29 Jul 2025 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features
On the eve of 23 March 2025, hours after stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra released a video titled Naya Bharat (New India), dozens of members of a right-wing ruling party of Maharashtra barged in and vandalised the Habitat comedy club where the show was performed.
The workers, who represented a faction of Shiv Sena, a right-wing Marathi regional political party in India, alleged that the comedian made fun of their party leader and the deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Eknath Shinde.
Kamra, in his show, sang a song referencing the word gaddar or traitor. The song did not name anyone directly, but its lyrics referenced Shinde’s separation from his party in 2022 and allying with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Shiv Sena spokesperson Krishna Hegde urged Mumbai police to arrest Kamra, lock him up behind bars, and open a case against him as his jokes insulted the people of Maharashtra.
After the event, a First Information Report (which initiates a potential criminal case) was filed against Kamra. He was later granted bail. The police also arrested a number of Shiv Sena party members who were also granted bail by a Mumbai court.
The attack on Kamra is just the latest instance of comedians in India being targeted and penalised simply for telling jokes and using satire. More broadly, it reflects an ongoing assault on freedom of speech, especially when it challenges the moral framework upheld by dominant political groups.
Responding to the threats against him, Kamra issued a statement saying, “Attacking a venue for a comedian’s words is as senseless as overturning a lorry carrying tomatoes, because you didn’t like the butter chicken you were served.”
He added, “I don’t fear this mob & I will not be hiding hide under my bed, waiting for this to die down.”
The incident at the popular Habitat club comes amid a spate of attacks against comedians in India. All highlight that while their humour may push boundaries or tackle bold themes for their audience, there’s only so much room for expression in a space where jokes are heavily scrutinised and the repercussions for comedians are severe.
Radhika Vaz, a stand-up comedian, highlights that freedom of expression can’t have any limits and there is an urgent need to protect it.
“We are at the lowest ebb. Comedians do not hold the same power that a politician does in terms of being able to influence police and judicial movement. It is not a fair fight. This is truly a David and Goliath situation, and the Goliaths should all be ashamed,” she said.
Vaz points out that censorship is not new to India. Writers, filmmakers, artists, and journalists have long been muffled, she says, but what has changed is the public complicity. “We, the public, should be held responsible because we only care when it is our team that is being censored. Freedom of expression can’t have any limits, and it certainly can’t be convenient.”
Growing censorship
What happened with Kamra is not just an isolated incident in the Indian stand-up comedy scene. Just a few weeks back, Samay Raina, who hosted a show titled India’s Got Latent, which featured a different set of judges in every episode, also faced severe backlash. The show has a huge audience in India and is infamous for its risqué humour.
The joke, made by one of the judges and India’s famous podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia, otherwise known as BeerBiceps, led to filing of multiple police reports against him and other show judges, a visit by Mumbai police to Allahabadia’s house, and also the removal of the video from YouTube based on a request by a member of India’s National Human Rights Commission.
Back in 2021, comedians Kunal Kamra and Munawar Faruqui were forced to cancel several shows across different cities after right-wing groups threatened violence and state authorities declined to provide security. That same year, Vir Das faced political backlash for his satirical poem Two Indias, performed during a show in the USA, which critics accused of tarnishing India’s reputation abroad.
Earlier in 2021, Munawar Faruqui was arrested in Indore before even performing, accused of making offensive jokes about Hindu Gods.
In 2020, Agrima Joshua became the target of death and rape threats after a stand-up video surfaced where she was alleged to have mocked the revered 17th century ruler Chhatrapati Shivaji. In reality, Joshua’s jokes had critiqued exaggerated claims about a planned Shivaji statue on Quora, not the historical figure himself, though she was well within her rights in either case.
Going back further, in 2016, Tanmay Bhat from Mumbai-based comedy collective All India Bakchod (AIB) drew criticism after a Snapchat spoof involving Indian legends Lata Mangeshkar and Sachin Tendulkar, which offended some sections of the public. The previous year, AIB had faced a barrage of FIRs for a roast event, where the use of profanity was labelled a threat to Indian cultural values.
Manjeet Sarkar, a stand-up comedian, says he never feels safe on stage when he performs political or critical material.
“It’s not about Kunal Kumra, it was always there. Journalists are doing the story now because the Kunal Kamra situation is happening. For comedians like me, who aren’t in the same position as Kunal Kamra, we have felt this for a long time,” he said.
He added that stand-up comedy as an art form talks about the current realities of the country.
“If a particular democracy is doing well, the jokes would reflect that. If not, they’ll reflect what it is. Comedians don’t do it because they want to be activists; it is because they are being true to the art,” he said.
A shrinking space for dissent
The situation for comedians mirrors the broader erosion of democratic space in India. According to a recent paper published in the Journal of Asian and African Studies by Abdul Fahad and Siti Mustafa, stand-up comedy has increasingly stepped into the role that traditional mainstream media once occupied: challenging the government, critiquing societal norms, and raising uncomfortable questions.
In a media landscape where many outlets now function as “government public relations” rather than independent watchdogs, comedians like Kunal Kamra, Vir Das, and Varun Grover have become some of the few remaining critical voices. The paper notes that these comedians “use humour to address sensitive topics, empowering audiences to engage with critical political issues,” making comedy a powerful tool for free expression beyond the reach of traditional media censorship.
But this visibility comes at a cost. As Fahad and Mustafa document, comedians in India today face serious risks: legal harassment, threats of violence, show cancellations, and loss of income.
Threats and economic retaliation are not just random acts; they are often orchestrated. Government supporters and political loyalists regularly organise social media campaigns to discredit and intimidate comedians. Sarkar highlights how platforms, too, play a role in censorship: “Social media platforms shadow-ban people like me. If they put people in jail, it’ll be hard to reach audiences, right?”
Meanwhile, the government is using incidents like Kamra’s to justify further tightening of digital spaces under the guise of “protection”. The new Digital Personal Data Protection law, critics argue, could make online dissent even riskier by giving authorities broader powers to monitor and restrict speech.
The broader message is clear: artists who mock, critique, or even simply question dominant narratives do so at their own peril.
Hope, resistance, and an uncertain future
Despite the risks, comedians are not giving up. They continue to find ways to speak, sometimes more subtly, sometimes more defiantly, pushing back against an environment that increasingly demands silence.
“I guess I look at countries with better standards and hope that by chipping away we can one day walk amongst them,” Vaz said, adding with a wry laugh, “maybe in 100 years.”
For Sarkar, change must come from those with privilege. “The most privileged in our society should push back, because they can afford to,” he said. “Until there is a shift in their awareness, it’s going to keep going in this direction. It will eventually impact them too – and that’ll be the funniest moment.”
The research by Fahad and Mustafa also underlines this need for solidarity. They suggest that alliances among comedians, other artists, and civil society can create pockets of resistance that protect free expression. Comedy, after all, thrives on community, and its survival may depend on collective defence against growing censorship.
In the meantime, the stakes for telling a joke in India have never been higher. What was once considered harmless or even patriotic satire is now treated as sedition in all but name. “We cannot attack or accost any journalist for what they’ve said,” Vaz warned. “We cannot attack or accost a comedian for a joke they made. Both deserve to be protected by the law of the country.”
As India’s democracy becomes increasing authoritarianism, comedians find themselves unlikely warriors for free speech. Armed only with a mic and a sharp sense of humour, they continue to stand on stage and say the things others dare not, even as the space to laugh – and to dissent – keeps shrinking.
The Winter 2023 issue of Index on Censorship, Having the last laugh, looked at how comedy is being censored around the world. Explore the issue now.
24 Jun 2025 | Americas, El Salvador, News and features, Newsletters
“They won’t silence me. I want a public trial!” shouted prominent human rights lawyer Ruth Eleonora López, a Bible clutched in her hands, as she stood outside a courtroom earlier this month in San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador. López is accused of illegal enrichment, a charge she and her lawyers flatly deny. Her arrest is more likely down to her role uncovering alleged government corruption and human rights violations.
López’s case is just the tip of the iceberg. Dissent is being crushed under President Nayib Bukele. In the past two months alone, a second lawyer critical of Bukele has been arrested, as have a pastor and a lawyer who were peacefully protesting outside the Los Sueños residential area, where Bukele lives; several journalists from leading investigative news outlet El Faro – who spoke to us in 2020– have fled the country fearing their own arrest, days after a story was published claiming links between the government and a gang; the head of a bus company who resisted offering transport for free reportedly died in custody; and a “foreign agents” law was passed, which will introduce a 30% tax on all overseas donations received by Salvadoran independent media outlets and human rights groups.
Bukele was first elected in 2019. Since then he has overridden the constitution so that the presidency can go beyond a single term. He has done away with routine checks and balances and now controls all three branches of government. In 2022 he declared a state of emergency (extended 35 times), which has seen human rights traded for so-called national security. Around 110,000 people (1.7% of El Salvador’s population) are currently imprisoned – the highest incarceration rate in the world – locked up to apparently tackle gang violence. Except many inmates have not been convicted of any crime at all, fuelling suspicions that imprisonment is being used to crush dissent. In 2023, former national security advisor Alejandro Muyshondt publicly accused Bukele of corruption. He was taken into custody, where he later died at age 46.
Unsurprisingly dozens of lawyers, academics and human rights defenders have joined journalists in fleeing the country.
Bukele boasts about being the world’s “coolest dictator” and has a fan in the figure of Donald Trump (the new Salvadoran mega-prison houses migrants from the USA). His social media accounts – followed by millions – contain a mix of policy announcements, one-upmanship and threats. On his X profile this week, he reposted a global leader approval ranking that placed him at the top. Is he that popular? It’s hard to know. Crime is down under him, but whether that’s actually because of him is contested. Clearly though El Salvador is only safe for those who bite their tongue, which means it isn’t safe at all.
13 Feb 2025 | Americas, News and features, United States
The second Donald Trump administration isn’t even a month old, and yet it seems as though the divisive president has already produced enough headlines to get us to the next election. With sweeping executive orders, massive cuts to federal departments and sights set on the contentious purchase of foreign lands, it’s hard to currently decipher the impact of his decisions and statements on the American people, and globally.
This is particularly true when it comes to one of the foundations of the USA’s Bill of Rights – the right to free speech.
Since his inauguration, there have been accusations of censorship and free speech violations levelled at Trump and his office. His threat to deport students with VISAs who display pro-Palestine views has rung alarm bells, and after the 47th President was credited with the reinstatement of social media platform TikTok in the USA, there were user reports of censorship around criticism of Trump, or pro-Palestine sentiment. There have also been major causes for concern among the LGBTQ+ community as one of Trump’s new executive orders threatens the self determination and self expression of trans people.
But is it all bad news when it comes to free speech? The USA-based non-profit organisation Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) keeps a close watch on how each president upholds freedom of speech according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Speaking to Index, members of FIRE’s legislative team explained how Trump’s first few weeks in office have impacted free speech in the USA, for better and worse.
Tyler Coward, lead counsel in higher education related government affairs at FIRE, has concerns about Trump’s threat against pro-Palestine foreign students. “There are mixed signals from some courts about what speech rights people have when they’re here on a temporary status, such as [on] visas, but FIRE’s position is that it’s a bad idea to create two classes of students on campus, some that can participate fully in campus advocacy or campus protests, and those who risk fear of deportation,” he said.
“There are students that can or have engaged in actual unlawful activity, including violence against other students, engaging in sanctionable civil disobedience, actual discrimination or intimidation, things that are generally not protected by the First Amendment,” he continued. “But we think it’s a bad idea to create a system where speech that would be protected for an American student, wouldn’t be for a student on a student visa.”
However, Coward believes that if Trump abides by the precedent set in his first term, the impact on free speech could be varied. “His (first) administration did some things on the campus side, some which were helpful, some which were not. First off, on the helpful side is that we in the United States have an anti-discrimination statute called Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, in education, in any entity that receives federal education dollars.
“The Federal Department of Education was interpreting that statute in ways that threatened free expression, particularly free speech, on sex and gender issues, and the first Trump administration passed rules that were very speech protective to allow for broader discussion and debate about these issues on campus… the Obama administration and the Biden administration both adopted rules that were harmful to free speech on those issues.”
But other executive orders implemented during Trump’s first term, and being continued into this administration, could have stretching powers that impact people’s right to protest and express views freely, Coward added.
For instance, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – which bans discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in organisations that receive federal funding, such as universities – has now been extended to include anti-Semitism. While hate speech should rightly be tackled, the concern is that the order could be expanded beyond hate speech and used in such a way that stifles the free speech of those who oppose Israel’s policies.
“I suspect we’ll see a lot more enforcement and a lot of speech that is protected by the First Amendment, including criticisms of Israel, that will pressure educational institutions that receive federal dollars,” said Coward. “The institutions will be cracking down on this speech in ways that threaten free expression, and then the education department itself will start investigating institutions for failure to censor that speech.”
Carolyn Iodice, legislative and policy director at FIRE, also told Index about the threats that journalism in the USA could face as a result of Trump’s attitude to the media. The president has sued several media outlets and social media firms because of the way they have reported news about him, represented his opponents or moderated his speech, Iodice said.
“We would have normally expected that the entities – like CBS News, Facebook and ABC News – would fight that kind of lawsuit; because for one [Facebook], there’s no legal claim to be had against them, and two, with CBS and ABC, if you don’t defend your journalists it creates this chill about what they can and can’t say about the president.”
Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, is due to pay $25 million to Trump in a settlement, after Trump sued the Big Tech firm and its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg in 2021 over the suspension of his accounts following the 6 January 2021 Capitol riots. ABC has settled its defamation case for $16 million. CBS is also reportedly considering settling over a case involving an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris, where Trump alleged that CBS had edited the show to unfairly cast Harris in a more favourable light.
“The concern there is that you now have, by virtue of these lawsuits, a multi-billion dollar incentive for companies to have their journalists shape their coverage in ways that won’t get them brought back to court by the president again and again,” Iodice said.
Regarding social media, despite anecdotal user reports of censorship on TikTok when it was first reintroduced in the USA, FIRE are generally positive about the steps Trump has taken towards reducing censorship on these platforms.
“The most promising thing so far,” Iodice said, “is that he issued an executive order that talked about, and was critical of, the practice of the government leaning on social media companies to coerce them to [censor] speech in ways the government couldn’t directly require them to do, because of the First Amendment. And we think that’s a very good thing, regardless of who does it.”
The second Trump Administration outwardly champions free speech for Americans, but the first weeks of government have not always represented this ethos. Those of us working against censorship around the world have looked on with trepidation at this new government, which looks set to overturn the applecart in all facets of government. One can only hope that the First Amendment isn’t flung to the wayside.
