The roasting of three Bollywood stars by a bunch of comedians under the banner of All India Bakchod marks a step forward in our celebrity-worshipping culture, where public images are carefully managed by PR machines. But it has also become a case study about freedom of expression and whether edgy comedy can work in a culture such as ours.
A lot of the humour in the Roast of Arjun Kapoor, Ranveer Singh and director Karan Johar felt forced and the casual use of Hindi and English obscenities made the performers seem like a bunch of collegians who were excited about using bad language in front of teachers. But it showed that at least some celebrities did not mind being pulled down a peg or two in front of the public; they heartily laughed at the invective hurled at them.
“Roasting” is an American tradition, wherein friends and comedians crack jokes, largely good naturedly, about a celebrity intended to amuse the audience and pull down the “victim” a notch or two. Insults and mockery are also freely bandied about everyone takes it in good humour; stars often ask to be roasted.
Politicians outraged
Not surprisingly, the political class is outraged. Some want these stars and the comedians investigated, others such as the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena have said they will ensure their films are not released till they apologise, and the government has let it be known it will look into the matter. “If they have taken the proper approvals, then we will not do anything, since the government does not want to interfere with freedom of expression,” said Maharashtra’s minister of culture Vinod Tawde, as if there is a No Objection Certificate available to use cuss words. To be on the safe side, he has ordered an enquiry. The YouTube video of the roast, which had gone viral, has been taken down by AIB.
Ashoke Pandit, a filmmaker of sorts and general busybody, who is often on television outraging and shouting about a range of issues, tweeted, “Karan Johar could have easily shown his position while performing sex to his mom at home instead of making it public.” By any standard, this is a particularly obnoxious tweet. What makes it worse that Pandit was only recently appointed to the Central Board of Film Certification by the Bharatiya Janata Party government. On the social media, a rough survey would show that young users were largely supportive of the AIB roast and sharply critical of Pandit.
But if freedom of expression applies to the use of bad language, shouldn’t the same principle work for Pandit, despite his particularly nasty and gratuitous comment dragging in Johar and his mother? It should. The standards of judging freedom of expression should be the same ‒ matters of taste do not enter the picture. Pandit’s tweet was in bad taste, but he had an opinion about a public figure and a public event and thus falls under the same ambit.
However, there are two caveats ‒ he is now a public official and what is more, will deal with the film industry in an official capacity; his contract will surely have something to say about what he can say and what he cannot. Second, Karan Johar could well bring legal charges since Pandit has slandered him in public. Pandit is not in the clear.
Let us move to another, unconnected case, that of Shirin Dalvi, the journalist who published the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo in her newspaper along with an article about the subject. This is fair use, yet Dalvi has been attacked not just by Muslim groups, who have filed complaints against her, but also the Thane police which immediately arrested her on charges of “malicious intent” and “outraging religious feelings”. She is now in hiding, away from her home and family.
Police protection essential
This is a classic case of intimidation. She was reproducing an already published cartoon and in connection with an article. Even if she or someone else created a similar cartoon in their newspaper, they have a perfect right to do so. It is possible that someone’s sentiments have been hurt and they are free to file a complaint, but the state has to be careful not to rush in and arrest her on the basis of that complaint.
In both cases, the government is being overenthusiastic in going after those who have not broken any law. (No such enthusiasm is visible in the case of Pandit, who has not shown the slightest remorse after criticism of his tweet.) This will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
The AIB affair also shows that the government has not fully understood that its rules are falling behind changing realities. The days of taking police “approvals” for putting up a show are over. In the 1970s, Maharashtra had gone after Vijay Tendulkar’s play Sakharam Binder for the use of obscenities; nothing seems to have changed in over four decades. In time, it is possible that the AIB crowd will give up using bad language; the audience may well tire of it. But the state cannot interfere ‒ tomorrow it may stop political satire under some provision or the other. Similarly, Dalvi should have been given police protection, not got arrested just because a few groups filed a complaint. Both these cases are a challenge to the notion of freedom of expression and must be fought by all those who cherish it.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
A lot of the humour in the Roast of Arjun Kapoor, Ranveer Singh and director Karan Johar felt forced and the casual use of Hindi and English obscenities made the performers seem like a bunch of collegians who were excited about using bad language in front of teachers. But it showed that at least some celebrities did not mind being pulled down a peg or two in front of the public; they heartily laughed at the invective hurled at them.
“Roasting” is an American tradition, wherein friends and comedians crack jokes, largely good naturedly, about a celebrity intended to amuse the audience and pull down the “victim” a notch or two. Insults and mockery are also freely bandied about everyone takes it in good humour; stars often ask to be roasted.
Politicians outraged
Not surprisingly, the political class is outraged. Some want these stars and the comedians investigated, others such as the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena have said they will ensure their films are not released till they apologise, and the government has let it be known it will look into the matter. “If they have taken the proper approvals, then we will not do anything, since the government does not want to interfere with freedom of expression,” said Maharashtra’s minister of culture Vinod Tawde, as if there is a No Objection Certificate available to use cuss words. To be on the safe side, he has ordered an enquiry. The YouTube video of the roast, which had gone viral, has been taken down by AIB.
Ashoke Pandit, a filmmaker of sorts and general busybody, who is often on television outraging and shouting about a range of issues, tweeted, “Karan Johar could have easily shown his position while performing sex to his mom at home instead of making it public.” By any standard, this is a particularly obnoxious tweet. What makes it worse that Pandit was only recently appointed to the Central Board of Film Certification by the Bharatiya Janata Party government. On the social media, a rough survey would show that young users were largely supportive of the AIB roast and sharply critical of Pandit.
But if freedom of expression applies to the use of bad language, shouldn’t the same principle work for Pandit, despite his particularly nasty and gratuitous comment dragging in Johar and his mother? It should. The standards of judging freedom of expression should be the same ‒ matters of taste do not enter the picture. Pandit’s tweet was in bad taste, but he had an opinion about a public figure and a public event and thus falls under the same ambit.
However, there are two caveats ‒ he is now a public official and what is more, will deal with the film industry in an official capacity; his contract will surely have something to say about what he can say and what he cannot. Second, Karan Johar could well bring legal charges since Pandit has slandered him in public. Pandit is not in the clear.
Let us move to another, unconnected case, that of Shirin Dalvi, the journalist who published the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo in her newspaper along with an article about the subject. This is fair use, yet Dalvi has been attacked not just by Muslim groups, who have filed complaints against her, but also the Thane police which immediately arrested her on charges of “malicious intent” and “outraging religious feelings”. She is now in hiding, away from her home and family.
Police protection essential
This is a classic case of intimidation. She was reproducing an already published cartoon and in connection with an article. Even if she or someone else created a similar cartoon in their newspaper, they have a perfect right to do so. It is possible that someone’s sentiments have been hurt and they are free to file a complaint, but the state has to be careful not to rush in and arrest her on the basis of that complaint.
In both cases, the government is being overenthusiastic in going after those who have not broken any law. (No such enthusiasm is visible in the case of Pandit, who has not shown the slightest remorse after criticism of his tweet.) This will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
The AIB affair also shows that the government has not fully understood that its rules are falling behind changing realities. The days of taking police “approvals” for putting up a show are over. In the 1970s, Maharashtra had gone after Vijay Tendulkar’s play Sakharam Binder for the use of obscenities; nothing seems to have changed in over four decades. In time, it is possible that the AIB crowd will give up using bad language; the audience may well tire of it. But the state cannot interfere ‒ tomorrow it may stop political satire under some provision or the other. Similarly, Dalvi should have been given police protection, not got arrested just because a few groups filed a complaint. Both these cases are a challenge to the notion of freedom of expression and must be fought by all those who cherish it.