Complaint filed against Ranveer for mimicking Kantara scene, calling Goddess ‘female ghost’
The world of Indian cinema has been abuzz with the recent controversy surrounding actor Ranveer Singh, who has been accused of hurting religious sentiments by mimicking a scene from the hit film “Kantara: Chapter 1”. The complaint, filed in Bengaluru, alleges that Ranveer’s actions have offended the sentiments of “millions of Hindus, particularly the Tulu-speaking community of Karnataka”. At the center of the controversy is Ranveer’s alleged mimicry of a scene from the film, in which he referred to Goddess Chamundi Daiva as a “female ghost”.
For those who may be unfamiliar, “Kantara: Chapter 1” is a Kannada-language film written and directed by Rishab Shetty. The film has been a critical and commercial success, and its unique blend of folklore, mythology, and drama has resonated with audiences across the country. The film’s success can be attributed to its authentic portrayal of the Tulu culture and its people, and it is this very authenticity that has been allegedly disrespected by Ranveer’s actions.
The complainant, Bengaluru-based advocate Prashanth, has taken umbrage with Ranveer’s alleged mimicry of the scene, in which he allegedly referred to Goddess Chamundi Daiva as a “female ghost”. According to Prashanth, this remark has hurt the sentiments of millions of Hindus, particularly those from the Tulu-speaking community of Karnataka. The complaint alleges that Ranveer’s actions were intentional and deliberate, and that they have caused offense to a large section of the community.
It is worth noting that the Tulu-speaking community is a significant population in Karnataka, and their culture and traditions are an integral part of the state’s rich cultural heritage. The community takes great pride in its unique customs and practices, and any perceived disrespect or mockery of these traditions can be seen as a sensitive issue.
The controversy surrounding Ranveer’s alleged mimicry of the scene has sparked a heated debate on social media, with many people weighing in on the issue. While some have come to Ranveer’s defense, arguing that he was simply trying to poke fun at the scene and did not intend to cause offense, others have been more critical, arguing that his actions were thoughtless and insensitive.
As the debate rages on, it is worth considering the broader implications of this controversy. In recent years, there have been numerous instances of celebrities and public figures being accused of hurting religious sentiments or offending certain communities. While freedom of speech and expression are fundamental rights in a democratic society, it is also important to be mindful of the potential impact of one’s words and actions on others.
In this case, Ranveer’s alleged mimicry of the scene from “Kantara: Chapter 1” has been seen as a thoughtless and insensitive act, one that has caused offense to a large section of the community. While it is possible that Ranveer did not intend to cause harm, his actions have nevertheless been perceived as disrespectful and hurtful.
As the complaint against Ranveer makes its way through the legal system, it will be interesting to see how the matter unfolds. Will Ranveer be held accountable for his alleged actions, or will he be able to defend himself against the charges? Only time will tell.
In the meantime, the controversy surrounding Ranveer’s alleged mimicry of the scene from “Kantara: Chapter 1” serves as a reminder of the importance of being mindful of the potential impact of our words and actions on others. As public figures, celebrities have a responsibility to be respectful and considerate of the diverse communities that make up our society.
In conclusion, the complaint filed against Ranveer Singh for mimicking a scene from “Kantara: Chapter 1” and calling Goddess Chamundi Daiva a “female ghost” has sparked a heated debate on social media and raised important questions about the responsibility of public figures to be respectful and considerate of diverse communities. As the matter unfolds, it will be interesting to see how the legal system responds to the complaint and what implications this controversy may have for the broader discussion around freedom of speech and expression.
About the Author
