The Crossbill News Desk
A broad group of public figures and civil society members has come out in support of political satirist Shamita Yadav, popularly known online as ‘The Ranting Gola’, following what they described as escalating efforts to curb her work and intimidate those associated with her.
More than 150 signatories, including activists, journalists, academics, artists, scientists, veterans and former bureaucrats, issued a statement condemning the recent attempt by Goa Police to detain Yadav and termed it a “terrifying new escalation” of a coordinated campaign” to silence her voice as a political satirist.
Yadav, whose videos offering biting commentary on politics and current affairs frequently go viral, has in recent months faced multiple actions ranging from restrictions on her social media accounts to legal proceedings initiated against her.
The latest controversy erupted after Goa Police allegedly reached her residence without a warrant and were prevented from taking her into custody only after the intervention of her lawyer.
“A democracy cannot claim to be free if its state police force is weaponised to act as an enforcement wing against comedians,” says the statement, whose signatories include Annie Raja of the National Federation of Indian Women, Supreme Court advocate Anjana Prakash, Ashish Joshi of the Constitutional Conduct Group, peace activist Cedric Prakash, noted scientist and rationalist Gauhar Raza, historian J. Devika, Kavita Srivastava of the People’s Union for Civil Rights, Meera Sanghamitra of All India Feminist Alliance, social activist Shabnam Hashmi, Tushar A. Gandhi of Mahatma Gandhi Foundation and filmmaker Vani Subramanian, amongst others.
The signatories pointed out that both Yadav’s primary and secondary social media accounts had been suspended or restricted, while organisers of her live events had also come under scrutiny.
Her Instagram account, the.ranting.gola, currently remains inaccessible in India, displaying a message stating that access has been limited following a legal request and subsequent review.
“Simultaneously,” says the statement, “the police have targeted the organisers of her live, physical performances, demanding financial records, account details and payment histories. This is a malicious tactic designed to choke her livelihood, terrorise her professional network and completely dismantle the ecosystem that allows an independent artist to survive.”
According to the statement, the pressure on Yadav has moved beyond online censorship and now involves “direct physical intimidation and financial harassment by state machinery”.
The controversy comes against the backdrop of a Delhi High Court order in May directing the removal of certain posts after a plea filed by BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia.
Earlier, in 2025, Uttar Pradesh Police had also registered a complaint against Yadav over alleged “anti-Bharat propaganda” linked to remarks she made in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.
Those backing the satirist argued that the measures taken against her raise wider concerns about democratic dissent and artistic freedom. They maintained that targeting a comedian and those connected with her livelihood represented an alarming expansion of state action from digital restrictions to what they view as attempts at intimidation and economic pressure.
More than 150 signatories, including activists, journalists, academics, artists, scientists, veterans and former bureaucrats, issued a statement condemning the recent attempt by Goa Police to detain Yadav and termed it a “terrifying new escalation” of a coordinated campaign” to silence her voice as a political satirist.
Yadav, whose videos offering biting commentary on politics and current affairs frequently go viral, has in recent months faced multiple actions ranging from restrictions on her social media accounts to legal proceedings initiated against her.
The latest controversy erupted after Goa Police allegedly reached her residence without a warrant and were prevented from taking her into custody only after the intervention of her lawyer.
“A democracy cannot claim to be free if its state police force is weaponised to act as an enforcement wing against comedians,” says the statement, whose signatories include Annie Raja of the National Federation of Indian Women, Supreme Court advocate Anjana Prakash, Ashish Joshi of the Constitutional Conduct Group, peace activist Cedric Prakash, noted scientist and rationalist Gauhar Raza, historian J. Devika, Kavita Srivastava of the People’s Union for Civil Rights, Meera Sanghamitra of All India Feminist Alliance, social activist Shabnam Hashmi, Tushar A. Gandhi of Mahatma Gandhi Foundation and filmmaker Vani Subramanian, amongst others.
The signatories pointed out that both Yadav’s primary and secondary social media accounts had been suspended or restricted, while organisers of her live events had also come under scrutiny.
Her Instagram account, the.ranting.gola, currently remains inaccessible in India, displaying a message stating that access has been limited following a legal request and subsequent review.
“Simultaneously,” says the statement, “the police have targeted the organisers of her live, physical performances, demanding financial records, account details and payment histories. This is a malicious tactic designed to choke her livelihood, terrorise her professional network and completely dismantle the ecosystem that allows an independent artist to survive.”
According to the statement, the pressure on Yadav has moved beyond online censorship and now involves “direct physical intimidation and financial harassment by state machinery”.
The controversy comes against the backdrop of a Delhi High Court order in May directing the removal of certain posts after a plea filed by BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia.
Earlier, in 2025, Uttar Pradesh Police had also registered a complaint against Yadav over alleged “anti-Bharat propaganda” linked to remarks she made in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.
Those backing the satirist argued that the measures taken against her raise wider concerns about democratic dissent and artistic freedom. They maintained that targeting a comedian and those connected with her livelihood represented an alarming expansion of state action from digital restrictions to what they view as attempts at intimidation and economic pressure.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment