Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) has publicly called for a ban on the reality show ‘Engaged 2’ (Roka Ya Dhoka), alleging that its content normalizes vulgarity and degrades women while streaming on the ‘Jio Hotstar’ OTT platform. The appeal has revived a nationwide conversation about media ethics, cultural values, and the responsibilities of online streaming services in India’s rapidly expanding digital ecosystem.
At the heart of HJS’s complaint is a concern that sensationalized relationship dramas and sexualized content can undermine the dignity of women and desensitize viewers—particularly adolescents—to humiliation, disrespect, and objectification. This critique is not a call for blanket censorship; rather, it highlights a broader societal question: how can entertainment preserve creative freedom while remaining consistent with India’s constitutional ethos and the plural ethical canons of its dharmic traditions?
The debate is timely. India’s OTT sector has transformed family viewing habits, bringing premium, on-demand content into shared living spaces. For households where grandparents and teenagers watch together, even a brief explicit sequence can create discomfort that lingers beyond the episode, prompting viewers to mute, skip, or abandon shows altogether. These everyday choices—small acts of media self-regulation—underscore a larger truth: rating labels alone seldom suffice without responsible storytelling and transparent content descriptors.
Across dharmic traditions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism—ethical norms converge on the dignity of persons and restraint in speech and conduct. Concepts such as ahimsa (non-harm), satya (truthfulness), right speech (samyag vāk), and seva (selfless service) invite content creators to avoid humiliation-as-entertainment and to resist normalizing exploitation. In this light, concerns raised by HJS can be interpreted as a call for aligning mass entertainment with shared civilizational values that prize respect, compassion, and responsibility.
Empirical research on media effects offers nuance. Studies drawing on social learning theory and cultivation theory suggest that repeated exposure to sexualized or demeaning portrayals can shift norms, particularly among younger viewers still forming attitudes about gender and relationships. Objectification research has linked persistent sexual objectification with adverse mental health outcomes, including body dissatisfaction and acceptance of gendered stereotypes. While correlation does not prove causation, the weight of evidence supports prudence: framing, frequency, and context matter.
India’s regulatory framework has evolved to address precisely such concerns. Under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, publishers of online curated content must implement a Code of Ethics and robust age classifications (U, U/A 7+, U/A 13+, U/A 16+, A). Platforms are expected to provide clear content descriptors (e.g., violence, sex, language, substance use), enable parental controls, and maintain a time-bound grievance redressal process.
The IT Rules establish a three-tier redressal mechanism. Level I mandates that each publisher appoint a Grievance Officer to address complaints, generally within a 15-day window. Level II relies on a self-regulatory body for publishers to hear escalations and advise remedies. Level III provides government oversight through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), which may issue advisories or, in exceptional circumstances and following due process, recommend action under applicable law.
Unlike theatrical films certified under the Cinematograph framework, OTT content is principally governed by the IT Rules, which prioritize transparency, age-gating, and layered accountability over pre-release certification. In practice, this creates a graduated ladder of remedies: clarification of descriptors, revised classification, stronger parental controls, targeted edits, temporary takedowns, or—only as a last resort after due process—blocking directions consistent with Indian law.
Within this policy architecture, HJS’s demand for a ban foregrounds a tough question: when does narrative provocation cross the line into normalized disrespect? A proportionate approach favors structured dialogue and rapid, evidence-based remedies before punitive measures. For example, if specific episodes or segments are demonstrably demeaning, narrowly tailored edits or strengthened gating may serve viewers more effectively than wholesale removal—especially when minors’ interests and women’s dignity are at stake.
Digital platforms can do more upstream. Pre-publication risk assessments for reality formats, explicit content flags on title cards, and privacy-preserving age-assurance for “A” content can reduce exposure risk. Algorithms should be calibrated to avoid aggressively promoting adult-themed content to mixed-age profiles, and watch-next recommendations should incorporate family-safety signals more prominently by default.
Creators and producers, too, can adopt strengthened ethical guardrails. Reality programming in particular should ensure informed consent, participant dignity, and trauma-informed practices. Intimacy coordination, clear red lines against humiliation tasks, and access to psychological support pre- and post-shoot are best practices that align with both international industry standards and dharmic commitments to non-harm and respect.
Transparent descriptors are central to trust. Beyond a single label (“A” or “U/A 16+”), granular tags—such as “coarse language,” “sexual innuendo,” or “derogatory humor”—help viewers decide whether a title aligns with household expectations. Heightened transparency, combined with meaningful parental tools, can preserve artistic freedom while protecting vulnerable viewers from unwanted exposure.
Viewers have actionable routes when they encounter objectionable content. Complaints can be filed with the platform’s Grievance Officer, citing specific timestamps and descriptors to expedite review. If responses are inadequate, escalations may proceed to a recognized self-regulatory body under the IT Rules’ Level II framework. In cases implicating minors, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) provides an additional, child-centric channel.
At the family level, practical safeguards are straightforward: enable OTT parental controls with PINs for adult-rated titles, create separate child/teen profiles, schedule co-viewing for borderline content, and discuss on-screen behavior openly. Such conversations often matter more than toggles—they help adolescents decode what they see, question manipulative framing, and internalize respect as a non-negotiable social norm.
Crucially, this conversation should not devolve into a culture war. The shared ethical spine of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism supports a balanced path: honor creative expression, protect human dignity, and resolve disputes through dialogue, evidence, and due process. Framed this way, HJS’s concerns sit within a broader, constructive project to elevate media standards without vilifying creators or audiences.
In sum, proportionate remedies, stronger self-regulation, and audience empowerment offer a viable way forward. If ‘Engaged 2’ (Roka Ya Dhoka) contains segments that reasonably meet thresholds of degradation, narrowly tailored edits, upgraded content warnings, or restricted access should precede more severe steps. Where necessary, India’s three-tier framework provides a lawful path to decisive action. The immediate opportunity is collaborative: platforms, creators, civil society, and regulators can jointly reinforce media ethics so that entertainment uplifts without diminishing the dignity of anyone—especially women.
Inspired by this post on Hindu Jagruti Samiti.
