Beerbiceps row shouldn’t become an excuse for state to flex its biceps

This is an unedited, link-supported version of an opinion piece that appeared in The Times of India on 2025-02-16 (link). The page is archived (here).

Aside: There’s been some other strange stuff, that I’ve collated in a thread on Twitter. [Archive as of 2025-02-17]

The tragicomical set of events that have followed Ranveer Allahbadia’s, undoubtedly, crass attempts at humour on Samay Raina’s India’s Got Latent are emblematic of how outrage cycles can play out in India. They highlight three things.

First, a disproportionate allocation of attention/resources in public discourse and by our state institutions. Second, a society that is unable/unwilling to have an honest, difficult and complex conversation with itself, and would rather cede that space to the Indian state. And third, an all-too-eager executive branch waiting to cast itself as a hero but is primarily interested in amassing more power and discretion.

Worryingly, it appears that ‘policy entrepreneurs’ will look to exploit this situation with grave consequences for safe spaces for expression in India. This should establish that there is no room for selective action/inaction when defending such spaces.

The internet in India is neither free nor unregulated

Before exploring these aspects further, it is important to understand the current state of play. An oft-repeated claim is that the ‘internet is unregulated’. This is incorrect. Legal instruments such as criminal codes apply to the internet, and are used to prosecute people for actions on this medium everyday, including in this case.

Laws and rules such as the Information Technology Act and the much-criticised IT Rules 2021 which apply to services/platforms on the internet including social media, streaming services, digital news publishers already afford much leeway to the executive branch without sufficient checks. Some parts of the IT Rules pertaining to digital news publishers and the establishment of a fact-checking unit have been stayed by high courts citing concerns about press freedom.

Besides, India is infamous for political armies of ‘trolls’ seeking to threaten/intimidate independent voices, both in digital and physical spaces. More so, if they happen to be critical of the union government and/or belong to religious/caste/gender/sexual minorities.

Reportage by the Washington Post in 2023, and by Article 14 this month, attempt to document how a combination of rules, formal and informal pressure by the executive branch have affected social media platforms, streaming services,content producers.

More recently,pushback by content creators and civil society, forced the union government to withdraw a draft version of Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, after Hindustan Times reported on secretive consultations with an updated draft. Both versions sought to impose onerous obligations, a tiered regulatory structure under executive control and penalties on content creators, commentators effectively stifling the entire enterprise, especially for independent voices that would have had to operate under an additional lever for arbitrary state action.

The internet in India, is neither unregulated nor ‘free’. It is, perhaps, just less ‘unfree’ than other spaces — for now.

An ‘over the top’ reaction

The reaction, so far, has amounted to competitive hysteria. TV news channels are overly focused on it, there have also been calls for violence, a death sentence, and a general condemnation of ‘vulgarity’ and ‘obscenity’. Individuals and groups have written to various ministers asking for removal, regulation, arrests.

At the time of writing, different parts of the Indian state have flexed their muscles to make an example of ‘BeerBiceps’ and others. The National Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Women have sought to intervene through letters/issuing summons. Due to a ‘legal complaint from the government’, YouTube has restricted the video in India. Police departments in Maharashtra, Assam, MP have either filed FIRs or are investigating. MPs have sought regulation, discussions in the Standing Committee for Communications and Information Technology, which itself is reportedly considering summons. There may be more in the coming days.

This hysteria/posturing has broader implications beyond signalling terribly misplaced priorities. A low-capacity state that is struggling for resources can ill-afford such a misallocation of their time and attention, deliberate or otherwise. And, arbitrary state intervention, whether in the form of police action or regulation that enables censorship/self-censorship, will be a net-negative. This has already started with Samay Raina announcing that all episodes of the show will be taken down.

Unfortunately, the moral panic conveniently presents the union government an excuse to revive the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill.

Protecting values against executive overreach cannot be selective

There is, certainly, need for a difficult, broader societal conversation on the types of ‘content’ we produce. Based on healthy social feedback, and without bullying/threats of violence, individuals and groups should be free to choose what to watch, recommend and criticise — this is the hallmark of a robust public sphere. It is vital that we do not moralise, dictate others’ choices through organic/inorganic outrage or ask the state to interpret nebulous notions of ‘obscenity’ and ‘vulgarity’ on behalf of society. This does not contribute to a healthy information environment, only a severely constricted one. A ‘vote with your views’ system, imperfect as it is, diffuses power more than any alternatives that place power in the hands of the state/the loudest.

Freedoms, and norms that protect expression are not just ends by themselves. They serve as means to create safe spaces, especially for vulnerable voices. Protecting/advancing them across the line enables more people to this. Sometimes this means speaking out against arbitrary punishment/scapegoating of certain voices that don’t uphold the same values, or will not reciprocate. Silence, is deliberately interpreted as a lack of opposition by the state to further its own designs.

Often, it also means holding up norms that others will not. A society where some actors protect these spaces consistently, is less worse off than one where everyone disregards them. That is the cross we bear. The onslaught and erosion of values are systemic, there is no room for selectivity for those committed to defending them.