The recent public spat between Rahul Vaidya and Virat Kohli, in which Vaidya referred to Kohli and his fans as “jokers” amid an Instagram controversy involving Avneet Kaur, has ignited a debate about social hierarchy and the dynamics of celebrity culture in India. Vaidya, a singer and reality TV star, is taking on Kohli, a cricketing icon and one of India’s most revered figures. This situation illustrates Vaidya’s attempt to challenge someone higher up the celebrity ladder.
The Hierarchy in Indian Celebrity Culture
In India, cricketers, especially figures like Virat Kohli, are often regarded with near-reverence. Cricket is viewed as a religion, and players like Kohli enjoy immense popularity, global recognition, lucrative endorsements, and millions of fans. They sit atop the celebrity hierarchy. Meanwhile, TV actors and singers, while also popular, usually occupy a lower rung unless they achieve significant crossover success, such as becoming Bollywood stars or global music icons.
Vaidya, known for his appearances on “Indian Idol,” “Bigg Boss,” and his work in playback singing, has a substantial following (around 5.4 million on Instagram as of May 2025) but his cultural capital does not compare to Kohli’s. This discrepancy creates the perception that Vaidya is overstepping his bounds by targeting someone of Kohli’s stature.
The backlash Vaidya faced—including trolls attacking his family, cricketers like Yuzvendra Chahal and Krunal Pandya unfollowing him on Instagram, and Kohli’s brother, Vikas, calling Vaidya a “loser” trying to gain followers—highlights how the hierarchy can exert itself. Fans and insiders rallied around Kohli, reinforcing the idea that a “lesser” celebrity should not challenge a national icon. Posts on X criticized Vaidya as a “failed singer” attempting to “revive his career” by using Kohli’s name, further emphasizing this sentiment.
Vaidya’s Bold Move: Defiance or Miscalculation?
Vaidya’s choice to mock Kohli’s mention of an “Instagram algorithm glitch” and to escalate by calling his fans “2 kaudi ke jokers” (worthless jokers) is undeniably bold. He did not retreat despite the backlash, even sarcastically suggesting that Kohli blocking him was yet another “glitch.” This indicates that he may be leveraging the controversy for attention or believes he has the right to critique without regard to status. His assertion that he admires Kohli as a cricketer but does not “endorse him as a human being” adds a layer of critique, placing him in the role of a commentator on Kohli’s character rather than just his fame.
In a perfect world, everyone should be free to critique or joke without fearing disproportionate retaliation. Vaidya’s comments were relatively mild—sarcastic but not malicious—but the intense response can largely be attributed to Kohli’s untouchable status. This situation raises questions about whether hierarchical pressures stifle free expression. Would a cricketer be subjected to the same backlash for targeting a singer? Likely not, as the power dynamics favor cricketers in India’s cultural landscape.
Does Hierarchy Win?
Yes, the ugly side of hierarchy is evident here. The swift mobilization of Kohli’s fans, the cricket community’s reaction (e.g., Chahal and Pandya unfollowing him), and the resurfacing of an old video of Vaidya in a heated argument with Anushka Sharma all serve to protect the status quo. Vikas Kohli’s claim that Vaidya is exploiting a sensitive national moment, likely referencing the India-Pakistan conflict, frames Vaidya as an opportunist rather than an equal.
However, Vaidya’s persistence—mocking Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) fans over a “goat sacrifice” incident and making controversial statements about their support—indicates that he is not entirely intimidated. He appears to be embracing the controversy, possibly aware that even negative attention can enhance visibility. For example, Avneet Kaur gained 1.8 million followers and lucrative brand deals from the same saga, illustrating how controversies can elevate one’s status. While Vaidya may not dethrone Kohli, he is finding relevance in a crowded entertainment space.
The Bigger Picture
Ideally, public discourse should be a level playing field where a singer can joke about a cricketer without it becoming a discussion on their respective “places” in society. However, India’s celebrity culture, steeped in hero worship and unequal power dynamics, does not operate this way. Vaidya’s actions were bold and possibly strategic, but they also exposed the limitations of challenging the elite. The hierarchy does not simply exist; it enforces itself through fan loyalty, media narratives, and peer actions.
Nevertheless, Vaidya’s refusal to fully retreat demonstrates a crack in the system. Social media allows for some level of democratization of fame, giving “lesser” figures a platform to amplify their voices. Whether this leads to lasting benefits for Vaidya or remains a fleeting controversy will depend on how he navigates the fallout. He is currently a David taking on a Goliath, yet the trajectory of his slingshot might not have enough force to upend the established order.