When a joke lands, it takes less than a minute to see if it landed right. Recently, netizens were divided by a viral clip from standup comedian Pranit More’s show, in which an audience member named Himanshu Jangra recounted a date and claimed he felt entitled to something in return after spending ₹370 on a chicken biryani. Laughter erupted immediately, the comedian laughed along, calling it ‘Peak Gurgaon content’ and uploaded the video. The incident quickly sparked outrage and debate across social media, with discussions ranging from consent and dating expectations to misogyny, accountability and the role of comedians during crowd work. Following the social media rage alongside #BiryaniIsNotConsent movement, Jangra was fired from the company. As the conversation continues, CE speaks with Bengalureans across different walks of life to understand their take on the controversy and what it reveals about modern dating culture and standup shows.
Whenever incidents like this happen, the response is often, ‘Not all men.’ And that’s true. But that’s rarely the point. Most women carry stories of feeling uncomfortable, unsafe or having their boundaries crossed. That’s why this remark struck a nerve. The problem wasn’t the joke itself, but the mindset behind it – the belief that spending money creates entitlement to a woman’s attention or intimacy. While apologies and backlash have their place, changing this mindset requires deeper conversations in homes, schools and among men themselves. Creating a world where women can date, trust and feel safe is a responsibility that belongs to all of us.
As a woman in India, I am outraged by the incident. Going on a date with a stranger already requires a great deal of trust, especially in a country where personal safety is often a concern. The issue was never the `370 spent on biryani; it was the mindset that paying for a meal somehow entitles someone to physical intimacy. To me, it reflects a larger frustration that exists among some men, but frustration should never translate into entitlement over another person’s choices or consent. I can understand why some men feel burdened by the expectation that they should always pay on dates. That’s why I prefer splitting the bill, as it creates equality and removes any sense of obligation. Comedians, too, have a responsibility to challenge sexist remarks rather than reinforce them. The reaction online shows that conversations around consent and equality are evolving and more people are willing to call out entitlement when they see it.
Frustration in modern dating is understandable, but entitlement to someone’s affection or intimacy is not. Paying for a date should come from generosity or chivalry, not hidden expectations. The moment kindness comes with conditions, it stops being a gesture. As for the backlash, many women are simply tired of such attitudes being normalised. I also think Pranit More could have handled the situation more responsibly instead of encouraging it for laughs and virality. Comedy absolutely has freedom, but influence also comes with responsibility. Humour should challenge people, not normalise disrespect. When someone has a large platform, the things they laugh at or stay silent about also send a message.
Some people believe that they’re entitled to something in return with minimal investment. The moment you condemn them, their remarks, a large chunk of audience automatically starts realising the problem at the core level. There shouldn’t be any censorship on jokes, but the intent behind it matters. If you’re portraying someone in a derogatory light, then that’s not a good joke. But again, censorship can bring a whole new problem of who gets to speak what, according to the people who sit in power.
As a generation, we are not only questioning social problems but also fighting against the system that perpetuates them. And because of that, comedians are facing more scrutiny for their jokes. I would not say that all scrutiny is a rightful anger, but sometimes it is a simple outrage over what we perceive to be something that we consider problematic, but at the same time, right. These are problems that older generations ignored. So, I feel such jokes are more visible than deeper systemic problems that we have. If someone can crack a joke about something so heinous very casually and have people in a room laughing with them, then that is a sign of a deeper social problem, isn’t it? This man tried to violate the consent of a living woman. I feel the company might have fired him, realising that they may put their fellow female coworkers in danger if they keep him there. Obviously, the biggest controversy is that he is also responsible for perpetuating this.
With the internet reaching everyone, the mentality of mob justice has grown stronger. And whatever the majority decides is right becomes the accepted truth, even when that doesn’t result in equal justice. Authorities dealing with such cases need to apply the same standard to everyone, irrespective of gender. Any joke made at the cost of another person’s dignity, regardless of the category it falls under, should be avoided. The education system in our country needs to focus more on building ethics from childhood, rather than fixating solely on academic subjects.
People should remember that this comment was made during a comedy show, where sarcastic and exaggerated remarks are common. I don’t believe paying for a date should come with expectations attached. At the same time, many men do feel pressure to pay on dates, even in a society where both partners may be educated and financially independent. What I find most concerning, however, is that the individual lost his job over a comment made outside his workplace. I don’t think that’s fair. Social media could have used this moment to have a meaningful discussion, but instead, the reaction became extreme.