A few days ago I was watching the popular comedy serial “Comedy Nights with Kapil” while having dinner. Though I did not find the show particularly amusing, it did bring a smile on my face at some points.
However, what really came across to me while watching it was the sheer sexist approach that Kapil Sharma, and most comedians have in creating punch lines to make people laugh. Not to undermine the talent and hard work Sharma has put in reaching this level, but their struggle is not a justification to the kind of jokes they make. For example, in the particular episode that I was watching, Sharma was seen as making jokes on the appearance of his wife, that how even after repeated attempts in make up her face was still as ugly. Sharma then proceeded to talk about the hideous shape of her lips and her unruly smile. Although the Sharma’s impeccable timing and dialogue delivery makes us erupt into a kind laughter of pity, on a deeper introspection it is reflexive of many problematic deep seated notions.
The body of the female is always more attractive than the body of the man, because the gaze is always male. It is this gaze of man which makes women especially prone to falling prey to arbitrarily defined definitions of beauty. Conventionally, it is the men who have decided what constitutes a beautiful woman and put restraints on her movement, because the “honor” needs to be “guarded”. A beautiful woman is like a trophy that a man installs in his house and subsequently prides himself on possessing her in his social circle. Thus, the embarrassment of not having a woman beautiful enough is expressed through the nervous laughter in Sharma’s punch line. Because the first requirement of being a socially glorified woman is not work, is not intelligence, its beauty. Madhubala is referred to more as the “Marylyn Monroe” of Bollywood, than the exceptional actress in Mughal-E-Azam. Katrina Kaif might not be the best actress around, but she will continue to star across A-listers as the only thing media notices about her dresses and make up.
Sharma’s jokes on her wife’s appearance, though might appear casual at the overt level as each one of us indulges in soft humor revolving around each other’s appearances, but somewhere down inside all of us have fallen prey to capitalist construction of perfection and the need to ridicule those who don’t fall in that category.
Image Credit: www.en.wikipedia.org



The annual parliamentary debating tournament of Hansraj College was held from 17th-20th March, 2013. The festival is seen as one of the most awaited debating festivals in the Delhi University debating circuit because of the quality of debaters and adjudicators it invites, while the prize money is an added perk.
The tournament saw the participation of 24 teams from across colleges that are active in the debating circuit and it also saw cross teams that included some senior debaters. After a course of five preliminary rounds, eight teams broke into the quarterfinals that included teams from the colleges- SRCC, KMC, HINDU, JGLS and two cross teams. The finals were held between Tarand and Nouman from Hindu, competing for the Shanti Narayan trophy with Siddhartha Thyagarajan (ex-RAMJAS)and Aishwarya Iyer (Hindu). The topic of the debate was “This house believes that social movements should discard the use of euphemisms.” Tarang and Nouman successfully defended the motion and won the trophy. The adjudicating panel of the finals included some of the best adjudicators in the debating circuit, such as Anirudh(Hansraj), Shaurya(Hansraj) , Tarun(Hansraj), Shuvam(Hansraj), Shachi(ex-Hansraj), Abeer(Hansraj) and Navin(ex-KMC). The best adjudicator prize went to Rijul from Hindu and best speaker went to Aashay Sahay (ex-RVCE).
Shachi Seth and Navin Kumar were the Adjudication Core of the tournament. The tournament got a lot of positive response in terms of its smooth running, efficient administration, and running on time, the latter feature being something mostly absent in debating tournaments.
The tournament was also an interesting one in terms of the unique strategies implemented to decide proposition and opposition in the post breaks round. Ditching the conventional coin toss, the Hansraj debsoc decided that proposition and opposition will be decided through means of rock-paper-scissors, tip-top, arm wrestling or dance offs. Particularly interesting was the dance off between Vardhan from KMC and Tarang from Hindu in the quarterfinals.
The tabs team was highly praised for carrying out the fastest tabbing in the history of debates, with the tabs being ready for the next round within 5 minutes.
Overall, the 6th Shanti Narayan was very efficiently run, stuck to time rules and provided an unforgettable debating experience.
Photo Credits: hansrajdelhi.batchmates.com
Siddhi Goel