Startup Originals Team
Anupam Mittal, founder of Shaadi.com and well-known Shark Tank India judge, has strongly criticized the newly passed Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025-a law that bans real-money online gaming including popular platforms like Dream11 and WinZO. Mittal argues that the ban comes at a steep economic and social cost, driving the industry underground and resulting in major losses for the government and legitimate businesses.
A Sector “Killed” and the Costs
In a candid LinkedIn post, Mittal pointed out that the sector contributed:
- Rs 27,000 crore annually in Goods and Services Tax (GST)
- Rs 10,000 crore in ad revenue
- Thousands of direct and indirect jobs in skill-based gaming
Mittal cautioned that such a sweeping ban will deprive the exchequer of crucial revenue, force legitimate players and users into black markets, and strip protections from those who participate.
Debating the Rationale: Is Banning the Solution?
While acknowledging legitimate concerns about addiction, Mittal questioned the effectiveness of total prohibition. He asked:
- “Do we ban alcohol because some become alcoholics?”
- “Do we ban stock trading because some blow up their savings?”
He argued that bans rarely address root problems-instead, they “just shift them elsewhere.” According to Mittal, India’s existing illegal gaming market is already estimated at a massive Rs 8.3 lakh crore, and the ban could make matters worse by giving black market operators free rein.
“Moral Policing” or Policy Reform?
Mittal criticized the move as “moral policing dressed up as policy,” warning against following China’s path of restrictive measures. However, he expressed hope that the ban might eventually create space for more tightly regulated gaming and support for e-sports in India.
Public Response: Mixed Reactions
Mittal’s post triggered a lively debate online:
- Some users supported the ban, blaming real-money games for harming millions of families.
- Others emphasized that bans don’t solve core issues but simply shift them.
- A few argued that gambling can’t be compared to alcohol or trading, suggesting it drives losses without creating value.
- Some commenters defended the ban as necessary to protect vulnerable people, pointing to the “predatory” nature of many such games.
Conclusion:
The debate over India’s blanket ban on real-money online gaming highlights the difficulty of balancing economic interests, personal freedoms, and social protection. While Anupam Mittal laments the loss of a thriving industry and its benefits, others see the move as essential to safeguarding society. The ban’s true impact-on the economy, society, and the future of digital entertainment in India-remains to be seen.
