India Swearing Debate Raises Questions Over Gender Double Standards

Published: 27 August 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Recent protests in India have triggered an unusual but revealing political debate over whether women face different standards when they use profanity in public. Footage of young female protesters swearing at Prime Minister Narendra Modi during demonstrations has reignited questions about gender, political expression and the expectations placed on women in Indian public life.

The controversy gained renewed attention after opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi for describing the sight of young women using expletives as a “culture shock”. Gandhi argued that the reaction exposed a double standard: men are often permitted greater freedom to use aggressive or abusive language, while women who behave in the same way are judged more harshly.

The debate has moved beyond the words used during the demonstrations. It has become part of a wider argument about patriarchy, political protest, online harassment and the way women are expected to conduct themselves when challenging authority.

The original controversy emerged during the weeks-long Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, protests in Delhi and other Indian cities. The demonstrations were linked to demands for education reforms and concerns over examination paper leaks. Some protesters directed highly offensive language towards Modi, and videos of young women using profanity quickly spread across social media.

The reaction was particularly intense because some of the protesters were young women. Supporters of the prime minister condemned the language, while some critics of his government also argued that personal abuse crossed a line that political protest should not cross.

Modi addressed the controversy himself in a video posted after the protests. He described the language as deeply disturbing and said such words had no place in a civilised society. He also referred specifically to the fact that young women had used the language, describing it as a “culture shock” before saying that mistakes made by young people could provide an opportunity for them to learn.

His comments subsequently became the focus of Gandhi’s criticism.

Speaking to students in Pune, Gandhi questioned why the gender of the protesters mattered if both men and women had used similar language. He argued that the reaction reflected a patriarchal mindset in which boys are given greater freedom while girls are expected to remain restrained and respectable.

For Gandhi, the issue was therefore not simply about profanity. It was about the broader social expectations imposed on women who enter political spaces.

The controversy became more serious when online abuse was directed at one teenage girl who had appeared in videos connected to the protests. According to reports, the 15-year-old received threats and intense trolling after footage of her allegedly insulting Modi circulated online.

The teenager later published an apology and said she had removed the video, but the backlash continued. Her mother reportedly said the family had been forced to move homes several times because of the controversy.

The episode illustrated a central concern raised by women’s rights campaigners: women who speak aggressively in public can face consequences that go well beyond criticism of their political views. Online attacks can become personal, sexualised and threatening, potentially discouraging young women from participating in political activity altogether.

Gender journalist Namita Bhandare has argued that the idea that Indian women never swear is itself misleading. Profanity exists in many parts of Indian society and is not exclusively a male behaviour.

In some communities, particularly in northern India, women use deliberately offensive language during traditional wedding ceremonies involving the bride’s family and the groom’s party. Such rituals can include songs containing insults and expletives, yet they are generally understood within their cultural context and are not treated as evidence of women’s moral decline.

This history complicates the claim that women using swear words represents a fundamental cultural departure.

The distinction, however, may be less about whether women swear and more about where, why and against whom the language is used. A traditional ritual can be interpreted as part of cultural practice, while profanity directed at a political leader during a protest is deliberately confrontational.

That confrontational character is central to the argument made by some young activists. Protest movements have historically used provocative language, imagery and behaviour to attract attention and challenge established authority.

CJP spokesperson Sourav Das has argued that profanity can form part of the shock value of protest. From this perspective, offensive language may be distasteful but should not automatically be treated as criminal simply because it is politically provocative.

The debate also exposes inconsistencies in India’s political culture. Profanity and personal insults have increasingly appeared in public political discourse, including television debates, political rallies, social media exchanges and even Parliament.

Politicians from across the political spectrum have faced criticism for misogynistic or insulting language. The BJP and opposition parties have both experienced controversies involving comments about women and other political opponents.

That wider context is important because it suggests that the concern is not merely about whether a particular group of protesters used inappropriate words. The deeper question is whether public discourse itself has become increasingly hostile and personalised.

Social activist Sunil Jalan, who has campaigned against abusive language, takes a different position from those who frame the controversy primarily through gender. His argument is that society should focus on the harmful nature of profanity itself rather than deciding whether the same words become more offensive when spoken by women.

His organisation’s survey has suggested that the use of profanity targeting mothers, sisters and daughters is widespread across India. Such language can reinforce gender stereotypes because insults frequently rely on sexualised or family-based attacks against women.

This creates an important distinction between ordinary swearing and language that specifically weaponises gender.

Sociologist Shiv Vishwanathan has placed the controversy within an even broader political context. He argues that the growing use of insults in public debate reflects a deterioration in the quality of democratic discussion.

When political disagreements are reduced to personal attacks, the space for argument and persuasion becomes narrower. Parliament, television studios and social media can then begin to resemble arenas for confrontation rather than places where competing ideas are examined.

For some observers, the controversy surrounding the young female protesters is therefore symptomatic of a larger problem.

There is also an uncomfortable contradiction in the political debate over women’s behaviour. Indian governments have repeatedly promoted messages about women’s empowerment, education and participation in public life. Modi himself has spoken publicly about the need to combat misogyny and improve opportunities for women.

Yet women who become politically confrontational can still encounter intense scrutiny over their appearance, speech and behaviour.

This does not mean that women should be exempt from criticism. Political expression carries responsibilities regardless of gender, and personal abuse can legitimately be criticised when it crosses boundaries of harassment or incitement.

But applying different standards to men and women creates another problem. If aggressive language is condemned because it is abusive, the same principle should apply regardless of who uses it.

The treatment of the young protesters also raises questions about proportionality. Criticism of offensive political language is one thing; threats, sexual harassment and intimidation are something entirely different. A young person can be held accountable for inappropriate speech without becoming the target of threats that put her safety at risk..

Ultimately, the debate over whether it is “worse” when women swear reveals more about Indian society than about swear words themselves. It highlights continuing tensions between traditional expectations of female behaviour and a younger generation increasingly willing to challenge authority in unconventional ways.

The CJP protests may have ended, but the argument they triggered is likely to continue. As women become increasingly visible in political activism, questions about how they speak, protest and confront powerful figures will remain intertwined with the broader struggle over gender equality.

The central issue may therefore be simpler than the political controversy suggests. If profanity is considered unacceptable, it should be judged consistently. If protest is protected even when it is provocative, that principle should also apply consistently.

What matters most is whether India can develop a political culture in which disagreement is forceful without becoming abusive, and in which women are judged by the substance of their actions rather than by expectations about how women are supposed to speak.

Checkout our latest news>>