Don’t compare Sejal Pawar’s crass joke to the 370 biryani vasooli guy

Sejal Pawar’s clip began circulating on social media only after Himanshu Jhangra was fired from his job after a social media firestorm over his remarks.

L to R: Pranit More and the audience member who recounted a first date and complained that he had not recovered the cost of the biryani he bought a woman because she did not have sex with him | X

MBBS student Sejal Pawar’s comment about comparing the sizes of male cadavers’ genitalia at comedian Pranit More’s show has understandably provoked outrage. Pawar’s crass admission crossed a line, particularly coming from someone training to enter the medical profession. 

Medical education is built not only on scientific competence but also on professional ethics. There is an expectation of empathy toward the dead. Any form of mockery, ridicule, or unnecessary commentary undermines a tradition of dignity that lies at the heart of medical training.

That said, the discourse around Pranit More’s show deserves a closer examination. 

Pawar’s video from More’s standup show emerged right after a Gurugram man, Himanshi Jhangra—who is now famous as Rs 350 biryani guy—faced backlash for his objectionable comments. Pawar’s clip began circulating on social media only after Jhangra was fired from his job after a social media firestorm over his remarks. 

Neither statement should be defended. Both inappropriate and warranted criticism. In fact, it was a big failure on Pranit More’s part. Instead of calling them out, he laughed along. However, just because both comments were problematic does not mean they were the same. Comparing Pawar and Jhangra’s statements is like comparing apples and oranges. 

It’s not the same

It’s appalling how some people have twisted Pawar’s comments in a way to question whether men are “safe” even after death. Respect for the dead is a legitimate concern. But if the discussion is to be grounded in reality rather than social-media point-scoring, I would like to remind everyone that violations of bodily dignity after death have historically involved acts far more serious than tasteless jokes. And most victims have been women.

Take the case of Devendra Bhosle, who was arrested in 2016 for the murder of his partner, Kinjal Shah. According to police reports, Bhosle confessed to engaging in sexual intercourse with Shah’s corpse after killing her. Or consider the 2015 Urmila Devi case, in which two men allegedly murdered her during a robbery and sexually assaulted her body before fleeing. 

I am not citing these cases to say that Pawar’s remarks weren’t offensive. Rather, they illustrate an important distinction. A tasteless comment and an act of necrophilic sexual violence are not points on the same spectrum of misconduct. They occupy entirely different moral and legal categories. 

At the same time, criticism of Pawar should not be weaponised to dismiss concerns raised in Jhangra’s case. Public accountability loses its meaning when it becomes a selective exercise. 

Online discourse always turns every incident into evidence for a battle between men and women, feminism and now men’s rights. Such framing may generate engagement, but it does not help the conversation go in any constructive direction. We should be able to condemn both Pawar and Jhangra without using one person’s misconduct to excuse or diminish the other’s. 

Views are personal. 

(Edited by Ratan Priya)