Rahul Easwar: Manufacturing Relevance in the Age of Predators and Prime Time

There are people who stand up when injustice happens.
There are people who stay silent until facts emerge.

And then there are people who arrive before the dust settles, plant their flag next to the accused, and shout “truth” so loudly that the victim disappears from the frame.

Rahul Easwar is not an accident of Indian media.
He is a product of it.

Relevance as a Life Strategy

If Rahul Easwar ever writes an autobiography, it shouldn’t be called My Truth.
It should be called “How to Never Miss a Controversy.”

His public career is not built on reform, research, or resolution.
It is built on visibility.

Every major controversy of the last decade shares one common axis:

• A powerful man accused
• A woman speaking up
• A nervous media ecosystem
• And Rahul Easwar walking in confidently — already prepared, already opinionated, already defending

This isn’t coincidence.
This is positioning.

The Sabarimala Playbook: Borrowed Authority, Self-Appointed Voice

Sabarimala was not just a faith issue for Easwar — it was a launchpad.

Using ancestral, priestly, and cultural associations, he projected himself as:

• Defender of tradition
• Guardian of belief
• Voice of devotees

But when the Sabarimala royal family and temple-linked authorities clarified that he did not represent them, the illusion cracked.

Yet he continued as though nothing changed.

Why?

Because once cameras start rolling, corrections don’t matter.
Perception does.

This was the first public glimpse of a recurring tactic:

Claim proximity to power or tradition. Speak as its representative. Let viewers assume legitimacy.

A Disturbing Consistency: Always Facing the Same Direction

Now line up the cases. Change the names. Change the years.

The pattern doesn’t change.

In case after case:

• The accused is framed as “targeted”
• The woman is framed as “questionable”
• Motives are dissected, not actions
• Empathy is replaced by debate theatrics

This is not men’s rights activism.
This is accused-first activism.

He rarely waits for investigation outcomes.
He rarely urges restraint.
He rarely asks power to pause.

Instead, he rushes into debates to rewrite the emotional narrative before facts harden.

Television Loves Him — And Here’s Why

National and regional channels don’t invite him because he is nuanced.
They invite him because he is reliable.

Reliable in one crucial way:

• He will defend when others won’t
• He will provoke when silence would be safer
• He will argue when the room is morally exhausted

When anchors struggle to find someone to take the “difficult” side — his number works.

Outrage is content.
He supplies it consistently.

Bigg Boss: The Mask Slips

Then came reality TV — unscripted, unfiltered.

Inside the Bigg Boss house:

• Preached morals, crossed boundaries
• Spoke philosophy, behaved casually
• Critiqued others, ignored self-reflection

Nothing criminal.
But credibility isn’t built on legality alone.

When your public role is “moral examiner,” your private conduct matters.

The dissonance was visible.
Some noticed.
Many ignored it.

YouTube and the Monetization of Controversy

His social media ecosystem thrives on:

• Polarization
• Victim-skeptic narratives
• “Men are under attack” framing
• Intellectualized dismissal of women’s experiences

This isn’t accidental engagement.
It’s engineered relevance.

The angrier the topic, the better the reach.
The more traumatised the victim feels, the higher the engagement.

That’s the cost of algorithm activism.

From Provocation to Prosecution

The line between commentary and crime exists for a reason.

When that line was crossed — through alleged actions involving:

• Targeting a sexual-assault complainant
• Violating survivor-identity protections
• Persisting despite legal and ethical warnings

— the state intervened.

This was no longer about “opinions.”

This was about harm.

And yet, even then, there was no pause.

The Jailhouse Rhetoric: Gandhi Entered the Chat (Unfortunately)

From custody came declarations:

• “I did nothing wrong”
• “This is my satyagraha”
• “I will continue my fight”
• “This is for men’s freedom”

Invoking Gandhi while undermining survivor protections is not irony.
It is audacity.

Gandhi resisted power.
This resistance protects it.

When Silence Speaks Louder Than Support

Perhaps the most damning response came from unexpected quarters.

No mass defence.
No shoulder-to-shoulder solidarity.
No political rush to claim him.

Even those who often benefit from controversy chose distance.

Isolation isn’t always persecution.
Sometimes, it’s recognition.

So What Is Rahul Easwar’s Real Ideology?

Not faith.
Not men’s rights.
Not free speech.

His true ideology appears to be this:

Wherever allegations threaten powerful men, I will be present — loudly — before the victim is heard.

That’s not activism.

That’s career maintenance.

Why This Matters More Than One Man

This isn’t a character assassination piece.
It’s a mirror.

Because Rahul Easwar exists only because:

• Media enables him
• Audiences amplify him
• Silence protects patterns like his

Every time a survivor hesitates to speak — voices like this are part of the reason.

Final Reckoning

History doesn’t remember who shouted the loudest.
It remembers who stood on the wrong side consistently.

Not once.
Not accidentally.
But as a pattern.

And patterns — unlike debates — don’t lie.

Disclaimer (and this matters):

This article is based on publicly observable actions, statements, arrests, media behaviour, and documented patterns. Allegations remain allegations until proven in court. Criticism here is of conduct, consistency, and narrative behaviour, not judicial verdicts.

Comments

comments