Note before starting: this post addresses a controversy involving vulgar language and sexually explicit humor. Perhaps not wise to read in a work or school setting, or to share with young children. Now on with the post.
A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected. He has no freedom of choice in any direction whatever. On the other hand his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly formulated code of behaviour.
In 1984, George Orwell imagined the Thought Police as a representation of 20th century communist governments’ constant policing of citizens’ thoughts and speech, punishing people for so much as thinking bad things about the regime even if they did not actually act on those thoughts. Today, 1984 is frequently used to draw comparisons between authoritarian politicians and the dystopian police state Orwell had imagined, but much rarer is the comparison between 1984 and the thought policing done by many radical feminists, LGBTQ+ activists, and others who claim to be defending the dignity of minorities against offensive remarks. Sexist and otherwise derogatory comments are a real issue in society, but this does not justify violating people’s fundamental rights in order to punish offensive speech. Nonetheless, many left-wing activists show a disturbing willingness to infringe on the right to free speech with the goal of penalizing sexist, racist, etc remarks or thoughts.
I refer, of course, to the now-infamous Rs 370 biryani guy. What a shame – he probably had a life, career aspirations, dreams, and now he shall forever be known as “Rs 370 biryani guy,” his entire life reduced to the fallout of a 2-3 minute joke told at a stand-up act. For those not in the loop, “Rs 370 biryani guy” is Himanshu Jangra, a 23-year-old man who recently went viral for a humorous story he told at a Pranit More comedy show. The story consisted of his repeated attempts at convincing his girlfriend to have sex with him, only to be repeatedly hindered by various circumstances: the girlfriend having to go to the mall, not having condoms, her not being in the mood, and finally her being hungry. The climax to the story was when he solved the hunger issue by taking her to eat Rs 370 biryani, after which she asked to be dropped home, leading to Jhangra joking “maine kaha ki Rs 370 lage hain to use to wasool to karunga hi b*h*nc**de (I said, I’ve spent Rs 370, so I’ll get my money’s worth I’m not translating that)” 1.
This joke has been widely denounced as sexist, implying consent can be bought with Rs 370, objectifying women, promoting rape, etc. A social media pressure campaign resulted in Jangra (a web developer) being fired, although now his boss is also drawing flak because the firing happened due to social media pressure rather than feeling moral obligation to fire an allegedly sexist employee. Then the National Commission for Women (NCW) took suo motu cognizance of the Rs 370 biryani case, issued summonses to the comedian Pranit More and the Rs 370 biryani guy, and sought police action 2. Maharashtra’s cyber police eagerly answered to the call and registered a case against More and Jangra for “obscene and objectionable content” online 3. This encouraged everyone to come get their pound of flesh. Maharashtra’s chief minister Devendra Fadnavis (a staunch feminist of course) denounced the joke and the involvement of everyone at the show, arguing that such jokes “violate societal boundaries” and “the limits of dignity.” Arnab Goswami, eager as always to make money off manufactured outrage, has created a full episode of “Debate with Arnab” inveighing against Jangra 4, and social media has had a field day with Rs 370 biryani memes.
There are some legitimate concerns about male entitlement, sexism, and how cultural factors contribute to the prevalence of rape and sexual harassment in India; however, this joke’s danger to society is being blown out of proportion, and the discussion around these issues is rapidly turning into a witch hunt, an opportunity for everyone to pile on to strengthen their pro-women credentials. My view is that this joke was exactly that – a joke, and not a serious suggestion that Rs 370 biryani can buy sexual consent. Stand-up comedy frequently runs on shock jock humor and exaggeration, and people often say things they don’t seriously mean at stand-up comedy shows. If anyone was seriously drawing life advice from clips of the Rs 370 biryani story, the fault lies more with the viewers than the person making the joke. My own assessment of Jangra’s tone, seriousness and the rest of the story make it seem very unlikely he was seriously equating Rs 370 with sexual consent. In fact, the media’s constant focus on the “wasool to karunga hi” line omits several key details: Jangra was not forcing himself on some girl he’d just met, and in the story, his girlfriend had actually agreed to have sex once before but called off the plan after realizing there were no condoms. Jangra comes across as a bit too obsessed with sex, perhaps a bit too insistent on having it, but he certainly wasn’t suggesting consent could be bought. He was telling a humorous story about his plans for sex being repeatedly foiled and light-heartedly complaining about his girlfriend’s hesitancy irritating him (although he was respectful of it, something his critics conveniently ignore) – this was not some sinister plot to promote rape in India.
The focus on the “wasool to karunga hi” line, being quoted in journalistic-style writing, also ignores another key aspect of the incident – the joke was actually funny. I’d recommend watching the video of the joke, available in chunks here and here (the original video on Pranit More’s channel is now deleted). A typed transcript of any comedy show would result in the comedian coming across as boring and very obscene, since humor isn’t just about a string of words but also the delivery of jokes. Jangra was a master storyteller and had the entire crowd rolling on the floor with laughter; I will admit, even I found it quite funny. Obscene? Yes. Very offensive, risking coming across as sexist? Yes. But unfunny? This joke had me laughing harder than I have in several days – the accusation of the joke being ‘100% sexism, 0% humor’ is unfair and derived from specific parts of the joke being taken out of context and separated from the verbal delivery that made it funny.
Dark humor and slightly offensive jokes are a staple of comedy. American shows like Family Guy and South Park frequently use stereotypes based on race or religion for comedic effect, and nobody is offended because everything is clearly in jest and deliberately testing the audience’s boundaries. Stand-up acts have always been full of edgy humor, lots of swearing, and jokes meant to test people’s boundaries. It’s ridiculous to demand family-friendly stand-up comedy, for this defeats the very purpose of stand-up. CM Fadnavis’ remarks are implying that stand-up comedy should respect ‘societal boundaries’, and the NCW is saying comedians should avoid ‘obscene and objectionable content.’ This would kill most comedy shows overnight. Who gets to decide what jokes are too obscene, versus which ones are just barely respectful enough of societal boundaries to be allowed? This kind of thought policing is a slippery slope that will lead to people being scared of making the kind of edgy jokes that have been key to stand-up comedy’s success.
The Indian legal system has always been too iffy on fundamental rights, struggling to maintain the balance between freedom and maintaining the rule of law. We have ambiguously-worded, oft-abused restrictions on content disruptive of ‘the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India’, laws against ‘outraging the modesty of a woman’ that are vague and once let a lawyer sue Aryan Khan for showing the middle finger in the presence of women, and strict obscenity laws. Policing stand-up comedy is just the latest in India’s long and inglorious history of trampling on freedom of speech, especially in the cases where it is least necessary. Even beyond killing stand-up comedy, it is dangerous to suggest that the state should punish certain kinds of speech that violate arbitrarily decided standards of modesty. There is no objective standard of obscenity, modesty, or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is why laws using this kind of language are fraught for abuse, e.g. punishing political opponents, silencing dissent, and using the law to enforce personal beliefs on morality that have no relation to constitutional obligations or the public interest. The critics of ‘Rs 370 biryani guy’ want to add even more vague language to further trample on freedom of speech in India – let’s throw ‘societal boundaries’ and ‘objectionable’ into the mix of legally vague terms, why not! Once you give the government power to police certain kinds of speech, you can’t control how they will interpret those powers and extend them.
I don’t think Jangra’s joke was harmful or a negative influence on the youth, but that isn’t even relevant to the bigger issue of free speech. Suppose, for argument’s sake, that Jangra’s joke actually was promoting rape. Is it the government’s job to punish speech that promotes rape, or for that matter, any kind of dangerous behavior? While saying ‘no’ might seem morally repugnant, the practical implications of answering ‘yes’ are terrifying. Who gets to decide what kind of speech is dangerous or at odds with Indian values? Free speech should be a fundamental right, with as few limits as possible, because limiting it leads to a slippery slope where airtight laws with little scope for abuse are nearly impossible to create. Jangra’s critics argue that his joke promoted rape, but the feminists on social media, the NCW, and Maharashtra cyber police are also promoting a kind of dangerous behavior: punishing people for speech by using massive government overreach. Rhetoric glorifying rape, violence, etc should be combated, but through criticism in the media and education that counters these negative influences, not through use of government power that tramples over the right to free speech. People’s support for the prosecution of Jangra and More is tacit support for abuse of vaguely-worded laws and thought policing.
Some might object to the phrase ‘thought policing,’ since this case involves offensive speech rather than thoughts. However, the issue of thought policing emerges from the fact that Jangra is not the only one named in the case, and the comedian Pranit More is also being investigated. Even supposing that the Rs 370 biryani joke actually was dangerous to society, More was not the one who made the joke, and his only crime is having found it funny and not criticizing it. This controversy goes beyond cracking down on free speech and sets a precedent for policing thought itself. Social media is clamoring for the public shaming and legal punishment of anybody who laughed at the joke and didn’t think it needed criticism. Where does this end? By this logic, you can be a bad person just for having a certain sense of humor, and it is the duty of employers to fire such people, and for the legal system to punish people laughing at jokes that are deemed ‘objectionable’ or ‘violating societal boundaries.’ Should everyone present at the comedy show face charges? Should I face charges for having laughed at it from 13500 kilometers away? Again, a slippery slope that goes beyond demolishing the freedom of speech and threatens the freedom of thought itself.
This post’s title also mentioned virtue signaling, and that’s another important issue I want to address. How much of this outrage is real, rather than people seeking to strengthen their credentials as feminists? It’s unusual for a state’s chief minister to comment on an internet controversy about a stand-up comedy show – how much of CM Fadnavis’ outrage stems from genuine concern about rape culture, and how much is political opportunism and trying to strengthen his popularity among women voters? His feminism was considerably more muted when his own party’s (BJP) Maharashtra chief, Chandrakant Patil, came under fire for sexist remarks directed at Supriya Sule, an MP from the rival NCP:
“Why are you even in politics? Just go home and cook. Go to Delhi or to a cemetery, but get us the OBC quota. Despite being a Lok Sabha member, how come you don’t know how to get an appointment with a Chief Minister?”
Facing a backlash, Mr Patil attempted damage control today saying he meant Ms Sule should “go to the villages and try to understand them” in politics.
“It is in my nature to respect women. What I meant was she should learn to live in rural areas where there are sayings like this. I respect Supriya-tai and we talk often,” the BJP leader said. 5
CM Fadnavis did not call for Patil’s resignation and felt an apology sufficed – even though this apology doesn’t seem quite genuine, since it came only after his laughable attempt at clarifying his insult as encouragement for Ms. Sule to experience village life. Today, Patil is a cabinet minister in Fadnavis’ government. Why is Jangra, a 23-year-old attending a stand-up comedy show, held to a higher standard than the state’s BJP chief? One was forced out of his job and hit with a police case, the other received a promotion. CM Fadnavis’ concern for women’s dignity seems to only be triggered when it is politically convenient – ‘rules for thee, but not for me’. The Rs 370 biryani controversy has received much genuine outrage, but CM Fadnavis’ hypocrisy suggests there’s also a large amount of virtue signaling, i.e. people inveighing against Jangra to give the appearance of being pro-women even if their past actions suggest a not-so-firm commitment to combating sexism.
It is sad that Jangra’s comments are not receiving a fair and impartial assessment from the public. Rather, his case has become an opportunity for everyone to prove how robust their support for feminism is, and for selective prosecution on the basis of social media virality rather than actual gravity of an offense. I wish Jangra, More, and whoever else is dragged into this controversy 6 the best of luck in receiving a fair trial (difficult given the virality and fervor surrounding the case) and getting their lives back. No one deserves to be crucified for one slightly offensive joke at a stand-up comedy show, when politicians and powerful men get away with far worse. This controversy does nothing to fight rape culture or sexism – it is a witch hunt, and nothing more.
Sources quoted from and footnotes:
https://theprint.in/feature/gurugram-co-sacks-man-for-rs-370-biryani-paisa-vasool-date-story-boss-got-online-flak-too/2955138/↩︎
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/rs-370-biryani-row-ncw-summons-pranit-more-himanshu-jangra-seeks-police-action-10735109/lite/↩︎
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/maharashtra-cyber-police-register-case-against-stand-up-comedian-pranit-more-over-370-biryani-remark-101781184148379.html↩︎
Arnab Goswami’s debate is here – I do not recommend watching this, or anything else from his show, if you value your time and sanity. However, sometimes Mr. Goswami does offer good comedic value because his average decibel level of “ear-splitting shrieks” is quite funny. I would actually recommend this compilation video of him yelling if your sense of humor is as broken as mine, as well as this video of him repeatedly saying “how dare you say I take money.”↩︎
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/maharashtra-bjp-chief-chandrakant-patil-says-in-sexist-jab-at-supriya-sule-go-home-and-cook-3010589↩︎
“Additionally, the NCW has requested details regarding action taken against those involved, the authentication and examination of the viral video evidence, and the role played by the organisers, performers and venue management” reported by Hindustan Times here. Let’s hope they don’t go after the security at the venue who chuckled a bit at the joke… Social media is also digging up earlier controversial jokes made on Pranit More shows, such as this female doctor who made a joke about comparing the sizes of male different cadavers’ genitalia. There’s now a social media campaign against her as well.↩︎