moral compass within is.
@Rahini David: All that supposedly funny hullabaloo about ‘ennamma ipdi panreengale maa’, is an expression of contempt for a woman who, in a TV show of her own, delved out advice and wisdom in an attempt to mend dysfunctional families. We think all those supposed melodrama in the show was all to garner popularity. Hence the contempt, IMO..
I have tried wrapping around my head, in vain,trying to understand what was so funny in that, which at one point of time, became a tag line in all the semi-baked comedy shows in TV channels here.
LikeLike
Raj
June 3, 2016
Thanks for making Tanmay Bhat famous through this article.. Probably that’s what he was trying to do anyways…
LikeLike
brangan
June 4, 2016
via email…
vishesh gupta: Dear Sir,
I really liked the way you put the views of mokery with subtlety. I get the holistic idea of what you wanted to convey.
But my question is with regard to what you wrote about Tanmay mocking the age of Lata Mangeshkar.
Even if he does, why should we critise that pun which are on the inevitable conditions of a person if we are going all guns to roast one. Even the reference of her age with Jon Snow should be acceptable or equally rejected.
So to ask, what you think, is it all ok or all against the video, because we cant handle the argument with a middle viewpoint.
Regards.
Vishesh Gupta
LikeLike
brangan
June 4, 2016
Jabberwock: I brought in the Charlie Hebdo reference to recall freedom of expression taken to its extreme form, and to add to the point I was making about (1) not banning any of this (because people can say/do whatever they want) versus (2) considering a line in the sand about what’s decorous.
And this was leading to the point in the last para about left and right. To people who lean left, this is probably nothing. But to the others, “desecrating” Muslim or Hindu gods (and Lata is a goddess to many, as Sachin is a god) is reason for punishment. Which the MNS etc. are fully capable of unleashing. Think of the murdered rationalists. Think of what happened to Perumal Murugan.
LikeLike
Blasta
June 5, 2016
Tanmay’s sense of humor seems to have betrayed him when he needed it most. His only crime be that the jokes were under-whelming-ly bad. Had they been really good then people would have laughed and forgotten it.
However Sachin would have been bitter; he was on the verge of being forgotten. Thanks to Tanmay he has another chance to regale all of us with some more seasons of squeaky toned ads. Someone should really point the Disney people to Sachin, his voice would have made for them a wonderful resource. Mickey Mouse rather than Parliament House.
And Tanmay, Dhoni sulking….enga thalavarukku oru O podunga,
LikeLike
Madan
June 5, 2016
“Think of the murdered rationalists. Think of what happened to Perumal Murugan.” – On the other hand, I would argue this is the battle we must keep on fighting and I commend the bravery of the rationalists who lost their lives for being fearless (Dabholkar closer home was killed for opposing superstition). If we give up this battle,we may as well go back to the dark ages. If Galileo too had lied like Copernicus, where would the world be today? And if we must preserve the free speech of rationalists, then the free speech of the Tanmay Bhatts also will have to be preserved. It has a nuisance value but, still, it’s just one guy’s opinion. I wonder if people who cannot handle a Charlie Hebdo cartoon really do believe in the power of the Prophet. Surely the great man could not have been harmed by a mere cartoon, so what’s the fuss about. We are staring at an age where robots will take away many of the jobs that libertarians will tell you are meaningless and should not be performed by humans anyway (and which ironically account for the bulk of employment). I think it is about time people learnt to get beyond debating Gods for mankind’s survival is threatened by its own inventions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jabberwock
June 5, 2016
Yes, Baradwaj, I got all that. But when I think of the cartoonists and the rationalists who were murdered, I think of the psychos who murdered them (and who would probably have done the same thing to you and me, if we said something that rubbed them even slightly the wrong way – something well below Hebdo’s offence-giving standards). What I DON’T think is: “Oh, they were murdered because they crossed this line of decorum, drawn in the sand, clear for all of us to see.” That thought process is very problematic.
If there is any clear, objectively visible “line” in this whole situation, it is the one between written/verbal offence and physical retaliation. Our whole claim to being a civilised species (tenuous though that is in the first place) is largely founded on that distinction.
LikeLiked by 5 people
P
June 5, 2016
“freedom of speech taken to its extreme form”? Wut.
Also “decorous”?
I agree with jabberwock that for self-preservation at the hands of psychos one can shut one’s mouth on occassion -its the classic “would you lie to a Nazi about hiding a Jew in your basement” argument- I would. But even then the onus of evil would lie with the Nazi. Not on “decorum”. There is no line in the sand. Nope.
This is very much the equivalent of the “You are asking for it” argument that religious and other-wise conservative people put on girls in short skirts.
Jabberwock: Your arguments are awesome 🙂 ❤
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
June 5, 2016
Jai: The line in the sand is something I am thinking out loud about, in this piece, given AIB’s post-roast statement about “not wanting to hurt, etc.” To me, this line would encompass that “not hurting” thing, in the process of executing one’s right to free speech. I wasn’t being prescriptive.
P: “This is very much the equivalent of the “You are asking for it” argument “
That is a black-and-white way of looking at things, and it’s the opposite of what this piece is trying to do, which is to see if there’s a middle way. Is it ideal? No. But then, think about it. We do have a healthy tradition of free speech. Our political cartoonists often get away with blue murder. Our writers do too. But consider the critic John Simon who often got very personal. Like this, he said of Liza Minnelli: “I always thought Liza Minnelli’s face deserving of first prize in a beagle category.”
I don’t know… If everyone started saying exactly what they thought and felt, what’s the difference between Twitter and the real world?
LikeLike
P
June 5, 2016
BR: Yes, of course, I do admit that in the current legal climate in India, the ideal is not advisable. That is the first thing I said, that yes, it is ok to shut up when needed.
Even I travel with male friends/cousins if its late in the night because I know that to the irrational predators mind, just having a man with me, makes me “out of bounds”.
And that’s fine.
But one must not forget the ideal in the temporary pursuit of the practical, non?
Of course, as a life-long Lata fan I will never watch Tanmay’s video, I rarely watch anything from the Indian comedy scene as I find them to be stuck in permanent teenager-mode. But that is all I can do- ignore their ill-mannered unfunny content.
I cannot demand that they follow my idea of good-manners. Cause ultimately that is what they are doing- being ill-mannered teenagers who poke fun at good people just to get a raise out of other people.
The problem is that everyone wants a soapbox to rant against those who disagree with them- instead of just letting people be. Even Tanmay- he recently put up a rant-ey video on feminism etc 🙂
PS: I would be beyond elated to win first prize in the beagle category- have you seen them? They are gorgeous! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 5, 2016
P: I cannot demand that they follow my idea of good-manners.
Again, I am not being prescriptive here. There is no demand in this article.
The last line of this piece is “it wouldn’t hurt to be a little – just a little bit – sensitive.” Not “one SHOULD be sensitive.”
LikeLike
Madan
June 5, 2016
“But consider the critic John Simon who often got very personal.” – I agree that people ought not to get so personal (though again it is no justification for arrests or even fines). But it is the parallel with Charlie Hebdo that is the problem here. Charlie Hebdo challenged Islamic traditions of blasphemy…and paid the price. But it is a challenge worth mounting. Or maybe I am the only one who sees the hypocrisy in Muslims demanding religious freedom (including not lifting the burqa at petrol bunks) in Europe or wherever else they migrate to while holding on to very repressive, hostile laws in most Islamic nations. So the parallel is odd and out of place and your further mention of rationalists even more so because I don’t see them as overstepping the line, I see them as simply challenging the belief in blind faith still prevalent in this country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P
June 5, 2016
What Madan said.
Also “Be” is still prescriptive. Your last line sounds very prescriptive.
And I hate to bring in a comparison like this, but even the Islamic Council in Pakistan prescribed “light, very light beating”of wives viz. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/28/asia/pakistan-women-light-beating/ .
(Sorry, I swear I am sorry, but if we are coming down to the way things are worded that was the first thing that came to mind!)
There is no middle ground in the fight between freedom and statism, BR. There isn’t. 😦
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
June 5, 2016
Comic Sorabh Pant says subjective things need to be discouraged. “Freedom of speech should be either absolute or not at all,” he says. But he believes that comedians need to restrain themselves. He recalls snipping out 10 minutes from a recent show because it seemed too much. Ram says he draws a moral line and this line evolves all the time: born a Hindu, he would take a few digs at the gods but he wouldn’t joke about other religions. “I take my cue from blacks in the US — no white man or woman will use the word ‘nigger’ today for a black person — but blacks sometimes use ‘nigga’ for each other. We all grew up making regional jokes but got sensitized along the way,” he says. “There can’t be any absolutes.””
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/Why-we-need-the-right-to-ridicule/articleshow/52593725.cms
LikeLike
Lemon
June 6, 2016
Jabberwock: agree that jokes on upsetting subjects can be funny, and discomfiting at the same time. Somehow the discomfort adds to the humor, or at least gives it a different flavor.
Regarding “It is seen as more acceptable for a Dalit to make fun of a Brahmin; but it should also be possible for the joke to go the other way.”
It should be possible, and it can be funny even, but it’s also important to note that it need not be exempt from criticism. Particularly when the subject of theHumor/art do not exist in a vacuum joke (or a larger work of art) is inextricably linked to larger social oppression. Such criticisms are often dismissed as PC/ moralistic/prudish, with a naïve “it was just a joke/movie”. Humor/art do not exist in a vacuum, though, and so their subject or treatment are not beyond reproach on moral (dirty word , I know!) grounds.
Also, there are necessary restrictions on free speech when it becoms hate speech. Not saying that applies to this example (or that violent response from religious extremists is ever justified), but there is a line which most discussions on free speech seem to ignore. It’s not a very well-defined line, and the discussion around it is especially relevant now that the (kind of arbitrary) community guidelines of Facebook/Twitter decide what is acceptable and what’s not.
LikeLike
sanjana
June 6, 2016
Loving all the arguments. For and against. As an aamir khan fan, once I used to get angry when he was called dwarf or midget or elephant ears. Now I take it in my stride. I love Raga, Modi, Kejriwal jokes. Indiatoday English news channel makes fun of politicians, especially during 2014. Highly enjoyable. In my family we make fun of our elders, youngsters, cousins and other relatives which includes myself. All have funny nicknames. My sister used to mimic me perfectly and make fun of me and vice versa. We make fun of our good friends to. Backstabbing! and I am sure they will be doing the same if they love some fun. And beware of narads who may spoil friendships by carrying tales and truths!
I read somewhere that Lataji used to mimic and make fun of producers and music directors who used to visit her. After they left. She herself is a very good mimic, they say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P
June 6, 2016
“I’ll readily admit that many people around the world use freedom of expression selfishly and irresponsibly. But I would request that we also acknowledge that the same is true of many in power who curtail that freedom.
Neither side holds the monopoly on either virtues or vices. But there should be absolutely no doubt about which can do more damage to society.
The irresponsible exercise of freedom of expression can be harmful, but the danger pales in comparison to the miseries caused throughout history by powerful men who silence speech.”
Prof. Cherian George, speaking on the sentence against Amos Yee, 17 who was jailed for making fun of the Church/Lee Kwan Yew
LikeLike
Jabberwock
June 6, 2016
“It should be possible, and it can be funny even, but it’s also important to note that it need not be exempt from criticism. ”
Lemon: of course. Who is arguing that it should be exempt from criticism? If A makes a joke and B feels the joke is in poor taste/offensive, he has the option of responding to it with strong words (or a joke of his own). And it can go back and forth. What is being discussed here is the attempt to silence/ban something because it discomfits or offends you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lemon
June 7, 2016
Jabberwock: Doesn’t it matter who is doing the silencing and how? Most of the people discussing free speech (on this thread, at least) do not think that the government or media platforms should set blanket rules to control speech. But what if criticism is taken a step forward which might result in some form of silencing. I might decide to protest an event, boycott an organizer or performer, or petition YouTube to remove some content. If this sort of protest gains critical mass, the offensive joke (or whatever else) could be taken down, or an apology issued. Even if nothing happens, the criticisms register at a larger scale. It’s not that I think such protests are necessarily democratic or “good”. Where I live, I see this sort of thing being used usually to shut down dissent, with (ridiculous!) statements like “your words are violent to my group/identity”. Often, certain marginalized groups only get further bullied this way. I’m not sure if I can write off ‘public censoring’ though. Sometimes, it could be the only way to make a political statement about something which is otherwise protected under freedom of expression.
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Jabberwock
June 8, 2016
Lemon,
If this sort of protest gains critical mass, the offensive joke (or whatever else) could be taken down, or an apology issued.
This sentence makes me shiver, given how easy it is to gather a critical mass of people to call for boycotts/bans/apologies for just about anything. We have seen countless examples in recent times of the sort of thing that you yourself call ridiculous – remember the Gurmeet Ram Rahim and Baba Ramdev followers frothing at the mouth about comedians making fun of their great guru? I could go on and on. It is habitual here for people to use “hurt sentiments” as a form of bullying, to insist that something they don’t like be shut down. And in actual practice, very little “is protected under freedom of expression”.
I’m thinking again of the 2012 Jaipur lit-fest and the Rushdie brouhaha. At that festival, there were a group of young, well-behaved Muslims who simply stood outside the tents, handed out excerpts from the Quran to whoever was willing to take them, and explained that they were trying to show that their holy book had more in it than what SR had written in The Satanic Verses. That is an acceptable and civilised form of protest. As opposed to almost everything else that happened at the festival, where eventually the government put pressure on the organisers to not permit even a video link session with Rushdie.
As Salil Tripathi says in this discussion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gxDVHOMhWQ), “Burning books is a prelude to burning people […] You don’t like a book? Shut it. Write another one. Argue with it. Stand in front of bookshops and tell people, this is a bad book – all that is fine. But don’t pick up a stone, don’t pick up ink to throw at someone, don’t pick up acid, don’t pick up a gun and don’t stab or shut down the writer.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
astha
June 8, 2016
Totally agree with you Rangan sir. My thoughts exactly. AIB always cross the thin line to get their share of viewership but it would have made more sense if he made fun of KRK and RGV because they do this kind of stuff. ST and LM are icons and I’m not sure why Tanmay Bhat thought a video like this would be funny.
Also what are your thoughts on the Udta Punjab issue?
LikeLiked by 1 person