Even though the aim of ‘AIB Roast’ was to raise money for good causes, the point is that it should not have bordered on indecency (“ >The lawlessness of humour ,” Feb.23). The way chosen by the organisers to be altruistic in this manner is also disappointing. Any person of standing should be prudent and cautious about his utterances and needs to contemplate deeply about the social impact of his acts.
Shrinivas Sadashiv Paraddi,
Bagalkot, Karnataka
Look up any slang word and you will often find that it is demeaning to women. In recent times it has become very common to use such words; especially if used in English, it acquires an elitist tag. Whether the organisers of ‘AIB Roast’ like it or not, the show was replete with such slang. On the one hand we talk about empowering women and giving them equal status in this patriarchal society, and on the other, we encourage the use of obnoxious slang to generate humour.
I totally support the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution, but I am against programmes such as ‘AIB Roast’ because of its impact on the younger generation. It is sad that when one is short of creative ideas, one has to stoop so low to create humour.
Himanshu Bhardwaj,
New Delhi
The writer seems to have missed the larger picture. My freedom of speech is not absolute. Moreover, when I am using a public platform to express my humour, it becomes equally important that I am responsible for safeguarding the interests of society at large. Existing laws cannot be used as a shield to propound expressions that hurt the conscience of society. Moreover, the producers of the show have to realise the larger impact of their show. Merely thinking about schoolchildren discussing ‘AIB Roast’ programmes in a classroom makes me wonder about the disastrous impact of unrestrained free speech.
Akash Singh,
Lucknow
There is no doubt that intolerance is on the rise in society. We used to put up with various forms of humour, some of them being crass and tasteless like the ubiquitous Sardariji jokes, Madrasi jokes in Hindi films and Brahmin jokes in Tamil films. These crude generalisations were enjoyed by some, but the majority mostly ignored or dismissed them with contempt as exercises in uninformed prejudice. Now, a whole grievance industry targeting humour has taken birth. Its distinguishing feature is about people taking offence on behalf of others — public interest litigation to protect the presumed honour, reputation and respect of communities, scriptures, religions, and so on. The absence of locus standi in many of the interventions raises doubts about the intentions of the so-called moral crusaders and conscientious objectors. Aren’t they hijacking the valuable time and resources of the courts and the police to enforce their agendas? A little discernment here and some common sense there might be enough to identify what is blatantly malicious and what is harmless fun, even if it is coarse and avoidable.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram
Leaving aside the legal fallout of the programme staged recently, one needs to examine dispassionately the very need for it. Surely, as a society we are not done with everyday jokes, humour and comedy that some perverted and wicked witticism has to find pride of place. The fact that the programme raised the hackles of certain sections of society proves that the contents were not in good taste and definitely hurt their sentiments. The organisers cannot take refuge under the freedom of expression when apparently it went beyond the niceties of a chat and the absurdities of a reality show. If the purpose was merely to raise funds, the participants could have done so with their usual starry extravaganzas. And if it was meant to be pure entertainment, it simply failed to appeal to one and all. Instead of roasting stars who are merely reel-life characters, how much better it would be if our real-life unscrupulous politicians are roasted in that manner!
V. Nagarajan,
Chennai
