People often ask me why I stopped my comic strip Suki. A better question is: “How did it get published at all?” In a culture where the birth of a daughter is regarded as a calamity and young brides are routinely murdered, what place is there for an awkward, fuzzy-haired girl whose best friend is a frog and whose favourite activity is sleeping late? If she had been a model-actress-airhostess, a hard-working mother or a sizzling chiquette in hot pants, she may have found a market today. But Suki was stubborn about resisting pressure, and meanwhile, the culture of forthrightness into which she was born died away around her.
Try imagining the reverse—say, the Amul Butter girl selling hot dogs on an American street or Laxman’s Common Man advertising tee-shirts in a small town in Germany. Not easy, right? But think of the numbers: these two characters, though they’re not in strip-cartoons, are nevertheless recognised by millions of people. That’s not enough to make them symbols of “wantability” outside India. By contrast, chubby and innocent-seeming Dennis Mitchell communicates Western affluence and dominance. If he endorses something, it becomes automatically desirable.
I imagine most readers believe that the Western strips in Indian papers are chosen because they are just “better” and/or there aren’t any Indian cartoonists of equal calibre. Actually, there are very few comics coming out of any developing country and the world’s ethnic diversity remains largely invisible in the strips. American strips dominate the funny pages internationally, even though Western Europe, Japan and Australia have hundreds of local cartoon characters.
Against this backdrop, what I’m about to say now is going to sound so slavishly sycophantic, I’ll get it out of the way quickly: Vinod Mehta is and was one of the only newspaper editors actively interested in supporting local comic strips (distinct from political cartoons). Other editors may have wanted to show an interest, but baulked when it came to justifying the extra expense. Whereas foreign strips are distributed by syndicates, resulting in prices as low as Rs 30 for a month of daily strips, a local cartoonist would obviously have to earn at least 500 times as much just in order to pay the rent on a barsati.
Blast From The Past: A Doubletalk strip that appeared in the Sunday Observer, circa 1983
Publishing Western strips is not merely cheaper, it also permits a newspaper to dodge the issue of socially relevant humour. When Blondie throws a jar of mustard at Dagwood’s head, Indian readers are unlikely to think “Oo! Husband abuse!” But if a sari-clad, middle-class, middle-brow Indian Blondie were to follow suit, Indian readers would very likely howl with righteous disapproval. In Bombay’s Sunday Observer edited by Vinod Mehta, where Suki made her debut in a strip called Doubletalk, readers whined about her constantly, calling the strip a “horrible eyesore”, “Double Gawk”, “dragging and brazenly repetitive”. The reason I was able to carry on was that I had my editor’s full support. That was almost three decades ago. Today? I don’t know which newspaper editor would champion a lowly strip cartoonist against sustained reader-rancour.
People talk about humour as if it were something cute, cuddly and inconsequential but really, it’s just the opposite. It’s a vital outlet for releasing pent-up angers and frustrations. It’s not surprising that a lot of humour is scatological. Laughter acts like a neuro-laxative, purging the mind and heart of toxins. If communal hatred, for instance, could be expressed through vicious plays instead of riots, biting satire instead of car bombs, and blasphemous cartoons instead of arson and rape, maybe Indian streets might see fewer and less catastrophically destructive riots.
Sadly, we will never know whether or not that assertion is true. The world is going the other way. Remember sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me? Today the opposite is the norm. Words can inspire hate crusades that eventually engulf lives and trigger pogroms. It’s like the exact opposite of what Neo does in The Matrix—he’s able to “resist” bullets by telling himself they’re only as real as his mind allows them to be. In our world today, something as insubstantial as a single cartoon, or a blogpost, can gradually escalate into a hail of bombs that pulverises individuals, communities and nations.
Cartoons, caricatures and satirical drawings are intended to be rude. The point of rudeness is that it has to be offensive, like a vaccination has to employ real germs, in order to train a person’s immune system to recognise an invading virus and guard against it effectively. When we go to a doctor, we expect honesty and forthrightness, even if the diagnosis is frightening and in that sense “rude”. We accept bitter or painful medical treatments because we want to feel well again. But when it comes to the daily news, we change the channel and burn down newspaper offices if the forecast isn’t sunny all day, all night.
Journalists and the media are diagnosticians, not doctors. Their task is to identify the countless bleeding sores and gangrenous limbs of a nation. They may suggest cures, they can direct attention to the patient’s medical history. They cannot be expected to perform surgeries but they must be enabled to criticise the surgeons as they cut. They must report on whether or not the instruments are clean. They must be trusted to tell us whether a patient is dead, merely bluffing or in coma.
Humour is like a scalpel. If it’s keen, it cuts cleanly towards the heart of a culture, exposing blocked veins and faulty valves. If it’s blunt, it misses repeatedly, slicing through vital organs and arteries. The foreign cartoons in our papers are a bit like medical reports of other, wealthier, cultures. We smile at their mental tics, their light fevers, their gout. Meanwhile our own culture malingers, invisible except through the distorting lenses of propagandists, parasites and stockmarket analysts.
Brilliant piece by Manjula Padmanabhan (Strip the Skin!). Her stubborn streak—of not letting adverse conditions hold her back—still shines bright through some of her brilliant cartoons in dna. The humour is subtle, multi-layered and offers viewers an unflattering mirror. Harsh Rai Puri, Bhopal
I only remember Manjula Padmanabhan’s comment in Week magazine in 2003, when she said American soldiers (the US had just invaded Iraq) had such clean-cut good looks that it seems they were ‘obviously’ on the side of the good. The article is an exercise in hypocrisy. B. Purkayastha, Shillong
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT