Humour Humiliated
In a recent controversy at comedy show India’s Got Latent, a joke made by a popular comedian sparked a heated debate on the boundaries of humour, reigniting discussions about the responsibility of comedians and the ethics of comedy. While humour is meant to make others laugh, it also holds the power to heal, connect and challenge societal norms. However, when comedy veers into vulgarity, insensitivity or buffoonery, it risks alienating audiences and causing damage rather than laughter.
Of course, humour is an essential part of human existence—a universal language that transcends barriers of culture, age and background. A well-crafted joke can bridge differences and forge connections. Imagine a world devoid of laughter—a bleak and colourless place where daily drudgery is the only diet. Humour allows us to find breather in block, offering respite from life’s burdens. It has the power to repair, mend broken spirits and uplift weary minds. However, humour, like any art form, comes with responsibility.
Comedy is not any monkey business. But over the years, it has evolved into an arena of shock value, dark humour and crude vulgarity. While some argue that dark humour serves as a coping mechanism, helping people process pain, it often crosses into insensitivity, trivializing real suffering and even dumbing down. Similarly, vulgarity in humour, which relies on profanity and explicit content, may gain million likes but it degrades the beauty of wit and creativity. Unfortunately, much of today’s comedy—whether in stand-up, television or social media memes—relies heavily on shoddiness, shock and shenanigans rather than genuine humour.
The India’s Got Latent controversy indicates a broader problem in modern comedy, that is more of a clowning comedy now. The demand for edgy, boundary-pushing jokes has encouraged comedians to blur the lines between humour and incivility. While humour can challenge norms, it cannot trample upon dignity, reinforce stereotypes or normalize disrespect. Comedy should be thought-provoking and reflective, not at the cost of human emotions and cultural sensitivities. “Roasting” in the name of mimicry and improvisational humour should not be repackaged as recreation.
The best humour acknowledges idiosyncrasies of human experience without trivializing realities. Civil humour recognizes the line between comedy and crassness, ensuring that punchlines do not rely on offensiveness to be effective. Some of history’s greatest comedians—Charlie Chaplin, Robin Williams and Jerry Seinfeld—mastered the art of making people laugh without resorting to insult or vulgarity.
In a world already divided by conflict and confusion, humour should serve as a tool of harmony, empathy and intelligent satire. It must challenge stereotypes but without reinforcing them; provoke thought but without inflicting harm; and amuse audiences but without trouncing the worth of others. Clean comedy is not outdated; it is an art that requires skill, thoughtfulness and creativity. Hilarity can’t be kitsch.
Audiences hold immense power in shaping the direction of comedy. The kind of humour that thrives is largely dictated by what viewers choose to consume, support and applaud. If audiences demand thoughtful, inclusive and intelligent comedy, comedians will be encouraged to create content that is both hilarious and responsible. Conversely, when crass and nasty humour gains widespread popularity, it normalizes insensitivity, stereotyping, tomfoolery and ridicule.
By making conscious choices—whether by supporting clean comedians, calling out offensive humour or simply refusing to engage with useless cheap content—audiences play an active role in preserving the dignity and principles of humour. Encouraging respectful comedy does not mean censoring jokes but rather promoting an environment where humour uplifts rather than degrades.
