Kunal Kamra’s lessons for media

Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra’s humour feels so uniquely rebellious because it is in sharp contrast to the media’s craven silencer

Hours after Indians began to laugh as they watched comic artist Kunal Kamra's new video, Naya Bharat, released on March 23, the John F Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts, Washington DC, hosted its annual ceremony to bestow the Mark Twain Prize for American Humour on Conan O'Brien. Although not known for his political persona, O'Brien said in his acceptance speech, "First and foremost, Twain hated bullies. He punched up, not down. And he deeply, deeply empathised with the weak." O'Brien's allusion to Trump as a bully was unmissable, prompting the audience to guffaw - and applaud.

India should institute an award for the Most Courageous Humour of the Year, for, unlike in the United States, political satirists here invite mobs, troll armies and paranoid governments, all keen, and often acting in tandem, to silence them - and even toss them into prison. Think Munawar Faruqui and Nalin Yadav. Many comedians have chosen, understandably, to take out the bite from their satire on the more sinister of India's bullies, and even refrain from mentioning them.

In the backdrop of rising intolerance, Kamra has demonstrated a special kind of courage to produce Naya Bharat, which "punches up" the list of India's who's who. From Narendra Modi to Adityanath to Eknath Shinde, from the Ambanis to the Mahindras and the Murthys, he singed them all with his humour as few ever have, to the delight of many. And also to the fury of some, who vandalised The Habitat, the venue in Mumbai where Naya Bharat was recorded. An FIR for defamation has been filed against Kamra.

The charge of defamation threatens not only to take out the laughter from satire but also its very essence. This point academic Thomas E Cronin makes in his paper Laughing At Leaders (American politicians especially), through a doggerel he quotes, "Political satire to be most effective/Is caustic, unfair and never objective/With all this in mind, you may ask why I'm for it/The answer is simple: Tyrants abhor it."

Cronin cites multiple views on political humour, to discuss the reasons people resort to it. None of these views is as insightful as Sigmund Freud's observation that jokes signify a rebellion of the weak against authority. Jokes serve as a coping mechanism of the oppressed, unable as they are to transform the grim reality of their lives. Through their laughter, they mock the powerful's almost existential need for respect and obedience. In laughing with the humorist, individuals band together to form a community of the unafraid. It's therapeutic, even if fleetingly.

You must read the responses of viewers of Naya Bharat to fathom the depth of the popular support for Kamra's lampooning of politicians, all of whom either belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party or are its allies. This may, at one level, reflect India's ideological polarisation - and the helplessness of those opposed to the BJP's autocratic conduct, defined most starkly by what is incorrectly referred to as "bulldozer justice." It is, in fact, bulldozer injustice.

At another level, though, the viewers through their support for Kamra have implicitly expressed their disappointment over the mainstream media's reluctance to critique Modi and the BJP. His humour feels so uniquely rebellious because it is in sharp contrast to the media's craven silence.

Much of the media has opted for the "balancing act" - for every story mildly critical of the BJP that it publishes, the newspaper that was extraordinarily brave during the Emergency front-pages the prime minister's most ordinary remark. In another daily, stories perceived as inimical to the BJP almost always begin with a denial. The opinion pages of another newspaper, widely acclaimed earlier, do not critique Modi by name. As for the TV channels, let us not even begin talking.

All these newspapers wrote editorials supporting Kamra, reminding the rulers about the right to free speech being constitutionally guaranteed in India. Even in the most oppressive societies, the right to free speech can be said to exist notionally. But what is not guaranteed there is "freedom after speech," as is increasingly happening in India.

The national dailies could have dispelled the people's fear of losing their "freedom after speech" by dissenting themselves. They haven't, creating a vacuum into which Kamra has stepped, as have also segments of digital media and a handful who operate independent YouTube channels, which match, if they have not already outstripped, the popularity of TV outlets. They have risked their freedom to ensure the culture of dissent doesn't disappear.

Yet Kamra's dissent is most telling because he does so by making people laugh, which, humorist Mark Twain wrote, is "one really effective weapon" the human race has against the powerful. "Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand," he said. Indeed, even the most erudite analysis can be challenged through alternative or bogus facts. A My Name Is Khan can meet its match in The Kerala Story. But Kamra's spoofs on the powerful can't possibly be countered by releasing videos or statements contradicting him. It will make them appear even more ridiculous. This is the reason behind the intimidation of the person who refuses to apologise for his humour - or relinquish the weapon of the weak.

The writer is a senior journalist and author of Bhima Koregaon: Challenging Caste

Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com

The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper