The seemingly endless barrage of bogus conspiracy theories laced with brazen misogyny that were presented daily to the Indian public five years ago reached the expected conclusion last week, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a closure report in the case pertaining to the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.The CBI gave a clean chit to actor Rhea Chakraborty, who at the time of his death was Rajput’s partner.It was the end of a sordid saga, which not only highlighted the dark side of an already threadbare and pliant mainstream media, but also showed the extent to which it can go – steamrolling journalistic ethics while branding a young woman as the mastermind of a fictitious crime.The jerky camera movements involving “chase sequences”, mediapersons trying to defy the laws of science by taking soundbites while seated in moving cars and even the heckling of a food delivery person couldn’t change the fact that Rajput had died by suicide.Even at the time of his tragic death, all the evidence had pointed to suicide. In fact, even a medical board constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) had said the same thing in October 2020, ruling out the possibility of murder. It was also known that Rajput was suffering from depression.How the media enabled the campaign to vilify ChakrabortyAnd yet, prime time TV news debates didn’t discuss the very important issue of mental health, and instead, decided to single out his partner and portray her as the villain responsible for the death of the talented actor.What followed was nothing short of a media trial, with abuses and baseless allegations levelled against Chakraborty on different platforms including TV channels and social media. At a time when she was grieving the loss of a partner, there was no respect for her personal space. When the murder narrative started to shrivel, the abetment to suicide theory was conceived to maintain the clickbait sensationalism around the case.Closely catching up with the media’s fervour for “justice” in the case was a government eager to seize the chance of playing to the gallery and scoring brownie points in a year when elections were scheduled to take place in Bihar, Rajput’s home state.If religious polarisation has become a time-tested way of garnering votes, vilifying a woman and seeking votes under the pretext of ensuring justice for Rajput was just another example of conjuring an imaginary villain to exploit populism.Therefore, it didn’t come as a matter of surprise when central agencies jumped in and Chakraborty was arrested, as was her brother.Television cameras and mics were thrust in the faces of the grieving parents of both Rajput and Chakraborty, with the media fanning and encouraging the anti-Chakraborty narrative to take front seat.From being accused of practising “black magic” to being the main protagonist of a concocted story wherein she was suspected of being the part of a drug cartel, the hounding of Chakraborty continued, with TV channels never quite running out of plots for spin-offs of the main movie – the so-called “murder” of Rajput.As a result, on days when nothing would come out of Chakraborty’s interrogation or eventually when no evidence of a homicide was found, TV channels refilled their arsenals with fresh gunpowder.And thus followed the material for new debates on subjects such as the reported neglect of Rajput by Karan Johar and his clique in Bollywood and actor Deepika Padukone allegedly being the admin of a WhatsApp group that helped Chakraborty procure drugs.As Chakraborty’s family members dealt with death threats while witnessing their daughter being termed an “opportunist and gold digger who used Rajput as a gateway to Bollywood and fame”, the mainstream media demonstrated outstanding commitment to journalistic principles and sought the truth by giving space to “paranormal experts” who claimed they could communicate with Rajput’s “spirit”.Misogyny thriving in the online ecosystemWhat’s concerning is despite the fact that Chakraborty now stands vindicated after the CBI’s closure report, “blaming the woman”, the patriarchal trope that resulted in her ordeal in the first place, is very much alive and thriving.One just has to scroll through Instagram reels to realise how casual misogyny camouflaged as content is consumed daily by lakhs of people in India.Recently, when cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashree Verma finalised their divorce, the same narrative came to play, with multiple Instagram reels and short videos portraying Chahal as the victim and Verma as the villain.When it was reported in the media that as part of the divorce settlement, Verma will get alimony of Rs 4.75 crore, in a moment of déjà vu, social media was again abuzz with Chakraborty-esque targeting of Chahal’s ex-wife.If some reels termed Verma as “best trader of 2025” for getting back such a hefty return on her “investment”, other reels by self-styled legal experts questioned the need for alimony and even broke down the amount and compared it with the total duration of their marriage. These reels garnered views in millions.Other content creators expressed their jubilation over the fact that Chahal had gone to watch the recently-held final of the Champion’s Trophy with a woman friend.“Ek trophy to Chahal Bhai Le Gaye (one trophy was won by Chahal Bhai),” says one such reel, terming and objectifying his friend as a “trophy”.Some videos tried to portray Verma as happy and Chahal distressed after their separation, with captions about difference in the reactions of women and men after a breakup.Just as in the case of the media trial of Chakraborty, the underlying message of such content is that women prey on successful men, only to later leave them after their purpose is solved.Selective highlighting of crimes and content on the ‘sigma male’Another ominous trend that has emerged, and actively feeds this misogynist online ecosystem, is the selective highlighting of crimes wherein perpetrators or conspirators include women.When a man working with the Merchant Navy was allegedly murdered recently by his wife and her lover, the reel world exploded with content that immediately generalised the incident with overall treatment of men by women.With captions such as “no one thinks about men”, coupled with gruesome details about the murder, the reels again connected the alleged actions of the accused with all of womankind.The wanton generalisation of such incidents by the online advocates for men’s rights is reminiscent of instances from the recent past, wherein right-wing groups ran sustained campaigns to connect crimes committed by Muslims with the community, in congruence with efforts of Hindutva outfits attempts to vilify Muslims under the bogey of “love jihad”.Recently, a friend who got swayed by the countless reels highlighting crimes committed by women casually said that he doesn’t want to be like the men who ended up being unfairly treated by women.Instead, he described himself as a “sigma male”, adding that he keeps seeing reels on the subject on Instagram.Curious to find out more, I typed the words “sigma male” on my Instagram search box. My feed was immediately inundated with reels featuring Patrick Bateman, the fictional serial killer portrayed by actor Christian Bale in the movie American Psycho. I was bombarded with Bateman’s smiling, pondering, covered-with-blood face as part of the reels, and the captions left no doubt about what being a “sigma male” meant.“Agar ladki loyal ho toh ; fir bhi nahi chahiye (Even if the girl is loyal, still don’t want her),” said one such reel.Another reel with Bateman’s smiling face proudly declared that, “Pura din online hokar bhi kisi ladki se baat nahi karta (Despite staying online the whole day, I don’t talk with any woman).” The reel, which has a misogynist profanity playing in the background on loop, has over 83,000 likes.While reels are widely-shared for light-hearted fun, the fact that millions of people are viewing and liking content about toxic masculinity with a fictional serial killer as its poster boy paints a grim picture.The idea of men being victims in a country that on an average reports 51 cases of crime against women every hour may seem out of place, but the fact is that courtesy the well-oiled fake news machine in place, this narrative is rapidly gaining ground, particularly in the online sphere.After scrolling through such content, it is not hard to imagine what impact this selective and misogynist portrayal of women may have on people, particularly children, adolescent boys and young men going through breakups or trying to get patriarchal ideas validated.The extremes to which online culture can go, and how it can lead to violence against women and girls even from children, has been highlighted by the Netflix release Adolescence. The show portrays the murder of a female classmate by a 13-year-old boy heavily influenced by the incel subculture centred around social media.The series is a grim reminder of the fact that the ever-adapting social media algorithm can feed young minds with massive chunks of content, permanently eroding their ability to understand or engage in conversations about patriarchy and gender equality.In a country where acid attacks on women are a routine phenomenon, such a twisted, false portrayal of male victimhood, often supported by the media, is not only going to bolster the environment that enabled the hounding of Chakraborty, but is also a step towards further normalising misogyny in the future.
