Bigg Boss Telugu 10: Did Rohit Naidu's elimination expose a bigger game?

Right off the bat, let us establish something. Rohit Naidu Patnam is not a contestant without flaws. His temper, inappropriate language, personal remarks and constant clashes with Thrigun have given viewers enough reasons to criticise his game. Those who wanted him eliminated are not necessarily wrong, and their arguments deserve to be heard rather than dismissed as blind hatred.

However, does that mean Rohit deserved to leave the house this early? Is Bigg Boss Telugu Season 10 creating an uneven playing field for certain contestants? And, more importantly, was eliminating him through his fellow contestants' votes a fair decision? There could be more to this controversy than just one eviction.

Read Full Story

Are viewers merely puppets?

For ten seasons, Bigg Boss Telugu has relied heavily on audience participation. Viewers vote, campaign for contestants and decide who deserves to continue in the competition. At least, that has been the show's long-standing promise.

Season 10, with its Dashavataaram concept, has introduced several changes to the format. While some have added an element of surprise, others have left viewers scratching their heads. Elimination through housemates' votes is one such experiment. Rohit is not the first contestant to face this situation. RJ Charan, Chaithra Rai and Shalini Damera Patel have also experienced this form of elimination. The makers are entitled to experiment with their show. They own the format and ultimately decide its rules. But that does not mean viewers must accept every decision without questioning it.

People spend weeks voting for their favourites, promoting them on social media and trying to keep them safe. When those efforts can be rendered meaningless by a decision taken inside the house, it is natural for audiences to question their role in the competition. What is the point of voting if the final decision can be taken away from them?

Rohit's elimination has made this question particularly relevant. He is reportedly among the top three contestants in voting trends and has maintained considerable support throughout the season. While unofficial polls cannot establish actual voting figures, the scale of his fan following is evident from the response to his exit. For a commoner competing against contestants with established public identities, that is no small achievement.

Even Nagarjuna's words during the elimination announcement acknowledged his potential. The host described Rohit as a 'brilliant player' with '200 per cent potential'. Actor and former contestant Shivaji, during the Bigg Boss Buzz interview, also revealed that Rohit was the reason he had started watching every episode this season.

Neither statement proves that Rohit deserved to win the trophy. But they do underline why his departure has surprised so many viewers. When a contestant with considerable audience support is eliminated without the audience getting a say, the resulting anger is hardly unexpected. The makers might call it a format twist, but viewers are entitled to ask whether their votes actually count or are merely a convenient way to keep them engaged.

Why should contestants decide?

advertisement

There is a reason everyone associated with Bigg Boss repeatedly describes it as a personality show rather than a conventional game show. The competition is built around human relationships, and those relationships are rarely straightforward.

Contestants develop friendships, form groups, hold grudges and identify potential threats. Someone who is considered a good friend one week can become an enemy the next. In such an environment, asking contestants to decide who should leave the house is bound to invite questions about fairness.

The reasons for voting someone out need not always be based on their performance. A contestant might target someone because they see them as a strong competitor, because they do not belong to their group or simply because of an argument from the previous week. Personal equations inevitably influence professional decisions.

advertisement

Imagine asking employees competing for the same promotion to vote on who deserves the position. Merit might enter the discussion, but so would office politics, personal equations and the fear of someone else getting ahead. Hardly an ideal selection process, is it?

Rohit's situation makes the problem more apparent. His disagreements with several contestants, especially celebrity contestants, have been a recurring feature of the season, particularly his rivalry with Thrigun. Other housemates have also openly acknowledged him as a strong competitor. When people who see you as a potential threat are given an opportunity to decide your future, the outcome is hardly difficult to anticipate.

Rohit was not eliminated through an audience verdict suggesting that his popularity had declined or that his performance was no longer good enough. His journey ended because a majority of his fellow contestants voted against him. That is a legitimate outcome under the task's rules, but it is also a decision influenced by the very rivalries that make the show interesting.

The audience can disagree with the result without questioning the housemates' right to vote. After all, when everyone is competing for the same trophy, should contestants really be the final judges of one another's journeys?

advertisement

Celebrity versus commoner

The celebrity-commoner divide has been one of the recurring talking points this season. Rohit has contributed to this divide through his own confrontations, but the way commoners have been positioned within the larger house dynamics also deserves attention.

Celebrity contestants enter the show with established identities, public recognition and, sometimes, existing connections. Commoners, on the other hand, have to build their recognition from scratch. This difference becomes particularly important when decisions inside the house depend on numbers and majority support.

With commoners fewer in number, celebrity contestants can enjoy a numerical advantage when groups come together to make decisions. It also creates an environment in which commoners may feel compelled to maintain relationships with influential contestants, even when their individual game demands otherwise.

Aman Masud, who entered the house through the Agni Pareeksha Show, offers an interesting example. He has performed well in tasks and shown that he can hold his own in the competition. However, his equations with the celebrity contestants have also played a role in shaping his journey. As his relationship with Rohit became strained, his equation with the celebrity group appeared to become more comfortable.

advertisement

There is nothing wrong with Aman building friendships or playing to his strengths. But would his journey have looked the same had he consistently opposed the more influential contestants? That is worth considering.

Rohit's elimination further highlights the numerical imbalance. Seven contestants voted against him, while four chose Ramakrishna. It was a majority decision, but a majority does not automatically make something fair. When the people deciding your fate are also your competitors, democracy can become a rather convenient arrangement.

Are some contestants being judged differently?

The debate around Rohit's elimination is also connected to a larger complaint that has followed the season: the perceived difference in how commoners and celebrity contestants are treated.

Rohit's aggressive behaviour, inappropriate language, mockery and personal remarks cannot be defended. He has crossed lines and deserved to be questioned for his actions. But viewers have repeatedly pointed towards similar confrontations involving Thrigun and Mukesh, questioning why the same level of scrutiny is not always applied to them.

Nagarjuna's weekend episodes have become a particular point of discussion. While Rohit's mistakes have often received extended attention, some viewers believe Thrigun and Mukesh have been addressed more casually, even when their conduct has attracted criticism.

The incident in which Rohit was made to fall on his knees, plead and apologise for something he believed he had not done wrong added another layer to the debate. The issue is not whether Rohit should apologise when he makes a mistake. It is whether every contestant is expected to show the same level of accountability.

If someone argues that Thrigun and Mukesh have never done anything comparable to Rohit, that might just be a funnier joke than some of the ones contestant Ram Prasad is attempting inside the house.

Nagarjuna e AV Video veyyochu ga e weekend housemates chustharu mee Celebrity Kukkalu ela labour ga behave chesaro #BiggBossTelugu10 https://t.co/2HldRN4Y6U— Arachakame (@Arachakame) October 27, 2026

There is also a section of viewers questioning whether the makers are comfortable with another commoner winning the trophy. After all, Pallavi Prashanth won Season 7 and Kalyan Padala emerged victorious in Season 9. Could the prospect of another commoner winning have become a talking point behind the scenes? There is no verified evidence that the makers are deliberately working against commoners or that Rohit's elimination was planned to prevent one from winning. Such claims remain speculation. However, the repeated concerns about internal voting, weekend treatment and the celebrity-commoner divide have contributed to the perception that everyone is not playing on an equal pitch.

Rohit's elimination may have followed the rules of the task, but that does not make every question surrounding it invalid. He has made mistakes, and his critics are entitled to point them out. But those mistakes should not overshadow the larger concerns about how the show is structured this season and how contestants are judged.

Bigg Boss Telugu has every right to introduce twists and change its format. But viewers, who have supported the show for ten seasons, also have the right to question decisions that make their participation seem insignificant. If winning over fellow contestants matters more than winning over the audience, perhaps the makers should reconsider why they keep asking viewers to vote. After all, what is the point of having a favourite contestant if the people inside the house get the final say on whether they stay?

- Ends