Yoga guru and Patanjali founder Baba Ramdev has once again found himself at the center of a storm after making inflammatory comments linking the iconic beverage Rooh Afza to alleged funding of mosque construction. During a recent public appearance, Ramdev made a controversial remark suggesting that proceeds from Rooh Afza sales were being diverted to support mosque-building activities, coining the term “Sharbat Jihad” to describe what he implied was a hidden socio-religious agenda.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The fallout was swift.
Many religious leaders, activists, and political observers have condemned the statement, calling it a “calculated provocation” and “an attempt to polarize communities for commercial or ideological gain.” Legal action followed soon after, with Hamdard Laboratories — the century-old company that manufactures Rooh Afza — issuing a public rebuttal and filing a defamation suit in response.
Legal Intervention and Court Observations
The Delhi High Court took cognizance of the matter after Hamdard filed a complaint seeking an injunction against further dissemination of Ramdev’s remarks. During the initial hearing, the court criticized the language used by the yoga entrepreneur and questioned whether such statements served any purpose beyond stoking communal tension.
Justice Sandeep Khanna, presiding over the matter, observed, “Commercial rivalry cannot be allowed to cross into religious provocation. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, especially when exercised by public figures with influence.” The court further asked Ramdev to submit a response within a week, outlining the basis for his statements.
Meanwhile, an interim order has been issued restricting Ramdev or his associates from repeating or promoting the contested claims pending the next hearing.
The Company’s Response
In a detailed statement, Hamdard Laboratories clarified that its operations are secular, transparent, and focused solely on herbal and Unani-based consumer wellness products. The company emphasized its 117-year-old legacy and its commitment to serving all communities without discrimination.
“Rooh Afza is a symbol of harmony, consumed across religious and cultural lines, especially during festive occasions like Ramadan, Holi, and family gatherings. To reduce our brand to a tool for divisiveness is unacceptable,” the statement read.
The company also urged influencers, politicians, and business figures to exercise caution and promote unity rather than sow discord in the name of religion.
Background to the Remarks
According to those present at the event, Ramdev was responding to a question about Patanjali’s competition in the FMCG (Fast-Moving Consumer Goods) space. He reportedly mentioned how certain brands allegedly receive “preferential treatment” from certain communities and made the controversial claim about Rooh Afza’s proceeds being “redirected to ideological purposes.”
Though no concrete evidence was presented to back the statement, the phrasing triggered instant backlash both online and offline.
On social media, hashtags like #BoycottRamdev and #RoohAfza trended simultaneously — with some netizens defending his right to express concerns and others demanding an apology for what they called “divisive rhetoric.”
A Pattern of Provocation?
This is not the first time Ramdev has faced legal consequences for his statements. Over the years, his blunt, sometimes politically charged remarks have put him at odds with various groups — including allopathic doctors, Dalit leaders, women’s rights activists, and now, a respected Unani brand.
Critics argue that his strategy often involves attracting media attention by framing social or political issues in polarizing ways. “Ramdev knows how to stay in the news,” says sociologist Dr. Reena Kulkarni. “He rides the wave of populism and nationalism, but increasingly, this comes at the cost of unity.”
Others see a deeper strategy — that such comments are used to position Patanjali as a “nationalist” brand in opposition to “foreign” or “minority-led” products. “This isn’t just rhetoric. It’s market positioning cloaked in ideology,” said marketing analyst Pawan Sethi.
The Legal Road Ahead
While Hamdard’s defamation case seeks damages and a permanent injunction, Ramdev’s legal team has remained tight-lipped. Sources close to the matter suggest that the defense may argue that the statements were personal opinions, not meant to be taken as factual allegations.
However, legal experts caution that Indian courts have increasingly taken a firm stance against speech that can incite communal disharmony. Under sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 153A and 295A, individuals making statements that promote enmity or insult religious beliefs can face prosecution.
If the court rules in favor of Hamdard, Ramdev could not only face fines but may also be compelled to issue a public apology and refrain from similar commentary in the future.
Implications for Business and Brand Image
For Patanjali, the incident may have mixed consequences. While segments of its customer base may support Ramdev’s outspoken nationalism, others — especially secular-minded or urban consumers — could view this episode as evidence of religious bias. In a highly competitive FMCG space, negative publicity can be damaging, especially when it alienates parts of the consumer base.
Hamdard, on the other hand, could emerge stronger — as a symbol of inclusivity and tradition under siege. Public sympathy and solidarity campaigns have already begun, with prominent chefs, celebrities, and influencers posting support for Rooh Afza as a “drink for all.”
Looking Forward: A Call for Responsibility
This controversy raises pressing questions about the responsibilities of influential personalities in an increasingly polarized society. Should business leaders be held to higher standards of speech? Where is the line between free expression and hate speech? And how do commercial rivalries intersect with social harmony?
For now, all eyes are on the Delhi High Court as it prepares to hear the case in full next month. In the meantime, both brands — and the communities that support them — are navigating a tense atmosphere marked by legal arguments, emotional appeals, and public opinion.
Whatever the final verdict, this episode is a telling reminder that in today’s India, even a glass of sharbat can turn political.
