By Anil Merani: Reality shows thrive on drama, conflict, and spectacle, often prioritizing viewership over ethics. The incident you mentioned, where Rajat Dalal demeaned Rubina Dilaik on Battleground by questioning her fitness credentials, highlights this issue. Rubina, a prominent actress and mother of twin daughters, responded strongly, defending her fitness journey, including her disciplined recovery post-pregnancy and her experience with major fitness shows. However, the lack of intervention by the show’s makers raises concerns about the message being sent, especially in a climate where women’s empowerment and self-care are being championed.
Why Anything Sells in Reality Shows
Reality TV operates on sensationalism. Conflicts between Rajat and Rubina generate buzz, as seen in viral clips and social media posts, which drive ratings and engagement. Producers often allow or encourage such confrontations to create “moments” that spark debate, as evidenced by Battleground’s string of controversies, including Asim Riaz’s exit and physical altercations. The focus is on entertainment, not social responsibility, and demeaning remarks can be framed as “edgy” or “authentic” to justify their inclusion.
Impact on Women and the Signal It Sends
Rajat’s comments, questioning Rubina’s presence on a fitness show, undermine her achievements and perpetuate stereotypes about women, particularly mothers, in fitness spaces. When makers fail to step in, it risks normalising such behaviour, suggesting that women must tolerate disrespect to prove themselves. This can discourage women from prioritising self-care or participating in public platforms, fearing judgment or harassment. The lack of accountability may also embolden others to make similar remarks, sending a message that misogyny is tolerable for the sake of drama.
Rubina’s response, a powerful assertion of her resilience and fitness post-motherhood, was truly inspiring. Fans on platforms like X praised her for ‘owning’ Rajat. However, the absence of producer intervention shifts the burden onto the individual to defend herself, which not all women may feel equipped to do. This can create a chilling effect, discouraging women from challenging toxic behaviour in professional or public settings.
Why Women Don’t Walk Out
Women like Rubina may choose to stay on shows despite toxic environments for several reasons:
Professional Commitment: Walking out could breach contracts, leading to legal or financial consequences. Reality show contracts often bind participants to complete filming, with penalties for early exits.
Public Image: Leaving might be perceived as weakness or an inability to handle pressure, especially in a competitive industry. As a Battleground mentor, Rubina may feel compelled to maintain her leadership role to inspire her team and fans.
Platform for Advocacy: Women can challenge stereotypes directly by staying, as Rubina did by asserting her fitness credentials. This can be seen as a form of resistance, turning a negative moment into an empowering one.
Financial and Career Incentives: Reality shows offer visibility, endorsements, and income. For many, the benefits outweigh the emotional toll, especially for established figures like Rubina, who can leverage the platform to maintain relevance.
Normalisation of Toxicity: Prolonged exposure to reality TV’s confrontational culture can desensitise participants, leading them to view such behaviour as “part of the game.”
However, staying can be interpreted as tacit acceptance. It risks signalling that women must endure disrespect to succeed, undermining empowerment narratives. The decision to stay or leave is deeply personal, shaped by systemic pressures and individual circumstances. Understanding these pressures can foster empathy and a more nuanced view of the situation.
Broader Implications
The Battleground incident reflects a larger issue in reality TV: the exploitation of gender dynamics for profit. Shows often amplify male aggression or misogynistic tropes to provoke reactions, as seen with Rajat’s history of confrontations and Asim Riaz’s earlier clash with Rubina, which led to death threats against her family. When producers don’t intervene, they prioritise revenue over participant safety and societal impact, potentially alienating viewers who value empowerment over sensationalism.
What Can Be Done?
Producer Accountability: Makers should enforce strict guidelines against demeaning behaviour, with clear consequences like suspensions or expulsions. Publicly addressing such incidents can set a precedent.
Support Systems: Providing participants with mental health resources and legal support can empower them to challenge toxicity without fear of repercussions.
Viewer Advocacy: Audiences can exert pressure on networks by voicing their concerns and criticising harmful content, and supporting shows that uplift women can also influence market demand, potentially leading to a shift in the industry’s approach to reality TV. Empowering Exits: Normalising walkouts as a stand against disrespect could shift power dynamics, though this requires industry-wide changes to protect participants from backlash. This vision of a more supportive and empowering reality TV industry can inspire hope and optimism for the future. Conclusion
Rajat Dalal’s remarks and the makers’ inaction on Battleground highlight reality TV’s tendency to prioritise drama over ethics, risking harmful messages about women’s worth. While Rubina’s response was a powerful rebuttal, the lack of systemic support places unfair pressure on individuals. Women may stay due to professional, financial, or strategic reasons, but this shouldn’t imply acceptance of disrespect. Producers must take responsibility to align reality TV with empowerment, and viewers must demand better. Without these changes, the genre will continue to profit from division rather than progress.