Mainstream Weekly

Home > 2025 > Comedians vs. Censors: Revisiting Ideology and Language of Abuse | Amit (...)

Mainstream, Vol 63 No 10, March 8, 2025

Comedians vs. Censors: Revisiting Ideology and Language of Abuse | Amit Kumar

Saturday 8 March 2025

#socialtags

Abstract

In the wake of the recent backlash against the comedian Samay Raina and his fellow panellists on India’s Got Latent, the controversy underscores the persistent tensions between free expression and moral censorship in India. Marked by multiple FIRs, it raises critical questions about whether India is prepared to engage with profanity-laced humour beyond traditional boundaries. The study examines the ideological and structural underpinnings of selective outrage, drawing upon themes embedded in context, intent and audience while highlighting the contradictions between socially ingrained misogynistic humour and the hypersensitivity to explicit language addressing socio-cultural taboos such as sexuality, gender and caste. Using linguistic and psychological insights, the study argues that fears of moral decline are misplaced as individuals naturally grasp contextual appropriateness. While hinting at digital censorship’s impact in shaping public discourse, the study urges critical engagement over reactionary outrage, advocating a nuanced understanding of offensive speech in an evolving cultural context.

Keywords: Swearing, Censorship, Comedians, Linguistics, Morality, Euphemism, Gender, Ideology, Patriarchy

Once again, the jesters bear the brunt of outrage as India’s Got Latent fame Samay Raina, along with its recent episode panellists Ranveer Allahbadia, Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh and Apoorva Makhija and many more, has faced backlash for their so-called objectionable remarks, with controversial language, cuss-laden content, profanity-laced humour and allegedly degrading or corrupting societal values, especially youth, leading to multiple FIRs across the nation. A thought to chew on, is India truly ready to take a joke? Ironically, we are no strangers to misogynistic and sexist jokes deeply embedded in every space, from workplaces to cultural gatherings, woven into humour about husbands, wives, in-laws, and beyond. So, now the question arises, can India handle a joke when it dives into dark humour, sexuality, disability, religio-caste and racism, all wrapped in unapologetically explicit language? Or does India’s ability to tolerate a joke still remain in question? In other words, how often do we consider why we surrender to swearing and cuss words while stubbing the toe against the stool, getting soap in our eyes, accidentally biting the tongue or inside of our cheek while chewing, bumping into a glass door, or getting honked at and cursing the driver in return. Isn’t it time we question our own hypocrisy, condemning explicit language in others while casually swearing at ourselves, bending morality and ethics to suit our convenience? Swearing is not innate. Rather, we learn it from parents, peers, friends and the very society that surrounds us. Considering these contradictions, whether selective outrage, cultural normalisation or moral convenience, it becomes imperative to understand the ideological and structural underpinnings that sustain it.

In one of his interviews, Javed Akhtar responded to the striking increase in the use of swearing in stand-up comedy acts, stating that "Swearing is the Chili of language. If you can speak well and are witty enough, you don’t need this Chili. If the conversation is bland, you’ll throw in some swear words just to give it some energy". However, to point out, Akhtar’s statement oversimplifies the role of swearing (particularly in humour), resembling the traditionalist perspective of refined speech, romanticising the linguistic elegance which overlooks the deeper psychological and cultural functions of swearing. For instance, swearing serves as an intensifier of emotions (as an expressive tool), breaking taboos to provoke laughter, and the use of profanity in public discourse reflects shifting norms, satire, and social critique and delegitimises refined languages’ inherent superiority. Therefore, it would be a colossal error to consider swearing merely as an additive to bland speech or used only when falling short of wit or eloquence. Instead, it is a rhetorical device (rooted in context, audience and intent) shaped by cultural shifts and comedic traditions.

Prescriptive vs Descriptive Rationale

If deconstructed, most cuss words (particularly in Hindi or any regional dialect) follow a typical grammatical structure, a familial relation (often to demean or target), linked by a possessive postposition (Ka/Ke/Ki) and ending with a genital reference. For instance, Maa/Behan (mother/sister as familial relation) + Ka/Ke/Ki (of) + Lauda/Chut (Penis/Vagina or any other genital reference). These expressions amplify the insult by invoking family honour, using anatomical vulgarity. This raises the question of why the linguistic pairing of familial relations with genital references is socially constructed as offensive and abusive. It is undeniably not rooted in logical inference but in historical, cultural, and ideological biases. It is the constructed taboos surrounding the human body, sexuality and power dynamics that forbid the use of terms like penis or vagina in public discourse. In contrast, body parts like hands and intestines are not policed. All are essential organs, yet only some are treated as taboo. For instance, genitals are explicitly considered private and offensive, but the heart and brain, despite being private, are not considered offensive or abusive. There exists a selective moralisation of language that hints at embedded ideological biases in linguistic norms, reinforcing social control through gendered and moralistic constraints.
Cuss words are more than just linguistic expressions serving as markers of cultural norms, power structure and behavioural expressions. To borrow the ideological structure from Allen, the cuss words can be analysed by examining them as an idea, a value embedded, and with a purpose. The very existence of cuss words is based on the social construction of taboo language. With the belief that words can carry an inherent force, their power and function arise from the idea that certain words or phrases are inappropriate/offensive for public discourse. Deeply rooted in the socialisation process, profanity carries ideological value, serving as a means to establish authority (regulate power and police language), identity (reinforce solidarity in informal settings, particularly among friends; symbols of empowerment for marginalised communities such as racial, casteist or gendered slurs) and resistance (use of profanity in music, protest slogans, literature etc. as a critique to existing power structures). In fulfilling various social and psychological roles, cuss words serve pragmatic functions in communication through their intentional and context-dependent use. For instance, swearing is considered a universal mechanism for relieving stress (by expressing anger, pain, or excitement), adding emphasis and intensity to speech, can be weaponised to demean or exercise dominance over others, and in many cultures, profanity can be linguistically playful rather than offensive (either as exaggeration or satire).

Moralist vs Modernist Perspectives

A common misconception is that swear words indicate moral corruption or societal degradation. However, swear words don’t describe feelings; rather, they manifest them, considering the cathartic aspect of human communication, particularly expressions like swearing, which allow individuals to release intense emotions such as excitement, pain, anger, or frustration. A contrasting perspective on swearing, moralists believe it is a sign of societal decline and violation of decency, as it degrades social values, promotes disrespectful communication, supports censoring offensive language in schools, media, workplaces and entertainment, and advocates legal measures to curb the same. Meanwhile, modernists view swearing as a natural and linguistic phenomenon rather than a societal threat. Considering it expressive, they perceive it as a tool to enhance emotional communication and bonding, oppose regulation and see hypocrisy in censorship, recognise the transitional change in language over time and accept swearing in informal settings along with an emphasis on the context. However, neither the moralists nor the modernists can ever win the argument, as each position remains contingent on the other’s opposition. History is witnessed, public efforts to suppress profanity persist, and language continues to adapt, making swearing an inextricable feature of human communication, irrespective of any legal measures.

Age vs Gender

The age and gender of an individual significantly shape the perception and reception of cuss words in society. For instance, when a child swears, it is often met with laughter, mockery, or even encouragement, as family members laugh, record videos and share them for amusement or even use it as content to garner views on social media. However, when an adult employs the same profanity, it abruptly shifts from being a source of mockery to an object of embarrassment within familial settings and an act of transgression and outright offence in public discourse. Similarly, gender dictates the acceptability of swearing, as it is largely normalised, dismissed as casual speech or seen as a marker of masculine vigour when a male uses cuss words. Whereas, when a female swears, it is treated as a rare cosmic event, eliciting shock, disapproval, or exaggerated fascination, as if an unwritten social law has been momentarily defied. Several studies have suggested how men’s and women’s different socialisation affects the frequency of use of swear words, as men are more likely to swear when frustrated or angry, whereas women perceive swearing in anger as a loss of control, recognising its potential to harm social relationships. Interestingly, not only the gender of the speaker but also of listeners makes a difference, as men tend to use more offensive language, especially in the company of other men (Bird and Harris 1990; Jay and Janschewitz 2006).

Conditioned vs Directed

Not everything labelled immoral within societal construction necessarily corrupts an individual’s moral character. Rather, the perception of swearing as immoral is a product of socialisation, ingrained from childhood. Crucially, this process is not founded on logical reasoning or objective analysis but is shaped by entrenched norms, customs, values and cultural biases. It is a misconception that mere exposure to swearing or cuss words leads to the corruption of moral character, especially in youth. Studies have suggested that young children and non-native speakers require time and experience to become familiar with appropriate and offensive language. However, over time, they also learn how to use cuss words or swearing based on the context and situation and the relationship between the participants and speech practices (Kasper 1990). Most conditioned swearing is unintentional, uncontrollable and unplanned, mainly occurring in sudden emotional bursts. However, its utterance might be perceived as offensive by uninformed listeners. On the other hand, individual pride is deeply ingrained in Indian society, shaping social norms, customs and practices. Hence, safeguarding one’s dignity is paramount, particularly in a social setting where hierarchical positioning is highly determined by caste (sub-castes), gender, religious associations, etc. However, swearing is not inherently negative, rather, its perception depends on whether it is deliberate or habitual, and if intentional, it is polite or offensive. Direct swearing is planned (and intentional) and can be polite (promoting social harmony) and impolite (deliberately attacking someone). For instance, ’the food you cooked was fucking delicious’ (polite) and ’you are fucking stupid’ (impolite). Undeniably, the situational context is inherently factored into evaluating the rudeness of the cuss words in any discourse.

Regional vs Linguistic Contradictions

The perception and acceptability of swear words are not uniform across linguistics and regional boundaries. For instance, in the majority Hindi-speaking region, the term ’Lauda’ is considered a derogatory term (denoting penis), while in the rural areas of the central-eastern region of India, it refers to young males (’Lauda’ or ’Launda’). Similarly, there are other terms like Randi (a Telugu word which means come) vs Randi (a Hindi word which means a prostitute), Jai (a Ladakhi word that means penis, whereas in Hindi it means to hail), Lulli (a Telugu word which means fight but in Hindi, it means to the penis of a young child), Kundi (a Malayalam word that means ass, whereas in Hindi it means a door latch ), Bur (in the central belt of India it means vagina whereas, in the north-western region, it means lint), Lull (In Dogri it means penis while in Hindi it means dull or defective), Faaq (a Ladakhi word that means pig, whereas in English it resembles the four-letter cuss word, i.e., Fuck) and Ghassa (in Hindi belt of the north-western region it means a bite, in Punjabi it means a stroke made during intercourse, and in hilly region it means a punch), shaping the regional and linguistics context of profanity and demonstrating its embeddedness in regional socio-linguistic framework. Therefore, what constitutes abuse remains conveniently fluid across different sections of society. A term deemed extremely offensive in one language or standard discourse may carry a neutral, mundane connotation or even colloquial meaning in another. However, given this diverse linguistic context embedded within India’s multiculturalist society, it should, in principle, cultivate a degree of tolerance toward variations in language use, including swearing and expressions related to sexuality. Rather, perceiving it as a threat to the moral integrity of youth, an erosion of traditions, or an attack on an individual’s belief system.

Societies in Transition: Then vs Now

Drawing Heraclitus’ assertion that ’the only thing constant in life is change’ aptly describes societies being in constant transition. What holds relevance today may cease to be so in the future. Clinging to age-old beliefs does not preserve their relevance, rather, it merely delays the progress, as history has repeatedly demonstrated. The taboo status of swearing and cussing is rooted in society’s evolution. The perception of swearing has evolved, and it would again, with expressions once deemed taboo or offensive potentially losing their stigma as societal norms shift alongside changes in intention, motivations and individual aspirations. What qualifies as a cuss word is fluid and historically contingent rather than innate. For instance, in Western societies, blasphemous words were most offensive, while modern profanity revolves around bodily and sexual language. Similarly, swear words in the Indian context that were once neutral (body organs like penis, vagina or breasts) have been stigmatised over time due to religious morality, civilian modesty and patriarchal control. At present, with the advent of globalisation, foreign swear words like Fuck, Slut, Bitch, Shit, etc., have gained currency among Indians. At several stances, these cuss words are often reclaimed as symbols of empowerment, especially among women and people living at the margins. What used to be considered profane is now used as a tool to boost the morale of people labelled abnormal by society, such as specially-abled people, sex workers, transgender people, etc. Historically, literature and poetry have employed strong language for impact. Even military services often tolerate and encourage swearing as a tool for discipline, cohesion and psychological conditioning. The idea is rooted in the belief that profanity serves as a coping mechanism to help personnel process fear, frustration and stress. Historically, swearing was employed to affirm truthfulness and deter falsehoods. However, its functions have since expanded and now comprise a wide range of expressions, including emotional release, provocation, degradation, etc.

The Way Out: Do’s and Don’ts

To summarise, words themselves are neither inherently good/right or bad/wrong, instead, it is the underlying ideology (the idea, value, and purpose) that determine their significance. Speaking of context, intent and audience (or participant), as a beginner, whether children or adults, one should learn the contextual appropriateness of language, much like other social norms, just as they are taught not to shout in a library or pee on religious sites. For experts, one should deprive cuss words of their offensive value by understanding their ideological intent approaching them as an intellectual exercise rather than perceiving them as a threat to personal dignity. On the level of community, the destigmatisation of cuss words can lead to a healthier discussion on sexuality, reducing shame and misinformation alongside exposing the irrational and ideological foundations of linguistic taboos. There is a need to reconceptualise what constitutes ’offensive’ and ’abusive’ not just at the individual level but within the collective social consciousness. It would be an unproductive concern to assume that explicit content like India’s Got Latent will inevitably corrupt youth, children or society in any hidden context. People, especially children and young learners, naturally grasp contextual appropriateness, using cuss language selectively rather than indiscriminately, making fears of moral decline misplaced. To conclude, comedians’ targeting and intimidation may be interpreted as yet another episode of public outrage rooted in the broader framework of social morality or an entirely far-fetched discourse necessitating the implementation of a digital censorship bill aimed at regulating the dominant narratives on social media platforms. Moving forward, progress lies in reflecting critically rather than merely reacting, allowing reasoned deliberation to determine which narrative should prevail.

(Author: Assistant Professor, Centre for Gender Studies, Institute for Development and Communication (IDC), Chandigarh, India. Email: amitkumar[at]idcindia.org )

References

Also in this section

2007 - 2025 Mainstream Weekly
Site Map |Contact Email: contact[at]mainstreamweekly.net |Submission Guidelines| RSS 2.0|

| SPIP
ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.