Humour

Why Ranveer Allahbadia’s Bad Joke on the Family Got Indians So Riled Up

Jokes on women or members of the LGBTQIA+ community are made regularly without any repercussions because they don’t pose a threat to India’s public morality. A perceived attack on the hetero-patriarchal family unit, though, is a whole other story.

Ranveer Allahbadia’s recent remark on Samay Raina’s show India Got Latent has caused a massive stir across India. To one of the contestants on the show, Ranveer had asked, “Would you rather watch your parents have sex, or you will join them once and finish it off?”

The backlash was so intense that it led to multiple FIRs being filed, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) stepping in, and even statements being issued by two chief ministers. The issue also made its way into parliament’s budget session. But what was it about Allahabdia’s comment that provoked such a strong reaction from all sides of the political spectrum, uniting the government and the opposition?

The main criticism of Allahbadia’s remark centres around three key phrases: obscenity, vulgarity and sexually explicit content. These words also constitute Assam chief minister, Himanta Biswa Sarma’s tweet announcing the FIR against Allahbadia, Raina and others involved. However, the controversy goes beyond just the specific comment – it highlights deeper issues about public morality in India.

Incest, as a topic, is deeply troubling for public morality in India, but a crucial question arises: why are remarks about incest seen as such a major moral violation, while jokes that mock women, LGBTQIA+ people, and other minorities are often overlooked or even normalised? To answer this, we need to look beyond the public figures involved, Allahbadia and Raina, and understand how gender norms and patriarchal values influence the way society reacts to such issues.

The trajectories of the personalities

Raina gained fame for his “dark humour”, which has been widely criticised. His brand of humour has strayed far from the original intent of dark humour, which was meant to help marginalised communities cope with trauma. Instead, it has become a tool for ridiculing these very communities. Raina argues that humour should be free and that everyone should be able to joke about anything, even if it offends someone. In this view, humour doesn’t need to consider the power dynamics within society – jokes about women, transgender persons, Muslims and survivors of sexual assault are, in his view, just jokes.

Allahbadia – aka Beer Biceps – is a podcaster who has gained widespread popularity in recent years. He often invites controversial guests, including right-wing politicians, spiritual leaders with questionable reputations and people who promote pseudo-scientific views. Despite being considered pro-government, Allahbadia’s recent comment has turned some of his political allies against him. This raises the question: what was so controversial about his remark that even those aligned with him felt the need to distance themselves?

Public morality and hetero-patriarchy

To understand why Allahbadia’s comment created such a storm, we need to examine the role of public morality in Indian society. Public morality is a set of values and standards that dictate what is considered acceptable behaviour in society. In India, these values are heavily influenced by hetero-patriarchy, a system where male dominance and heterosexual/heternormative relationships, particularly imagined through a monogamous family structure, are seen as the foundations of society.

In this hetero-patriarchal system, the sanctity of the heterosexual monogamous patriarchal family becomes paramount. This idea of this family has been idealised as the backbone of Indian society. Any act of destabilisation, or even a mild transgression, can thus invoke strong responses. The institution of the family and the discourse around it have been reinforced by both social norms and legal frameworks. However, this view has not remained static and has evolved over time, especially after India’s independence.

Also read: Poor Joke or Convenient Target? Understanding the Case Against Ranveer Allahbadia

Historical imaginations of family and public morality

To understand how public morality has evolved, it’s necessary to look back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During the Indian nationalist movement, the “women’s question” became a central topic. Nationalists were concerned with the portrayal of Indian women as helpless and oppressed, a view promoted by the British. Indian reformers, often upper-caste men, constructed the image of the “new woman” who had to be educated enough to become an ardhangini (half-companion) in marriage with the task of raising ‘good’, ‘moral’ children.

The “new woman” was designated the guardian of the “domestic sphere” – a sphere of life, according to the Indian nationalists, where Indians had an upper hand over the colonisers. The British, they argued, had attained superiority in the “material sphere” of science, technology and governance, but they could never conquer the “domestic sphere” of familial life and spiritual life, dotted with moral values and civilisational ethos, respectively.

The “domestic sphere” required the invention of a sacrosanct familial tradition, which was continuous and unchanging for most parts. This rested on middle class, upper caste ideas of heterosexual monogamous patriarchal family, partly informed by a reimagination of the ‘great’ Indian past of epics and ancient law-books, and partly by Victorian notions of the family. Women were seen as guardians of family values, tasked with raising children and maintaining moral order. Gandhian ideas about women, which emphasised purity and marriage for reproduction, reinforced this model. In Gandhi’s view, a woman’s role was to maintain the sanctity of the ‘home’. This ideal woman was distinguished from the “common woman”, often seen as promiscuous or coarse, representing ‘lower’ caste and lower class women, such as street vendors and sex workers.

In post-independence India, this idea of the family continued to dominate. The newly independent state emphasised the sanctity of the hetero-patriarchal family as essential for social stability. Civil codes were framed to maintain this sanctity. The family, founded upon the marriage of a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female, conferred a “bouquet of rights” (to quote the Supreme Court in the recent ‘Marriage Equality’ case) to the people. As such, in elevating these ideals of family life, alternative and heterogenous forms of copulation and marriage, and heterogenous notions of masculinity and femininity found in various castes, tribes and communities in India, were relegated to the margins.

If the family was sacrosanct, and ideals were seen as static and normative, duties had to be defined for the constituting members of the family. Just like the woman’s role was defined as being the homemaker and the man’s role defined as the breadwinner, the parent-children relationship had to be one founded upon ‘respect’ for the elder. Discussions about sexuality that unsettles the ideal family life had to be repressed. Discussions on deviant sexualities and copulation – homosexuality, incest, ‘love marriages’ – needed to be policed because they challenged the upper caste morals of the ideal family and the consequent property and caste relations that emerged out of it.

However, changes in political economy primarily in the post-liberalisation period, and challenges from the LGBTQIA+ groups and women’s rights activists meant that the sanctity was far from being unchallenged. As the economy evolved and more middle-class women began working, the traditional values of family and gender were perceived to be threatened by the cultural nationalists. We find similar responses when governments mandated sex education in India. These changes were seen as a threat to the moral fabric of Indian society.

Why the outrage on incest but not on misogyny or homophobia?

In today’s India, the cultural nationalists, represented by the Hindutva Right, have become the self-righteous preservers of the familial imagination of the late 19th and early 20th century. This is also reflected in the recent attempts by the current regime to oppose the marriage equality case in the Supreme Court, where it dubbed same-sex marriages as an “urban elite issue”. Similarly, in the context of marital rape, the BJP has vehemently opposed the criminalisation of marital rape with the argument that it destabilises the sanctity of marriage. Sections of the Congress have also opposed both marriage equality (for instance, the former Congress state government in Rajasthan) and criminalisation of marital rape.

The criticism of Allahbadia has to be located in this wider context and history of public morality, derived from the sanctity of a heterosexual monogamous patriarchal family. In addition to other supposed motives such as setting an example to bring in stringent laws against free speech, a primary motive in policing and going after Allahbadia, Raina and others, for the BJP, is to project and affirm its image as the preserver of public morality.

In India Got Latent, Raina and other panellists have often made problematic and offensive remarks towards women and LGBTQIA+ individuals. In one episode, for instance, Raina had asked a participant who identified as bisexual if she “feels something” when women security guards check her at the airport. While questions are being raised today on the “sexually explicit content” on his show from various corners, it took an Allahbadia-style comment on incest to attract public outrage. This is because neither misogyny nor homophobia destabilises the imagination of public morality founded upon the sanctity of the family.

Misogyny and homophobia are not aberrations, but the norm. Rape jokes, wife jokes and jokes about gay and trans people have been a part and parcel of our everyday life. Even before the Raina version of “dark comedy”, they have arrived in the form of the “non-veg jokes” of our fathers and uncles. They affirm patriarchy and heteronormativity, as both these systems of power rely on the vilification and marginalisation of women and sexual minorities. Incest, or the mere act of making a stupid, unfunny statement involving incest, however, unsettles our imagination of the sacred – the institution of the family which we have been fed through our culture, state and the media. It disrupts the sanctity of our national, legal, cultural and social institutions.

Tridib Mukherjee is a PhD scholar at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati.

Musk’s Task Was to Take a Measure of Modi

From the Vishwaguru Archives: This is a transcript of a briefing given by a senior Musk associate on the meeting between the Indian Prime Minister and Elon Musk. The briefing was on deep-deep-deep background, i.e. no one is permitted to even acknowledge, leave alone, cite, the conversation.

This is a work of fiction. Although it may appear closer to reality than fiction for some.

As you know, the Indian Prime Minister, Hon’ble Narendra Modi, was in America for an official meeting with President Donald Trump. During their personal meeting, the prime minister complimented the president for relying on the help and advice of his very, very rich friends. The prime minister told the president that for some 20 years now, he has benefited from helping and being helped by rich people. In a light-hearted vein, the prime minister shared with the president how liberals in India like to call his rich friends “obscenely wealthy” but like Trump, he has never cared for public opinion.

It was at this stage that the president suggested that Mr. Modi have a chat with Mr. Musk. For good measure, the president warned that if the prime minister left Washington without calling on Mr. Musk, his good friend would not be pleased. “And, I cannot have El getting annoyed. So, do yourself a favour and meet him.”

So it should be clearly understood that neither the Indian prime minister nor Mr. Musk sought the meeting. It was suggested by the US president and, to quote that old line from The Godfather, it was an offer Mr. Modi could not refuse. Mr. Musk’s only condition was that it would a delegation level meeting; now that he is part of the US government, he is rather leery of having any informal confabulations with government heads.

The Musk establishment is pleased to note that the Indian prime minister brought his senior most advisers to the meeting. Mr. Musk’s ‘delegation’ consisted of his three children, each of whom was duly profiled by the pro-government Indian media. Our attention has been drawn to considerable sniggering back in India about the presence of the three children. Some have asked why Modi asked his foreign minister and NSA to be present when their US counterparts were not there. This is not fair. At least one of the senior Indian officials tried to make some baby-talk with the Musk children while another minuted the exchange.

All told, this was a brief meeting. Mr. Musk was pressed for time, as he had promised to take the kids out for a spin around town. He told the Indian prime minister that his people should feel free to put out whatever statement they wanted; because as far as he was concerned, his only priority was that his meeting had taken place in full public glare.

It is our understanding that as and when Mr. Musk wants to take his business to India, he would do so on his terms and time. And, I think, after today’s meeting this much will also be clear to the Indian prime minister. Many people around the world have concluded that President Trump makes a tough negotiator; soon they will discover, as hopefully Mr. Modi did, that Mr. Musk makes the president look mild.

Today, Mr. Musk is not just an entrepreneur, he has the might of the New American Deep State behind him. Except Mr. Xi in China, there is no leader in any part of the world who would want to take – to use a colourful Indian phrase – panga with him. And, Mr. Modi and his friends make a very, very vulnerable lot. Many Indian think-tankers imagine that the Indian diaspora wields a lot of clout in Washington. But for them and all Indian-origin citizens, we have one word: ‘Normalize‘.

In our reckoning, Gautam Adani is the only smart Indian. He hires the smartest of our legal people; he engages lobbyists who deftly play the oldest game Washington knows – how to spend money on the Hill. Both Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump admire those businessmen, at home and abroad, who know how to own politicians, bureaucrats, judges, and journalists. Neither President Trump nor Mr. Musk is hung up on this “integrity” business. For Mr. Modi this is familiar terrain and we are sure he has also absorbed the new mood in Washington.

It is our belief that very brief meeting the Indian prime minister had with Mr. Musk will turn out to be most consequential. As the authorized enforcer of presidential authority in Washington, Mr. Musk is required to size up world leaders who come calling at the White House. We are glad we had an early opportunity to take a measure of Mr. Modi.

Three Irreverent Indian Publications of Colonial Times Have a Lesson for India’s Media Today

The Parsee Punch, Awadh Punch and Hindi Punch, all published in the 19th and 20th-century, persistently used parody to mock their despotic and pompous British rulers.

Three irreverent Indian publications from the late 19th and early 20th centuries – which impudently challenged British colonial authority through satire and lampooning – stand as a rebuke to today’s quiescent media outlets and their compliant journalists, who bear joint responsibility for India’s well-documented decline in press freedom since 2014.

Published in English, Urdu, and Hindi, these three saucy publications – modelled after England’s witty Punch magazine which was founded in 1841 – flourished between 1854 and the mid-1930s in Lucknow, Bombay, and Indore.

The three persistently used parody to mock their despotic and pompous British rulers. These were the English-language Parsee Punch, founded by Pestonjee Marker and published from Bombay between 1854 and 1931, followed by the Awadh Punch in Urdu, launched by Munsi Sajjad Husain in Lucknow in 1877 and lasting till 1936, and the Hindi Punch, instituted by Nowrosjee Barjorjee in 1906, that ran uninterruptedly for three decades, till 1936.

They had their linguistic and regional differences but all three publications maintained a defiant editorial stance against the callous colonial administration – one that was markedly harsher than even today’s oppressive media environment under Narendra Modi’s BJP government since 2014.

A page of the Awadh Punch. Photo: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Despite the severe limitations of printing technology, widespread illiteracy, and a highly restrictive atmosphere, this Punch trinity tenaciously fulfilled what today’s tech-savvy, AI-enabled Indian media is too timid to attempt: speaking truth to power. Unlike these colonial-era predecessors, modern media outlets have shamefully abandoned their role of scrutinising government actions, exposing corruption and misgovernance, and challenging the flagrant abuse of state power by both official and wealthy private entities.

The collective Punch publications also severely critiqued local politics and social mores, especially practices that perpetuated caste and community inequalities. Through bold illustrations, they mercilessly mocked Indian elites who collaborated with colonial administrators, portraying them not merely as fawning sycophants but as absurd figures. Their most vicious derision was reserved for the obsequious ‘ji-huzoor‘ types and the ‘England-returned brown sahebs’ (or ‘coconuts’ who were brown outside but white inside. This group had maharajahs, lesser royals, and social climbers who slavishly embraced English fashion, accents, and manners while fawning for titles and gun salutes from their British masters.

Far ahead of their time, these publications tackled controversial issues like religious orthodoxy, comically portraying local religious leaders and zealots as self-serving exploiters while criticising the masses’ blind adherence to rituals. They also assailed casteism and the dowry system, highlighted growing wealth disparity, and addressed the subordinate status of women in society, particularly regarding their education, social emancipation, and rights.

Circulation numbers were modest, to put it charitably, as these publications were constrained not only by inefficient and expensive printing equipment but also by abysmally low literacy levels. However, research into these titles reveals they had a surprisingly strong impact on shaping local public opinion and discourse, achieving influence disproportionate to their limited circulation.

The Awadh Punch initially printed 250 copies of its folio-sized, eight-page edition, soon increasing to 500. Each copy cost 4 annas, with an annual subscription priced at Rs 12 (equivalent to approximately Rs 2,100 today). In comparison, the Parsee Punch‘s circulation ranged from 400 to 700 copies, with an annual subscription of Rs 6. This lower price reflected both Bombay’s larger metropolitan readership and the reduced production costs for English-language periodicals compared to Urdu publications.

The Parsee Punch‘s monthly compilation “Pickings from the Parsee Punch,” running 24-36 pages, was a runaway hit. Its scathingly humorous illustrations targeted both British officials and the Parsi community’s identity crisis, caught between traditional Zoroastrian practices and aspirational English lifestyles. The Hindi Punch, which shared founding connections with the Parsee Punch, achieved a weekly circulation of around 800 copies and was similarly priced at Rs 6 per annum (approximately Rs 1,100 today).

A cartoon, purportedly on the Parsee Punch. Photo: Facebook/Dew Media School

In all three publications, a succession of creative and fearless editors, supported by equally bold writers, contributors, and cartoonist-illustrators, skilfully wielded satirical humour as a weapon against colonial rule. They particularly excelled at mocking British officials’ comical struggles to understand native customs, norms, and languages, highlighting the profound cultural disconnect between the rulers and the ruled.

According to the history and politics blog “Contested Realities”, the Awadh Punch’s satire and cartoons “repeatedly poked a finger in the British government’s eyes at every opportunity.” The blog cites historian Mushirul Hasan’s book, Wit and Humour in Colonial North India, which notes that the weekly’s cartoons, published with impunity, offered rare insights into India’s political and cultural history.

Also read: Against Odds, India’s Political Cartoonists Will Watch the Watchmen

A cartoon from the Hindi Punch, 1897-1898. Photo: Asiatic Society of Mumbai, www.granthsanjeevani.com.

One such illustration, depicting greedy British officials grasping India’s wealth under the guise of ‘civilising’ the natives, has colonial officials wearing outsized crowns juxtaposed against struggling and skeletal Indian figures. Another has a British officer dressed in military regalia seated on a throne labeled “Justice,” while beneath him, Indian peasants toil in chains. Its caption reads ‘Insaf ka Taj’ or ‘crown of justice’, highlighting the venality and callousness of colonial governance, which claimed fairness, whilst starkly propagating exploitation.

Russia’s role in the intrigue-ridden Great Game in Afghanistan, which drove both the British Raj in India and its government in London into panic in the late 19th century, too, was impertinently but absurdly caricatured in a drawing in the Parsee Punch of a bear embracing a burqa-clad Pashtun woman.

Together, the Punch publications commented on the growing nationalist movement and the tensions between moderates and extremists in the emerging independence struggle.

A notable Parsee Punch cartoon depicted Indian leaders arguing over petty issues while an unconcerned British imperial lion watched from afar, highlighting the disunity among freedom fighters.

Though the Hindi Punch may not have achieved the same recognition as its counterparts, contemporary accounts credit it with significantly shaping public opinion and establishing satire as a form of resistance during times when direct political dissent was viciously suppressed.

A cartoon from Awadh Punch on Afghanistan, 1879. Photo: The Public Archive http://thepublicarchive.com/?p=1921 via https://contestedrealities.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/awadh-punch-indias-charlie-hebdo-of-past/.

This brings us back to India’s press freedom ranking of 159 out of 180 countries surveyed in the World Press Freedom Index released by Reporters Without Borders in May 2024. Non-governmental organisations like Amnesty International, the Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists, amongst others also declared that the Indian authorities were increasingly targeting journalists for questioning the national and state BJP-led governments by prosecuting them, ironically under colonial-era sedition statutes.

Since 2014, numerous media organisations and their editorial staff, critical of the BJP have been charged either by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or the Income Tax department – in some cases by all three – for assorted financial ‘wrongdoings’, which took years to adjudicate in India’s notoriously snail-paced and state-influenced judicial system.

Prominent television news anchor Ravish Kumar with a 9.4 million viewership of his YouTube channel, said that being a journalist in India today had become a ‘solitary endeavour’. Uncompromising reporters, he asserted, were forced out of their jobs by news organisations for their objectivity and their corporate owners were never questioned or held accountable.

He also stated that this media-businessman-politician nexus had spawned a ‘godi’, or lapdog press, which equally mixed populism and pro-BJP propaganda. Even six-time BJP MP Subramanian Swamy agreed, declaring on social media some time ago that India’s media had been ‘totally castrated’. The former Harvard economics professor, who was an MP till 2022, stated that those media organisations who stood up to the BJP government were invariably ‘visited’ by a senior official from the PM’s Office, who ‘threatened’ them with prosecution by either the CBI or the ED or both. He equated such actions to similar happenings in Russia and China with regard to the media.

But emulating the atmanirbhar or indigenous Punchs in today’s vastly altered social and cultural landscape of political correctness poses serious challenges. Topics that were once considered fair game for humour are now scrutinised for perpetuating stereotypes, marginalising groups or reinforcing inequalities.

What amuses one audience offends another, and with the global nature of media, satire that resonates in one cultural context is invariably misinterpreted or deemed distasteful in another. But broadly, mockery and ridicule challenging those in power, government structures or highlights societal absurdities, resonates better than parody that targets marginalised groups.

After all, it’s a universally accepted axiom that humour remains a vital tool for processing complex realities, challenging norms, and fostering dialogue. It also helps alleviate the obstacle-ridden grind of daily living, confirming the adage that humour makes life so much easier.

The Revenge Interview | Shashi Tharoor Pulls a Karan Thapar on Karan Thapar

In the ‘Revenge Interview’, the guest is free to ask Thapar whatever they want and persist to whatever extent they wish to.

This week we present what I hope will become the first of a new tradition, the ‘Start-of-the-Year interview’. This is another form of what I call, tongue-in-cheek, ‘The Revenge Interview’.

The guest is free to ask whatever they want and to pursue and persist to whatever extent they wish to do so. There are no bars or limitations whatsoever. Neither the subject nor the duration of the interview have been discussed in advance. It’s conducted by the guest exactly as they want.

The idea is to have good-natured fun and to lampoon and mimic but, if it so develops, there can well be moments of tension, innuendo and, even, of pillorying. The choice is entirely left to the guest.

This year’s guest is Congress MP and author Shashi Tharoor.

The Revenge Interview | Mahua Moitra Grills Karan Thapar on His Style of Questioning

In the ‘Revenge Interview’, the guest is free to ask Thapar whatever they want and persist to whatever extent they wish to.

This week we present another of our End-of-Year traditions, what I am calling tongue-in-cheek ‘The Revenge Interview’.

This year’s guest is Lok Sabha member and Krishnanagar MP Mahua Moitra.

The Curious Case of the ‘Former Terrorist’

The phrase “former terrorist” categorises terrorism as a day job from which you can presumably retire.

One of the pleasures of former editorship is enjoying the dilemma faced by gracious masters of ceremony who are in two minds on how to introduce “ex-editors” (an alliterative headline word): veteran journalist (translation: past expiry date like a Gelusil bottle), senior journalist (euphemism for unemployed/unemployable hacks) or observer (a voyeuristic Peeping Tom that is not exactly a charitable description in polite company)?

Most master of ceremonies steer clear of the evocative and descriptive phrase “former editor,” possibly fearing that it would be taken as “has-been” editor. Against this backdrop, I found salvation this morning in an uncommon phrase the Press Trust of India (PTI) has used to describe the suspected shooter of Badal: “former terrorist.” PTI reported, “Amritsar: A former terrorist opened fire at Shiromani Akali Dal leader Sukhbir Singh Badal from a close range while he was performing the duty of ‘sewadar’ outside the Golden Temple here on Wednesday but missed as he was overpowered by a plainclothes policeman.”

The phrase “former terrorist” is a forgiving and reformative term, much like “correctional homes” that has replaced “jails.” The inclusive phrase “former terrorist” also categorises terrorism as a day job from which you can presumably retire. The next level in precise journalism should be “retired terrorist.” It raises the pertinent question: what do you do when a terrorist applies for voluntary retirement – do you offer a golden handshake in a hazmat suit? It is also not clear whether the said shooter had sent any resignation letter to the alleged terrorist outfit to which he had been linked.

Since William Safire – the oracle of language and the arbiter of usage who deployed merciless, if not outrageous, wordplay – is no longer around, I did not know how to check the chequered past of a “former terrorist.” I did find a reference in the New York Times (NYT). The PTI will be happy to know that the NYT had conferred such an honour on a subcontinental sibling: a Pakistan-origin “former terrorist” called Majid Shoukat Khan.

The NYT reported in 2023, “Belize City – A small Central American nation, known for its barrier reef and ecotourism, has taken in a former terrorist turned US government informant whose tale of torture by the CIA moved a military jury at Guantánamo Bay to urge the Pentagon to grant him leniency.” But the NYT has a reason for calling Khan a “former terrorist.” Although Khan had contributed to acts of terrorism, he was brutally abused and tortured and he served time.

He repudiated radicalism, cooperated with the US government in the fight against terrorism. Khan pledged in a statement to become “a productive, law-abiding member of society,” adding, “I continue to ask for forgiveness from God and those I have hurt.” The suspected shooter PTI has described as “former terrorist” has been in and out of prison but it has not been reported in the agency report whether he had been convicted of any crime.

Neither is it clear whether he had admitted to being a terrorist and whether he denounced terrorism. In the absence of such information, I am not sure how PTI reached the conclusion that the suspect is a “former terrorist.” I am also not sure if the suspected shooter, an alleged member of a pro-Khalistani banned group, had surrendered. Which makes him a “surrendered” terrorist, a phrase that commands a certain degree of official precedent.

The erstwhile Saikia government (I think) in Assam gifted us an innovative phrase: Sulfa (Surrendered Ulfa). Never mind that Gerhard Domagk introduced the term “sulfa” to describe the first successful chemical treatments for bacterial infections in humans. Now that the suspected shooter has returned to terrorism (opening fire at a former chief minister qualifies so, I suppose), will it be more apt to say “former-terrorist turned-incumbent-suspected-terrorist?” Should he be convicted, can it be “former-terrorist-turned-incumbent-terrorist?” The PTI desk has a lot to chew on.

The phrase “former militant” (used by the Indian Express, the Hindu and the Times of India) is clear. It suggests that a person had been a member of an outfit that supported militancy and that he may no longer be the member of that organisation or that the organisation does not exist any more or that he had denounced militancy.

Newspapers used to be very careful about the use of the words “terrorist” and “terrorism,” mindful of the complexities associated with the terms and the nebulous nature exemplified by the saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” 9/11 changed all that with some patriots in the US insisting that newscasters use the phrase “terrorist,” not militant or extremist.

In India, too, most of the media have fallen prey to the intimidatory tactics so much so that all insurgents in Kashmir are now called terrorists, not militants or extremists as was in the case in the last decades of the 20th century. The same goes with “martyrs.” Some newspapers indiscriminately use the term to describe slain soldiers, even before the circumstances that led to the death are clear or established.

The Indian Army has gone to the extent of issuing a letter to all its commands, discouraging the use of “martyrs” to describe soldiers killed in the line of duty. “Martyr refers to a person who suffers death as a penalty for refusing to renounce a religion or a person who suffers very much or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs,” the Indian Army’s letter in 2022 said.

So “the continued reference to Indian Army soldiers as martyrs may not be appropriate.” Evidently, the WhatsApp University is mightier than the Indian Army. Under pressure from nationalist trolls, some newspapers continue to use the term “martyrs.” In these matters, the Indian Army has been more diligent than many modern-day chief subs who clear copies that say “former terrorist.”

In 2014, the Indian Army issued a circular for retired personnel informing them that the correct form of addressing a retired officer is “Rank ABC (Retd) and not Rank (Retd) ABC.” An example is: “Brigadier Sant Singh (Retd).” The stated rationale of the army was, “Rank never retires, it is an officer who retires.” The army circular added that “the privilege is only given to service officers.” So, PTI should not say “Terrorist XXXXXXXX (Retd).”

This article is sourced from R Rajagopal’s social media posts.

R Rajagopal is editor-at-large of the Telegraph.

This article was originally published on the AIDEM. It has been edited slightly for style.

The Limits of Punching Up in Stand-Up Comedy

Stand up as a genre has made a significant contribution in bringing politics out of its narrow confines of academic spheres and helping it reach a wider set of people. But this has been possible thanks to a change.

The following is an excerpt from the book Punching Up in Stand-Up Comedy: Speaking Truth to Power, published by Routledge.

Humour is valued when it is perceived as cerebral or intellectually stimulating, something that is difficult to grasp and allows those who are humour literate to take pride in their intellectual prowess. However, when it comes to subaltern laughter, the erasure of the socially disempowered from the status of the comic, and thus the agent of humour, is part of a persistent historical narrative and a master game plan that has come to define the construct of the rational (and funny) man. Humour from below is seen as lowbrow and is equated with pure, unadulterated emotion such as the kind women, children and vulnerable sections of the society display.

The refusal to see the marginalised as agents of humour instead of being the butt of ridicule, and “register the social power of subaltern laughter,” by dismissing their humour as mere relief is a bias that can be seen in philosophical and popular understandings of humour (Cynthia Willet and Julie A. Willet). Although the “diversity quota” (Aditi Mittal) of neoliberal markets makes room for a diverse set of voices, it does not recognise the political nature of comedy by women or “chick comedy” which foregrounds questions of identity and sexuality.

‘Punching Up in Stand-Up Comedy: Speaking Truth to Power,’ edited By Rashi Bhargava and Richa Chilana, Routledge, 2023.

Rebecca Krefting in her book All Joking Aside: American humour and its discontents has argued that all forms of humour locate itself in a particular social, cultural, political context. However, “charged humour” does it self consciously with the intention to create a more equitable world by challenging its divisions and cultural exclusion.

In contemporary discourse, politics transcends the confines of statist, governmental structures, institutions and processes and incorporates within it individual and collective experiences, relationships and political subjectivities in the everyday. It highlights the existence of power dynamics within societal relationships both at the micro and at the macro level and the various factors that have a bearing on it. Stand up as a genre has made a significant contribution in bringing politics out of its narrow confines of academic, scholarly, intellectual and activist spheres and helping it reach a wider set of people. But this has been possible only because of the emergence of a new moment in politics as underscored by Sophie Quirk. As a communicative and collaborative art form, it can be said to address the gap between lived experience and power equations, ideology and representations in a society.

Some of the contemporary female stand up comics across the world are challenging dominant views to question conventional hierarchies. We can specifically look at female comedians in different regional settings be it the US (Ali Wong and Taylor Tomlinson), India (Kaneez Surka, Sumukhi Suresh), Australia (Hannah Gadsby and Zoe Coombs Marr), Italy (Marsha De Salvatore) or Iran (Shaghayegh Dehghan and Elika Abdolrazzaghi) who through their acts have deconstructed gendered notions of humour as well as patriarchal structures, worldviews and ideologies.

A stand-up performance is a people’s art, performed for the people. It is predicated on the performer’s connection with the audience by breaking the fourth wall, unlike many other modes of artistic expression where the performer feigns oblivion of the presence of the audience (Ian Brodie). The stand up comedian performing her biography through her performance might enable creation of community, celebration of creativity, orality/aurality and performativity in addition to critiquing structural (racist, sexist, ethnic, class, caste), gendered, cishet and (hetero-)sexual politics.

Usually the biography of a performer is established through her/his interviews, publicity material and more recently in their tweets and other kinds of social media presence which allows them to share their opinions in their acts and which may not fully be directed to entertain the audience. There is a performance of the self outside their “performative moments” which can be called their “non-comedic performance” (Ian Brodie). The socio-cultural situatedness of the content of stand up comedy and the comic persona flows into the realm of interpretation by the audience (face-to-face and mediated, both). Thus, it is not only the comic that establishes a subject position but also the audience who react to her/his jokes and may take hegemonic ideas, positions and narratives head on. Their laughter can be dangerous and jokes can oust misinformation, propaganda and rhetoric. One can say, the audience is not a passive receiver but an active agent and has the power to challenge the hegemonic and the dominant. Thus even if a comic performance may not necessarily lead to any drastic change, it can definitely be instrumental in busting myths, representations and ideologies and alter the way people think about the dominant and the marginalised both from within and outside.

The question, then, is – is this kind of performance lucrative for the comic or does it always ‘land’? For instance, there are quite a few charged female comics who are successful but when it comes to long term success such as being headliners in comedy clubs, film, tv etc, it has mostly been men. While talking about the debate generated by Christopher Hitchens’ “Why Women Aren’t Funny” Krefting says that it ignored a seminal issue about the economy of artistic production and consumption and how we as individuals are taught to value certain things over others, made to identify with those in power and that identification promises material and cultural capital. Herein lies the reason why charged humour isn’t economically viable.

Authorial intention is another possible lens through which we can further examine humour. There are times when the intention of a stand-up comic might not translate in the form of the audience reaction he/she was working towards. In such a case, the audience, especially the ones at the margins may make attempts and find ways to reclaim their subject positions vis-a-vis the stand up comic. The contemporary digital space does allow for such a process to unfold. For instance in a recent incident, a fan who identifies as non-binary called out Vir Das for his joke on the transgender community and stated, “you (Vir Das) of all people know punching up is how comedy works and yet you chose to punch down, if only as a set up.” To this, Das took full responsibility and responded,

I did a joke on the new ten on ten episode that my friends in the trans community felt hurt by. I see why. My intent in the moment, was to say Trans people have courage the Govt messed up. It had the opposite effect and trivialised your struggle. Articulating my intent effectively is my responsibility, not yours.

This conversation, whose screenshot was shared by Vir Das on his Instagram handle indicates how digital space creates a space for dialogic communication and offers a glimpse into authorial intention or how sometimes the intent might not translate into the act or the personal life of the stand-up comic. In another instance, Aditi Mittal offers a caustic critique of sexism by talking unabashedly of bra shopping, menstruation etc. in Things They Wouldn’t Let Me Say, while on the other hand she was herself accused of sexual harassment by another comic. When the #MeToo movement laid bare the deep, dark secrets of the stand-up world, three comedy collectives in India, All India Bakchod (AIB), Schitzengiggles Comedy (SnG) and East India Comedy (EIC) either fell apart or saw the loss of some of the founding figures. How do we then look at their “subversive humour” or the reinvented relationship between the performer and the audience in this heavily mediatised world?

Although contemporary stand-up comics are seen as parrhesiastes or Horatian in their attempt to offer pleasurable instruction, the cathartic laughter of the audience also makes us wonder if catharsis is all it offers or is there something else that changes ever so slightly when we hear the ‘truth tellers’,

For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house… the true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor that is planted deep within each of us,and which knows only the oppressors’ tactics, the oppressors’ relationships. (Audre Lorde)

We believe that the joy, communion, sense of belonging and solidarity, empathy, humility, possibilities of (limited) transformation and laughing in the face of the powers that are and powers that be, that the form promises and delivers to the laughmakers and their audience is worth noting, investigating and celebrating. But how far and how deeply have the ‘master’s tools’ infiltrated stand-up comedy that punches up especially when most of them speak from a position of power and privilege is a question that we need to constantly ask and attempt to answer.

Rashi Bhargava is assistant professor at North Eastern Hill University. Richa Chilana is assistant professor at University of Petroleum and Energy Studies. The two are also editors of Politics of Recognition and Representation in Indian Stand-Up Comedy.

Kannagi’s Curse: The Surprising Impact of the Sengol on Modi’s Realm

Whether people in the establishment like it or not, the Tamil sceptre’s ability to compel righteous acts can be seen in the government’s willingness to take U-turns.

When the Sengol was installed in the new Parliament House with great fanfare and dollops of piety in May 2023, the prevailing narrative was that Sengol had originally been presented to N**** (name censored by competent authority) at the time of Independence representing transfer of power from the British colonial masters to Indian successors, but, being a philistine, he had cast it aside and sent it to the Allahabad Museum where it remained labelled as his Golden Walking Stick.

Actually the Sengol was not a mere prop used at the time of transfer of power. It is disparaging to think of it as similar to the cane that changes hands when army officers take charge, and much less as a baton in a relay race. In ancient Tamil kingdoms, the Sengol (sceptre) was a symbol of justice — rigid, unbiased, fierce justice, that can punish an aberrant monarch as easily as it punishes a deviant commoner.

The Tamil epic Silappadhikaram describes how the Sengol got deformed and doubled up when Kannagi (a legendary Tamil woman who forms the central character of the Silappadhikaram) proved that her husband Kovalan had been unjustly killed on the orders of the Pandya king, and how the warped Sengol miraculously straightened itself, marking restoration of justice, when the king collapsed in a heap of remorse and shed his mortal coil, along with his unfortunate consort.

Also read: Behind Modi’s U-Turns, Nitish and Naidu’s Unreliable Track-Record as Allies

While many were sceptical about the design behind the installation of the Sengol in the new Parliament House, it does seem to have cast a completely unexpected spell, in keeping with its original role as a voice of conscience. Consider the following:

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, which could do whatever it pleased with absolute impunity considering its seeming invincibility, lost its majority in the subsequent election. The government has been forced to be more accommodative of allies and receptive to public sentiments. It has acquired eyes and ears that it seemed to lack earlier.
The Lok Sabha speaker agreed to refer the Wakf (Amendment) Bill 2024 to a Joint Parliamentary Panel to be constituted in consultation with leaders of all parties. The very fact that a two-hour debate preceded this decision is momentous, because many other Bills had been passed in the past with no debate in the absence of Opposition members who were either suspended or had walked out in frustration.
The draft Broadcast Bill meant to ‘regulate’ (i.e. censor, according to critics) content creators for digital news, OTT and social media has been withdrawn. This was a draft privately circulated among a handful of industry stakeholders who were discouraged from sharing it after they realised that they were given watermarked versions of the Bill with a code unique to each of them to identify the culprit who leaked. (Why can’t they try this for the next NEET and UGC NET examinations?) The cognoscenti are of the view that this does not mean we have seen the back of the Bill. However, if it is re-introduced, at least it will not, hopefully, be one that bears the thumb prints of a coterie.
Following discontent expressed over the budget proposal to remove indexation benefits on long-term capital gains (LTCG), the government partly rolled back the proposal, without the need for thousands to lay siege to Delhi as was seen during the farmers’ agitation.
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) published prominent advertisements announcing recruitment of 45 persons through lateral entry in the rank of joint secretary or director / deputy secretary for a wide variety of responsibilities ranging from organic farming to emerging technologies. After criticism that the principle of reservation has been given the go- by, the government firmly stepped in and nixed the recruitment drive.
Talking about the UPSC, we had the spectacle of the chairman resigning years before the end of his term to devote himself, apparently, to the Anoopam Mission, a Swaminarayan sect offshoot. No wonder speculation surfaced that this was on account of the UPSC allowing itself to be hoodwinked by Pooja Khedkar’s exploits of furnishing a host of bogus certificates. This appears to be just a coincidence. The UPSC’s loss may in fact be the Anoopam Mission’s gain. However, the sacking of the chief of National Testing Agency (NTA), as it passed through some testing times of its own in the NEET-NET row did come as a surprise because this represented a new phase of an unusual acknowledgement that things could go wrong – a startling veering off from the idea of ‘Never admit a fault or wrong,’ and ‘Never accept blame’ .
Kangana Ranaut, a renowned historian, who announced to the world that India got its independence only in 2014 and that it was Netaji and not the other N**** who was the first prime minister of India, instead of being eulogised for her remarks that the farmers’ agitation was marked by rapes and dead bodies, has been reprimanded by the party, much to the chagrin of her admirers and other hard core faithfuls.
Reversing a 21-year-old reform of India’s civil services pension system brought in by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, a Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) has been announced, bearing strong resemblance to the Old Pension Scheme.
The prime minister has apologised to Chhatrapati Shivaji and all those who were hurt by the collapse of Shivaji’s statue eight months after it was inaugurated in the presence of the prime minister himself. This is a deviation from the principle, ‘Never show remorse.’ Even Manipur did not trigger this. In pre-Sengol days, “anti-nationals” would have been blamed for the disaster and locked up. Applying the time honoured principle of, “If something goes wrong, hang somebody,” the structural consultant engaged for the erection of the statue has been arrested on a charge of attempted murder. Luckily for him, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was not invoked. Still, the charge of attempted murder seems difficult to comprehend because police generally used to look for concepts like intent, knowledge, motive and the presence of a possible victim within killing range either in space or in time or both but then laws are now very elastic. Remember how a hapless car driver was arrested in Delhi, for causing the tragic death of three even more hapless civil service aspirants in the basement of Rau’s IAS Study circle — for the reckless act of driving past the building at a breakneck speed of about 10 kmph (which appears to be the speed when one sees the video — unless, of course, it had been recorded in slow motion) plunging through a waterlogged road? Having had no role in the construction of the road or rains or the waterlogging or the weakness of the gate of Rau’s, he has been set free but not his car — an IIT team is reportedly evaluating whether its wheels could have generated enough force and momentum to produce a Niagara in the basement.
For over a decade, the word ‘secular’ had come to be regarded as a profanity. But now the prime minister has come out in support of a secular civil code, thereby restoring a measure of dignity to the seven-letter combination.
Let us now turn to foreign policy. After having abstained on a US-sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution and a United Nations General Assembly resolution that censured Russia for its military actions in Ukraine, and after having hugged Vladimir Putin during a visit to Moscow, the prime minister has now thought it fit to visit Ukraine to give a comforting pat or two on Volodymyr Zelenskyys’s shoulder apart from the conventional hug — conveying the idea that the largest democracy in the world would like the sovereignty of all nations to be respected.
The Sengol has wrought its magic on the Supreme Court too. After having shelved the matter for years, the Supreme Court finally declared the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional.

There may be some in the establishment who think that considering all these developments, the Sengol has proved inauspicious and that its rightful place will be the Allahabad Museum. But would Yogiji welcome it back to his realm, considering its deadly potency? After all, the largest losses suffered by his party in the Lok Sabha elections were in his state, thanks to the Sengol aura.

On the other hand, others may think it would be a good idea for replicas of the Sengol to be kept in all legislatures and secretariats and courts. May be even Kamala Harris, considering her Tamil genes, could get one installed in the White House, assuming she gets past Donald Trump. She is from Chola land where the ideal of the Sengol is supposed to have originated.

K. Ramanujam is a former Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.

Having Made India ‘Viksit’, the Pradhan Sevak’s Third Term Must Be All about Diplomacy

From the Vishwaguru Archives: The Indian media loves the idea that their Leader is solving this conflict or that. While this guarantees headlines, the Most Competent Authority is amused that there are serious people in this country who actually believe he could have any kind of role in ending the Russia-Ukraine war.

This is a work of fiction. Although it may appear closer to reality than fiction.

The following note, drafted by JS (PSK), is being issued with the consent and approval of the Competent Authority, as a strategic directive to seniormost officials.

Copies (numbered) will be made available on a very limited basis. Except for the National Security Adviser, no other member of the Cabinet Committee on Security will get a copy. Not even the home minister. I am required to make it clear to all recipients that this is an internal document, strictly for limited circulation. It is not to be shared with any of our preferred media outlets; not even with the IT Cell.

A few days ago, I was given an opportunity by the Sarva Saksham Pradhikari (most competent authority, or MCA) to prepare a ‘working note’ based on what he was thinking aloud – and alone, his remarkable and fascinating mind uncluttered with the stereotypes our friends and foes like to foist on him.

This is only a draft copy of the “working style note,” still to be finally approved by the MCA.

A Working Note on Thrust and Direction of Modi 3.0

After the 2024 Lok Sabha verdict, it has become imperative to re-jig our game in order to negate the voter’s negative message. We cannot allow our allies or opponents to set the agenda of our government.

At the same time, it is also clear that after ten years there are no domestic mountains to be conquered. We are a tired people, our moral capital is vastly depleted, and our imagination all blurred.

On the domestic front, we shall at best be able to muddle through, without any realistic hope of any spectacular achievement.

After the rebuff by ungrateful voters, the MCA is not prepared to spend time or energy on domestic agenda or issues. Let the Opposition-wallahs keep taunting us that he has not visited Manipur. The mess there is intractable, and that Biren Singh has made it worse, and the MCA is no longer able to discipline him. These BJP leaders are like sharks, first to smell blood in the water.

The MCA believes that foreign policy is the only area of activity that will keep him on the front pages of newspapers. He has sadly noted that Man Ki Baat now gets relegated to the inside pages. The novelty is gone.

He has therefore decided that the preponderance of our energies – political, strategic, economic, diplomatic and the NRIs – be directed towards external relationships, even if this means engaging in meaningless/insubstantive state visits, to and fro.

The principal purpose and focus of all these external activities will be to keep alive the perception that the MCA is still a respected and very consequential global player.

As the most competent authority put it, “we have this vast parasitic bureaucracy that goes by the high-sounding name of Indian Foreign Service. These self-styled “ambassadors” love nothing more than meaningless diplomatic activity—summits of various shapes and sizes. In fact, I am inclined to believe, after ten years, that if there is one global conspiracy, it is among the foreign offices across the globe, in good times as well as in bad times. Our diplomats are vastly underworked and grossly over-paid. I believe they will be happy to be corralled into inventing and manufacturing ‘diplomatic achievements’ for me. Look, how eagerly they got down to spreading yoga mats in capitals and cities around the world.”

The MCA appreciates that we have an excellent foreign minister in S. Jaishankar. Most of the time, he is too clever by half – which suits the Indian “strategic community.” Talk, talk and more talk keeps these strategic experts away from the doctor. Even those retired “experts” who are not with the government are per se obliged to talk about – and praise – the “Indian” stand on this or that remote global event.

Luckily, the global calendar seems full. Each event provides an opportunity for the MCA to generate headlines here in India –whether to go and address the General Assembly, or attend or not attend SCO meeting in Pakistan, or to smile or not to smile or hug or not to hug Xi –our media will focus and endlessly discuss this gesture or that snub to that world leader.

In the privacy of his home the Most Competent Authority is mightily amused that there are serious people in this country who actually believe he could have any kind of role in sorting out the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The more educated they are, the more desperate they are for him to acquire even a semblance of the aura and influence Nehru had acquired in the 1950s. While we actually have no role to play in resolving any of the world’s wars and conflicts, this does not mean that we will forgo any opportunity to let it be known that we are playing “peace-maker.” The Indian media simply loves the idea that their Leader has rolled up his sleeves and is solving this conflict or that.

The MCA believes that his “successes” and “achievements” in global diplomacy will not only keep the increasingly restive BJP MPs in check but will also make the Nagpur establishment refrain from contemplating any “corrective” action.

In any case, the MCA has regrettably concluded that Indian voters can never be fully satisfied; they will keep demanding more and more. He believes we have done the best that could be done at home. There are those newly empowered people on the opposition benches, insisting on explanations. This so unfair, and so unjust. After 10 years in power, he feels he is now entitled to all the pomp and splendour of state visits and guards of honour. The “excellency” salutation is just music to his ears.

Once this draft is approved, an appropriate operational note will be shared.

Signed
Joint Secretary,
Pradhan Sevak Karyalaya

Atmanirbhar is the pen-name of an aspiring satirist, who irregularly contributes a column, From the Vishwaguru Archives, and believes that ridicule and humour are central to freedom to speech and expression.

‘Chalak’ Om and the Case of the Crawling Man

As chronicled by Dr Vatsan – as one more adventure of the world’s foremost forensic expert.

Preliminary note from Om Prakash’s collaborator, Dr Vatsan:

Those that have followed the exploits of the world’s foremost consulting detective will recall that it is on the website of The Wire that the chronicles of my illustrious friend and colleague, Om Prakash, first appeared. Known to an admiring public as ‘Chalak’ Om on account of his astuteness and acumen in disentangling mysteries, he has had an extended and distinguished career. What follows is one more in the long list of his cases that I have been privileged to record.

As I believe I have had occasion to remark on an earlier occasion, Mr ‘Chalak’ Om of Bekar Street yielded to no-one in his esteem for his illustrious predecessor in the art and science of forensic deduction, Mr Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street. So closely did ‘Chalak’ Om model his methods and his career upon the methods and career of Sherlock Holmes that it must surely be beyond the bounds of coincidence that some of the cases unravelled by the former should so closely parallel ones that had been earlier investigated by the latter.

For, and simply as it happens, if there is a battered old tin dispatch-box in the vaults of Cox & Co. carrying Dr Watson’s account of Sherlock Holmes and The Creeping Man, so is there a battered old tin dispatch-box in the vaults of Kak’s & Co. carrying Dr Vatsan’s account of ‘Chalak’ Om and The Crawling Man. If Dr Watson’s account details the curious affair of Professor Presbury, then Dr Vatsan’s account details that of the not-too-distantly homonymous Professor Preyas Bahari. It is the notes pertaining to this latter case that I draw upon in seeking to present, in what follows, the singular events concerning the Professor, his wife, and his cat – bearing in mind, at all times, my friend’s injunction to preserve the utmost tact and discretion that would be called for in the telling of such a tale.

Upon one of those unpleasantly humid mornings of late August of the year 2024, ‘Chalak’ Om and I had just finished our breakfast (he before he had started it, and I after 16 of our landlady’s delicious dosas), when there was a peal upon the door of our barsati at B221, and Mrs Hardhan ushered in a very nervous and daunted-looking woman. She was, in my estimation, in her mid-forties, and despite the soothing and matronly ways which were Mrs Hardhan’s wont in her dealings with disturbed clients, it was clear that our visitor was in a distraught state of mind. Barely had she been invited by Om to seat herself than she burst out in a high-pitched voice: “Oh Mr Om, tell me, what must I do to prevent my husband from throwing his coffee cup at me again?”

“Do not distress yourself, madam,” said Om in his customary reassuring manner.

“Pray gather yourself together, and tell us, without omitting any detail small or large, what has led up to your decision to hurry out of your home to seek our urgent assistance. Tut, it is no great mental feat to deduce haste: the smudged mascara and lipstick tell their own story.”

And with that, Om lit one of his interminable Langar Chhap bidis, leant back on his seat, closed his eyes, and steepled his fingers as the smoke from his bidi swirled about his head.

“I apologise for my earlier outburst, Mr Om,” said our visitor in a calmer voice.

“I shall attempt to present my case as coherently as possible. You should know then that I am the unhappy wife of Preyas Bahari, Professor of Economics at the University—“.

“Pray forgive the interruption, Mrs Bahari. I find it helps me enormously to have some details about the individuals involved in a case. My eternal help in these matters is the good old Index! If you please, Vatsan – ah, thank you! What have we here? Babita the housewife who administered arsenic in her husband’s paratha; Babubhai the broker who crashed the Stock Exchange; and here – Bahari (Preyas), Professor of Economics, author of many articles on the Indian economy;…publications in Journal of Data Manipulation, Quarterly Review of Dodgy Statistics, Studies in Economics Spin; …, pieces in the popular press; …widely celebrated in official circles for demonstrating that poverty in India has been eliminated and for establishing, with what Martin Gardner would call economeritricious rigour, that India’s unemployment rate is actually negative! An ambitious man, would you say, madam?”

“Indeed yes, Mr Om,” said our client, flushing with pride.

“Aiming for the Nobel Prize – that sort of thing?”

“Oh no, Mr Om, not that sort of thing at all. Rather, he would like to move out of the stuffy trappings of academics and into a position of power in Government, whence he hopes, by dint of working hard to please his masters, to move up the bureaucratic ladder so that he can seek and find his place in a plum assignment with the International Minatory Fund or the World Bunkum where, I am given to understand – even if I cannot quite put a figure on it – that the pensions are, you know – ”

“Quite,” said ‘Chalak’ Om drily. “Pray continue.”

“You should know that my husband and I had slipped into the somewhat formulaic routine, at the daily breakfast table, of my asking him if the morning paper had anything of interest to offer, and his responding with a non-committal grunt. A few days ago, however, he reacted to my question by rubbing his palms together and displaying what I thought was a distinctly anticipatory gleam in his eye. He did not, of course, bother to elaborate, being a man of few words. But just a couple of days later, and in response to my routine question, he snarled and hurled his coffee-cup at me, which I succeeded in dodging in the nick of time so that it missed me but found instead his favourite framed portrait of the Economics Minister, now damaged by coffee stains and causing him to get into an even worse frame of mind. Is my husband going mad, Mr Om? What explains his throwing the coffee cup at me? Must I endure this every morning for the rest of my life?”

“Pray be precise as to detail: the dates, madam, the dates! On which day did the happy response occur, and on which day the angry one?”

“I have heard of your passion for detail, Mr Om,” said our client, “so that though I was in a hurry when I left my home, I remembered to pick up the newspapers of August 22 and August 24 when the two events occurred. Here are the papers.”

“Splendid, Mrs Bahari, splendid – I could not have asked for a more perfect client!” Om went through the proffered newspapers rapidly, and when he looked up again, no one but I, the one man who knew every variation of his mood and temper, could have sensed in him that excitement which comes from discovery, however suppressed its external manifestation.

Also read: The Return of ‘Chalak’ Om: The Adventure of the Media Vampire

“Today is the 25th, and the cup-throwing incident has occurred just once: yesterday. It seems to me that you are unduly worried about the possibility of its indefinite recurrence. But to get down to the reason for why it happened: I would like you to try and recall everything of even a slightly odd nature that might have occurred between the 22nd and the 24th of August.”

“I do not know if this is of any great significance, but I believe I should mention what occurred on the night of August 23rd or early morning of August 24th. Before I come to that, you should know that my husband is a generally sound sleeper, and often fails to awaken even when Chipku settles on his stomach in the middle of the night – oh, I should have explained, Mr Om: Chipku is our cat, who sleeps with us. A clingy, huggy, darling cat, who loves her food and can hardly be separated from it –”

“No doubt all of this is of the greatest general interest, madam, not to say of particular gratification for lovers of feline pets,” said Om with some asperity, “but may I request you to proceed with a focus on the principal and relevant aspects of your account?”

“I thought you wanted me to omit no detail however slight,” replied our visitor, with a touch of petulance. “But to resume: my husband, as I said, is a generally sound sleeper who scarcely gets out of bed during the course of the night, so you will conceive of my astonishment when, in response to a scuffling sound, I got up from my sleep, only to find that my husband was not in bed. When I switched on the flash of my mobile phone, I discovered him crouched by the foot of the desk at which he often works. When I asked to know what he was doing there, he replied peevishly that it was all my fault for keeping Chipku’s Miaow biscuits on the desk: he said that the packet containing the biscuits had listed over, scattering a lot of them on the floor, and that he had been gathering them up and returning them to the packet from which they had spilled out. I asked him to get back into bed, which he did, sullenly. I should have thought no more of this if it were not for his wholly uncharacteristic broken sleep and even more uncharacteristic concern for spilt biscuits in the middle of the night, taken together with the incident of the coffee cup on the following morning.”

“And where,” enquired Om, “was – er – Chipku when all of this was happening?”

“Why, in bed, between me and my husband, where she always sleeps.”

“That is most suggestive.”

“Are you drawing attention to some peculiar feature of the case, Om?” asked I.

“To the curious incident of the cat in the night-time.”

“But the cat did nothing in the night-time.”

“That,” remarked Om, “is the curious incident. I have been given to understand that the beast is a glutt – that is to say, something of an epicure. How is it that she failed to attack the biscuits the moment they spilt over on to the floor? There is no mystery: no biscuits ever spilt over. That was sheer bluff on the part of your husband, Mrs Bahari. Tell me, did you have occasion to examine the pajamas he slept in that night?”

“Yes, I did, before the pajamas went into the washing machine.”

“And were the pajamas scuffed and somewhat dirty at the knees?”

“Yes, Mr Om!”

“Ah! The ‘case’, such as it is, is solved.”

“Please tell me, Mr Om, that my cup-hurling husband is not a psychopath!”

‘That he certainly is not. But then again, he is something only a little less unsettling than a psychopath, to wit: a sycophant. Let me explain. If you had bothered to examine the newspapers of the 22nd and 24th of August before rushing over to consult me, you would not have failed to observe these two notices that your husband has circled in red. The first, appearing on the 22nd, announces a scheme for lateral entry into government involving the hiring of some 45 candidates under the auspices of the Union Public Service Commission. Hence the rubbing of the palms and the gleam in the eye at breakfast on the morning of the 22nd; with his record of spinning nice stories about the state of the economy, he thought a Joint Secretaryship – and everything else that that would entail – was a cinch. But after the Opposition’s objection to the scheme, and its swift withdrawal via a notice published in the newspapers on the 24th (here it is, circled by your husband), things changed drastically for him: hence the snarl and the hurled cup of coffee. On the night of the 23rd, what you found your husband doing – and this is testified to by the state of his pajamas at the knees – was crawling. He was practising what he intended to do for his bureaucratic and political masters, once he was appointed as Joint Secretary, up until the time he secured that prized job at the IMF or the World Bank. Madam, be assured that even if your husband should be in something of a bad mood for the next few days, he will overcome his disappointment in due course. After all, you cannot expect to keep a good sycophant down for ever. Sooner or later there should be other opportunities for inappropriate backdoor entries.”

With that, I saw a somewhat relieved, if also considerably chastened, Mrs Bahari to the door. As I turned around, ‘Chalak’ Om said: “Now that the case has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion, what say you, my dear Vatsan, to the prospect of lunch at the dhaba round the corner? They serve a mean baingan ka bharta there, and the price should suit us. That is surely no trivial consideration. For, despite whatever various Crawling Men may have to say about poverty and hunger and inflation and unemployment in the country today, for many of hoi polloi (which includes you and me), the wolf is never very far from the door!”

Athur Kannan Thayil is a Chennai-based economist who sometimes writes under the name of S. Subramanian.