Why ‘Ek Thappad Lagaungi’ Isn’t Just a Joke

Introduction

I come from a middle-class Indian family, and like many others in similar socio-economic settings, I have grown up hearing certain familiar phrases in everyday conversations. Phrases like “ek thappad padega,” “zyada bola toh utha ke patak dungi,” or “abhi chappal leke aayi main” are part of the emotional and disciplinary fabric of many households. They are said often with a smile, sometimes in jest, and rarely with the intention to harm. Yet, their frequency and form are worth interrogating. Over time, such language not only becomes normalized but begins to shape how love, authority, discipline, and fear are understood within the family structure.

When Humour Trains the Heart

To be clear, these aren’t cases of overt abuse. Physical violence often does not occur. However, the repeated use of mock threats blurs the line between affection and discipline, between humour and harm. The core message that begins to take root is this: discipline equals care, control equals love, fear equals safety.

These mock-threats, delivered casually, become tools of social conditioning. Anthropologist Veena Das, in her work Life and Words (2007), explores how violence becomes embedded in everyday life. She writes about how trauma and harm do not always erupt dramatically—they often seep into the mundane and become indistinguishable from ordinary forms of interaction. In this way, mock-threats and playful aggression in the household are not separate from societal violence—they are its softer echoes.

In Indian homes, these seemingly innocuous phrases serve as micro-performances of power, building what Veena Das calls the descent into the ordinary—where language and behaviour born out of violent logics become the grammar of emotional life.

Women, Power, and Symbolic Threats

It is particularly notable that women often use such language with ease. Mothers, grandmothers, aunts—especially those without formal or financial power—may find symbolic authority in speech. By mimicking the threat of punishment, they assert their presence in domestic hierarchies. This performance of “safe power” warrants further analysis. It suggests a structure where even empowerment for women is expressed through borrowed patriarchal codes of control.

This also has intergenerational consequences. Daughters watch their mothers perform authority in this manner and may internalize it as a legitimate form of maternal care. The script gets passed on, not because it is ideal, but because it is familiar.

Pop Culture and the Performance of Correction

Indian television sitcoms frequently reinforce these dynamics. Shows like Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah and Khichdi normalize humorous domestic threats as part of everyday family life. Such portrayals shape public sensibilities and contribute to the social acceptability of verbal correction masquerading as entertainment. The boundary between humour and emotional discipline becomes increasingly porous.

More recently, social media videos and meme culture have further blurred this line. A viral reel showed a woman mock-slapping her fiancé during a mehendi ceremony, with the caption “shaadi ke baad toh roz bajegi.” The comments ranged from laughter to concern, yet the performance was framed as love.

The Foucault Angle: Families as Sites of Discipline

Michel Foucault’s theories on disciplinary power offer a useful lens to understand this phenomenon. He argued that modern societies rely not on brute force but on subtle, internalized forms of regulation. In Indian households, mock threats operate as mechanisms of soft discipline—conditioning individuals to comply through the suggestion of fear rather than its actual enactment.

The home becomes the first institution where bodies are trained—where language does not need to be enforced physically to produce order. Children do not just obey—they anticipate. They internalize a form of discipline that feels like care, even when it sounds like threat.

Yes, Sometimes It’s Just a Joke

It is essential to acknowledge that not all usage of such phrases leads to emotional harm. In some families, they are indeed perceived as harmless, even affectionate. The presence of emotional security, mutual respect, and open communication can mitigate the potentially negative effects. However, the broader cultural patterns cannot be ignored. The very fact that these phrases are so widespread necessitates critical reflection.

In a few cases, these phrases may serve as a unique form of intimacy—where mock-aggression is mutually understood as play. But even in such cases, it’s worth asking: what cultural vocabulary of love are we reinforcing? And who gets to participate in this play safely?

Children, Conditioning, and Confusion

Children in such environments may not always be able to distinguish between affection and aggression. Over time, they might internalize problematic associations such as:

• Attention = Anxiety
  
• Correction = Care
  
• Love = Obedience
  

Such conditioning can manifest in adulthood as tolerance for micro-aggressions, blurred boundaries in intimate relationships, and a generalised acceptance of emotional discomfort as a part of care. The repetition of such language doesn’t only shape relationships—it constructs the emotional architecture of an entire personality.

On the Difficulty of Speaking Differently

Suggesting alternatives such as “I am irritated, but I still love you,” or “Please stop, that upset me” may seem idealistic. In reality, such transitions are difficult. Emotional vocabulary that deviates from inherited scripts often appears awkward or excessive. Yet, this does not diminish the need for it. As with any form of learning, it requires practice, reinforcement, and cultural support.

Regional languages, dialects, and class-specific vocabularies also influence how emotion is articulated. In many lower and middle-income households, direct speech is equated with rebellion, while mock-threats serve as acceptable emotional expressions. Shifting this cultural comfort zone requires not only individual change, but structural support—through education, media, and public discourse.

A Note on Masculinity

While the article has focused on women’s use of mock threats as symbolic power, it is also important to note that men, too, inherit this emotional language—often without the softening of humour. In patriarchal settings, men may suppress vulnerability and instead express affection through dominance or verbal mock-violence.

The same boy who flinched at his mother’s slipper might grow into a man who says “maar dunga” to his partner, believing it to be playful. Masculinity in such frameworks is not devoid of emotion—it is structured by it, through fear, mimicry, and power.

A Glance at Intentions

Intentions behind such speech acts often stem from care, discipline, or a desire to maintain order. Many who use them do so without malice. However, intention alone cannot be the metric for evaluating language that shapes emotional development. The impact, especially on impressionable individuals, must also be accounted for.

Understanding why people say such things—even with love—adds nuance. But understanding what those words do to others must remain the centre of the conversation.

Final Thought

Mock threats in domestic speech may appear trivial, even humorous. But repetition gives them weight, and their weight shapes relational norms. If love is consistently expressed through a grammar of threat, it reinforces the idea that affection and fear are intertwined.

To transform familial and social dynamics, we must first examine our language. Change begins not with a revolution in tone, but with a revision in vocabulary. Even one less “maarungi haan” can be a meaningful step toward building a home where love is felt without fear.

Disha is a Ph.D. Scholar and Senior Research Fellow at Dr. K. R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India. (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7124-9438)