What Lies in a Joke? Sedition or Resistance?

'Every joke is a tiny revolution.'

—George Orwell.

Throughout human history, humour has been an important element to express dissent, especially in societies that are particularly marked by political suppression. It is suggestive of independent thinking and creativity, causing contemplation, confronting the hegemonic power, and challenging fear and apathy. Comedy and protest go hand in hand, with the former being an integral part of political conflict and sometimes an act of dissidence, which is why authoritative regimes world-over have always tried to put it under restraint. However, it has been viewed as essential to democracy, providing space for ideas that resonate with the masses.

From Jawaharlal Nehru’s ‘Do not spare me, Shankar’ to the Supreme Court order declining contempt action against comedian Kunal Kamra in 2021, where Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul made a statement, ‘A democracy must permit room for the articulation of dissent, satire, and humour’, a legacy of satire as integral to democracy is evident. However, more recently, the trend is showing a reversal with controversies surrounding comedians who are booked for practising their profession, just because it does not align with the Government's vision. This analysis aims to explore how humour has evolved over centuries and how governments now increasingly view it as a threat. Article 19(1) of the Constitution provides protection for satirists and comedians, but is this sufficient? Where, in this democracy, is the room to express dissent if more comedians are jailed and their careers destroyed? Does this pose an end to Ambedkar’s vision of  ‘democratic dissent’?

Humour Through the Ages

When reflecting on history, it becomes evident that numerous ancient leaders not only embraced humour but also more or less institutionalised it. Humour served as a widespread means of expression: from ancient Greece, where works such as Aristophanes' Lysistrata employed comedy to critique the Peloponnesian War, to ancient India, where the fifth-century CE Sanskrit drama Mṛcchakatika presented a satirical portrayal of politics. 

Folklore narratives from Vijayanagara and Mughal empires indicate how humour was popular and even celebrated in the courts throughout the Middle Ages. The court poet and jester of King Krishnadevaraya, Tenali Rama, mocked corrupt ministers, nobles, and the administration; Birbal, famous for his clever comments, sometimes outsmarted the king, who tolerated it and found it amusing. 

The trend came to a halt as the colonial powers began to curtail every aspect of civic life in India, with humour being their particular favourite arena to meddle with. There were publications like Hicky’s Bengal Gazette (1780–82) and an Urdu weekly, Awadh Punch (1877–1937), that sought to highlight the absurdities and injustices of British rule, until they were forced to shut down. Elsewhere in the world, in Greece, for instance, Lysistrata was banned in the 1940s and then again in the 1960s; and in Soviet Russia, jokes were deemed to be a ‘disease’ that had to be constantly battled with.

The post-independence period in India sought to provide an open space to cartoonists and satirists, with the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru not only tolerating but actively supporting such endeavours. He had a deeply respectful relationship with K Shankar Pillai, the founder of Shankar’s Weekly, and used his cartoons in parliamentary debates as well. However, during Indira Gandhi's regime, censorship became almost all-pervasive. The emergency saw some of the worst instances of curtailment, which have been perceived as huge blows to the democratic ideals of our country. The subsequent governments allowed for a relatively more open space for humour and satire.

More recently, however, humour is again being increasingly viewed with scepticism on the part of the government, and there are efforts to cripple attempts aimed at showing disagreement with the government. It has manifested in the ways the government is intolerant of comedians, including but not limited to the controversies surrounding Aseem Trivedi, Kunal Kamra, Munawar Faruqui, and other comedians, satirists, and cartoonists. Even though the scale does not match that of the emergency period, the hostility is increasingly moving in the same direction.

Constitution and the Comic Voice

The Indian Constitution, right from its inception in the twentieth century, has enshrined the value of freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right under Article 19(1), though subject to ‘reasonable restrictions’. It permits people to express their thoughts and opinions, including the use of humour and other artistic mediums to make commentary on matters of political and social significance. Article 19(2), however, outlines the ‘reasonable restrictions’ that can be imposed, which include limitations that are necessary to protect India's sovereignty and integrity, public order, friendly relations with other nations, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to crime. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution was aimed at making additions to the set of said reasonable restrictions.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology  Act, stating that, however unpopular an advocacy or a discussion may be, it is protected constitutionally. Additionally, Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) addresses defamation and its exceptions. Under Exception 6, if a comedian critiques the actions of a public figure or public policies, and does so in ‘good faith,’ it does not fall under the ambit of defamation. Under Section 152 of the BNS, which deals with acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity, terms such as ‘sedition’ have been removed, and instead, ‘subversive activities’ is the umbrella term used. As per a judicial interpretation by the Rajasthan High Court, mere criticism of the government is not deemed to be an offence under this section.

Lockdown on Laughter 

While the Constitution allows space for humour and satire, it does so under the guise of a series of vague and ambiguous laws, followed by a weak executive machinery. Article 19(1) is quickly followed by a set of ‘reasonable restrictions’ under 19(2). The BNS, with terms like ‘subversive activities’, adds to the ambiguity, since at any point, a new interpretation could be added to such activities to book a comedian or a satirist. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led government at the centre has been playing a pivotal role for years now to further this curtailment. The amendments to the Information Technology Rules in 2021 and 2023 have been controversial, seeking to establish fact-checking units that are empowered to flag ‘false’ information related to the government.

In 2016, a Snapchat clip featuring Tanmay Bhat caught the public's eye, as the comedian employed a filter to imitate former President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Azad, iconic singer Lata Mangeshkar, and cricketer Sachin Tendulkar. In 2020, stand-up comedian Agrima Joshua received rape threats and was compelled to publicly apologise after her viral video joking about a suggested Shivaji statue. In 2021, Vir Das's ‘Two Indias’ monologue at the Kennedy Centre resulted in multiple police complaints against him for supposedly disrespecting the country overseas. Munawar Faruqui was detained in Indore for reportedly making derogatory jokes regarding Hindu gods and Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Although no definitive proof was discovered, he had to remain in jail for more than a month until the Supreme Court issued his bail. The same year, in 2021, Kunal Kamra faced contempt proceedings for tweets criticising the Supreme Court. Again, in March 2025, he stirred another row over his video titled Naya Bharat, labelling Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde as a gaddar (traitor), leading the Yuva Sena (youth wing of Shiv Sena) to destroy The Habitat Studio where the show had taken place, followed by some protests and the burning of his effigies.

Of Dissent and Democracy 

These, and many other instances, bear testimony to how the current constitutional safeguards are not enough, and how the Centre is increasingly seeking to overreach in areas it senses dissent. We are made to grapple with questions on whether there is, still, any room left to express dissent and whether the vision of ‘constitutional dissent’ that Ambedkar deemed necessary for the functioning of our democracy is dying a slow death. In his work, Annihilation of Caste, Dr Ambedkar says, “An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society, there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words, there should be social endosmosis. This is a fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen.” He, thus, highlighted the importance of differing views and how they should be allowed to be presented freely in society with no fear of judgement or charges.

Sedition or Resistance?

In a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Dr Shashi Tharoor wrote, “There is no democracy without dissent.” Unfortunately, however, this expression of freedom is viewed with utmost scepticism by the government. Every act of dissent, which should have been perceived as a form of resistance, is being labelled as seditious. Resistance is the hallmark of a true democracy because it ensures that different viewpoints are allowed to be articulated. A democracy is not only about rule by a government chosen by the majority, but more about creating a space where all forms of minorities feel safe to present their vision. If a democracy fails to imbibe this, it has failed as a principle and doctrine; being no different than a majoritarian or authoritarian regime. In humour lie tiny acts of resistance that can be more important in effecting change than huge revolts. Comedians are ordinary citizens who have the potential to voice the concerns of the masses in creative ways, and in doing so, they play an essential role, but may end up inviting trouble from authoritarian regimes as well.

There was a time when leaders institutionalised comedy, laughed at it, and derived important points of consideration from it. This outlook was presented by Dr BR Ambedkar in his parliamentary discussions, which he believed would have been incomplete without diverging voices from the opposition. His vision perceived humour as dissent, where laughing at a leader does not count as disrespecting democracy, but rather as upholding the value of resistance. Associating a negative connotation with dissent may make it appear seditious, which needs to be looked beyond to grasp that the nectar of true democracy lies within, in the form of resistance and the freedom of speech and expression. 

Conclusion 

With the governments becoming more and more insecure, censorship has become their favourite toolkit to use. They understand the value of satire and its ability to bring people together for or against a cause. Of this, they do not have the apparatus to deal with, which is why recourse is taken to curtailment. Labelling comedians as ‘anti-national’ and cartoonists as ‘seditious’, the government wants to cultivate a breed of muzzled yes-men who agree with anything and everything, not realising the power of their agency. There is something much more than sedition in a joke: there is power, resistance, and freedom that form the fundamentals of human existence. It needs to be borne in mind that every time the government tries to silence a comedian, arrest a cartoonist, or press charges against a satirist, it is not the individual that is threatened but the very notion of the freedom of speech and expression in the country. It is not the death of a career in comedy, but that of the trust the constitution lays in people's representatives, of being able to use the power of amendment to safeguard freedom rather than diluting it.

The author, Maleeha Parvez Wani, is an Assistant Editor at Ramjas Political Review.