Kishori Sud of IANS, asked a number of Indian comics about free speech (7/16/2017), and their answers highlight an issue that pops up a lot, even here in America: Is stand-up a space of free speech, where a comic can “Speak Truth to Power”? He notes,
In stand-up comedy, artistes take bold pot shots at politicians or comment on social issues like the beef ban — yet most of them feel that people in India are not quite ready to be criticised or mocked.
A “bold pot shot” sounds like an oxymoron. If a pot shot is “a criticism, especially a random or unfounded one” then can random, unfounded criticisms be bold in a meaningful way (as opposed to just be audacious)? However, if a pot shot is “unexpected criticism aimed at something with no chance of self-defense,” then perhaps it can be meaningfully bold, but this scenario doesn’t scan, as politicians always have an opportunity for self-defense.
Further, if people are “not quite ready,” will the practice have an effect? Will it continue?
Truth to power
Whereas a number of people claim that comedy can have no effect on society, Indian comic Amit Tandon, “feels stand-[up ]comedy is ‘one of the voices’ against the negativity escalating in the country.” Stand-up takes its place alongside bona fide political discourse; however, for whatever reason – fewer people trying, audiences not biting; Sud doesn’t delve into the “whys” – “[Tandon] believes that ‘other people are doing better jobs than comedians, like RTI (Right To Information) activists, NGOs, etc’.”
Neeti Palta, says that
[S]ince the time of “[Emperor] Akbar and [his wise advisor] Birbal, comedy has always been used as a tool to sugarcoat hard truths and make them more palatable. And so is the case today”.
This reflects a common view that humor and comedy coat, clothe, cover up the truth, allowing it easier passage. My problem with this view is that oftentimes, comedy is given less credit. At base is a bona fide, political message, and the humor is just an aesthetic choice – a series of techniques: wording, tone, timing, etc.
On the other hand, my view is that oftentimes the humorous devices reveal the truth in a way that a direct statement could not. For instance, in a humorous comparison or contrast, the humor is not something added on after the fact, the comparison is what makes the fact visible.
Reflection versus revelation
Palta casts further doubt on what humor can do when she says,
It reflects the ethos of the era it exists in. Be it a poking fun at intolerance or a bunch of idiots who are all too easily offended, or the current political scenario, or even the alter lives we lead in cyber space. Everything is rich ground for material.
Yes, everything is ground for material, but the idea that art “reflects,” is somewhat problematic. Can the comedian convince the audience of something they haven’t thought of before, or are they merely consensus seekers, telling us what we already know and believe? I would say they can be both.
We have to realize, along with Kenneth Burke, that humor must act as what he calls a “terministic screen,” that it frames an issue. The issue so framed is inevitably changed:
Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function as a deflection of reality. (45)
This deflection of reality can present us with something new, revelatory; it can reveal new insights about the world.
Political humor in practice
In practice, we know that not all comics even try to approach political topics, much less political figures, and when they do, they’re often very careful.
Sorabh Pant says that “he thinks twice about his jokes only when it is related to Indian politicians.”
I want to make sure that I am not saying anything that is incorrect. I will criticise (Prime Minister) Narendra Modi, (Chief Minister of Delhi) Arvind Kejriwal and (Congress leader) Rahul Gandhi, but I am also going to figure out their positive side to keep it balanced because all three of them have quite a vast number of supporters in the country and it is a little unfair to disrespect them.
His answer references the idea of comic intention – that stand-up must be funny first, and that he has to get a laugh from a general audience, which will include supporters. Thus begins the process of self-policing, he “sugarcoats” his critique by saying something positive. This is wise as it gives the audience an opposing reason to enjoy the set, but some would say it simultaneously undercuts the efficacy of the critique.
Moral policing
Sud asks the question:
[I]s stand up comedy the only platform devoid of interference from “moral policing”?
Some comics say it is not free from moral policing. Sud quotes stand-up comedian Appurv Gupta, who says,
[O]nline trolls are making sure that even comedians won’t say what they want to say. These days, everyone is getting hurt over even small things and if we say something that affects them emotionally or forces them to think about their past decisions, then they can go to any level — especially on internet — and they make sure that either they win the argument, or you stop arguing with them.
I, as a comedian, think twice before writing a small tweet and think about the consequences; so I doubt whether I have freedom of speech, specially at this point of time. Things were different 2-3 years back. I don’t know whether this change is good or bad for everyone, but, yes, freedom of speech is facing a struggle in India.
He further quotes Punchliners comedy platform co-founder, Arjun Anand, who believes that “sensitive issues must be handled sensitively”. So again, we return to the process of self-policing, of “thinking twice,” second guessing and trying to be “sensitive,” that can hamper any creative effort.
On the other hand, comic Amit Tandon, believes that Indian stand-up is free of actual policing,
In fact, stand-up comedy shows you that there is still freedom of speech because, despite all the FIRs [First Information Reports; basically the first act of charging someone with a crime], no comedian has actually gone to jail. It shows that it is okay to speak against the government.
As in the U.S., Indian comics don’t usually get prosecuted, let alone convicted; however, that doesn’t mean the whole process isn’t a pain in the ass that has a chilling effect on what the comics try to do.
Comedy is not judgment free
But we should recognize that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from judgment. No one gets to say whatever they want with no consequences. Not all people who complain and get “emotional” are simultaneously irrational. Perhaps it’s not just that “people aren’t ready,” maybe comics should try not to be assholes; maybe they should try to be sensitive when handling sensitive issues.
Further, we should recognize that the space of stand-up is policed so heavily (both in India and here in the U.S.) precisely because it is potentially powerful, and we’re worried about its use and abuse.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
References:
Burke, Kenneth. “Terministic Screens.” Language as Symbolic Action. 44-62.