The recent controversy surrounding Kunal Kamra’s YouTube video and the subsequent vandalism of Mumbai Habitat’s Comedy Club by members of Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena has reignited debates on freedom of expression in India. The parody of a song from Dil To Pagal Hai—allegedly referring to Eknath Shinde as a “gaddar” (traitor) for his split from Shiv Sena—angered Shiv Sainiks, leading to the backlash. Shiv Sena leader Naresh Mhaske released a video threatening Kamra, stating that party workers would pursue him across the country and force him to flee India. Meanwhile, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis called on Kamra to apologize, to which Kamra firmly responded, “I will not apologize.”
Satire plays a vital role in a democracy, not only exposing political hypocrisy, corruption, and societal contradictions but also serving as an educational tool through humour and irony. India has a rich tradition of political satire, from R.K. Laxman’s iconic Common Man cartoons and Jaspal Bhatti’s witty parodies to contemporary stand-up comedians like Kunal Kamra, Varun Grover, Rajiv Nigam, and Shyam Rangeela. In cinema, films such as Kundan Shah’s Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro and Anusha Rizvi’s Peepli Live have effectively used satire to critique systemic failures. The tradition of Hasya Kavi Sammelans has also played a significant role in challenging authority through poetic humour. Satire allows people to question those in power in an engaging and accessible manner, reaching a wide audience without the weight of serious political discourse. In a way, it serves as a political education tool, prompting people to reflect on what is right and wrong.
The BJP has effectively used satire to belittle opposition leaders such as Rahul Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi, and Arvind Kejriwal—branding Rahul Gandhi as ‘Pappu,’ Manmohan Singh as ‘Maun Mohan Singh,’ and Kejriwal as a ‘Nautanki Baaz.’ A well-oiled propaganda machine has reinforced these narratives. This is considered normal. However, when humour is turned against the ruling party, it often faces severe backlash. In recent years, satire aimed at the BJP and Prime Minister Modi has been met with legal action, censorship, and intimidation, evident in Rahul Gandhi’s defamation case, the suspension of the satirical platform Vikatan.com, the vandalism of Kunal Kamra’s comedy club, and Modi’s own use of humour to undermine opposition voices. Opposition and dissenting voices are frequently branded as anti-national or anti-Hindu, reinforcing a narrative that discredits criticism.
A government that thrives on social polarization—dividing citizens into majority vs. minority, Mandir vs. Masjid, pro-BJP vs. anti-BJP, pro-Hindu vs. anti-Hindu, pro-Modi vs. anti-Modi, and even pro-India vs. anti-India—inevitably creates two categories of Indians: those aligned with the government, who enjoy unchecked freedom of expression, and those who oppose it, whose voices are systematically suppressed. This double standard is evident in how terms like “Gaddar” (traitor), openly used by BJP leaders like Anurag Thakur, face no repercussions, while similar expressions by critics of the government, such as Kunal Kamra’s satirical takes, lead to legal and social intimidation. Similar instances include the use of “Tukde Tukde Gang” to label dissenting voices, “Urban Naxal” to silence intellectuals and activists, and “Anti-national” to delegitimize those questioning government policies—terms that are wielded freely by those in power but become grounds for retaliation when used against them.
Humour has not always been seen as offensive by political leaders. There have been instances where Nehru playfully asked cartoonist R.K. Laxman why he hadn’t drawn a cartoon of him, Vajpayee countered criticism with poetic wit, and Lalu Yadav embraced satire with self-deprecating humour. However, political psychologists such as Karen Stenner and George Lakoff suggest that authoritarian-leaning leaders resist satire because it simplifies complex issues, undermines their carefully crafted image, and poses a threat to their authority. Humour disrupts political branding and mobilizes dissent, making it a tool that such leaders seek to control.
Poet Rahat Indori’s famous lines—“Sabhi ka khoon hai shaamil yahaan ki mitti mein, kisi ke baap ka Hindustan thodi hai”—which translates to “This country’s soil is part of everyone; it is not yours alone”—highlight the dangers of exclusionary nationalism. His statement critiques the mindset that certain groups claim sole ownership of the nation while disregarding others. In the current political landscape, this resonates deeply as we see two distinct classes of Indians: those who can freely express themselves, even to the extent of spreading misinformation, and those who face severe consequences for using humour to expose political and social realities.
The reaction to Kamra’s satire and the broader trend of suppressing dissenting humour reflects a larger struggle over the right to question and criticize those in power. While satire has always been a tool for holding the powerful accountable, its reception now depends entirely on who wields it. If humour continues to be selectively tolerated, allowing one side to ridicule freely while the other faces persecution, the fundamental democratic values of free speech and critical engagement stand at risk.
T Navin is an independent writer
