New Delhi: A war of words between yoga entrepreneur Baba Ramdev and BJP MP and actor Kangana Ranaut over the conduct and aspirations of Generation Z has triggered a wider debate over political discourse, public accountability and the language used while addressing India’s younger generation.
The controversy began after Ranaut criticised young people protesting at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar over the NEET paper leak. In a social media post, she described Gen Z as a “gutter generation” and questioned the upbringing of young protesters. She also criticised the language used during the demonstrations and expressed particular disapproval of the conduct of young women participating in the protests.
Her comments attracted widespread criticism, particularly over the language used to describe the protesting youth.
The controversy escalated when Ramdev was asked about Ranaut’s remarks during a television interview. Ramdev criticised her description of Gen Z and questioned her educational background, childhood, youth and past conduct.
Calling the use of the term “gutter” for the country’s youth inappropriate, Ramdev said such remarks reflected what he described as a “disturbed mind” and suggested that the BJP should take note of the comments.
Ramdev’s criticism was notable given his generally supportive stance towards the BJP-led government. His remarks subsequently triggered a sharp response from Ranaut.
Ranaut Hits Back at Ramdev
Ranaut responded by referring to Ramdev’s comments about her personal life and past. She accused him of making assumptions based on rumours and gossip and told him not to lecture her about character.
She also referred to legal action involving Patanjali Ayurved, the company associated with Ramdev, over its advertising practices. Ranaut argued that she had never faced a similar reprimand from the Supreme Court over allegedly false medical claims.
The exchange thus moved beyond the original debate over Gen Z and became a highly personal confrontation between two prominent public figures.
Ranaut’s Earlier Public Statements
The commentary surrounding the dispute has also brought renewed attention to statements Ranaut herself had made in earlier interviews and social media posts about her youth and struggles.
In a 2020 Instagram video, she spoke publicly about having struggled with drug addiction during the early phase of her career. She said she had left home as a teenager and subsequently entered difficult circumstances after arriving in Delhi and Mumbai.
Ranaut had also spoken about people who allegedly influenced or mistreated her during her early years and said that yoga and the teachings of Swami Vivekananda helped her overcome addiction.
These earlier statements became relevant to the controversy after Ramdev raised questions about her past during his criticism of her Gen Z remarks.
Patanjali’s Legal Controversies
Ranaut’s response also referred to the legal controversies surrounding Patanjali Ayurved’s advertising practices.
The company and its promoters have faced proceedings concerning advertisements making claims about the efficacy of certain products. The Supreme Court had previously taken a strong position over misleading advertisements and proceedings relating to Patanjali’s promotional claims.
The matter eventually involved court appearances, undertakings regarding advertising practices and public apologies, including advertisements published in newspapers following judicial directions.
The controversy has therefore produced an unusual exchange in which both sides have invoked questions about personal conduct and credibility while criticising the other.
Debate Over How Gen Z Is Being Addressed
At the centre of the dispute is a broader question: whether young people protesting over issues such as examinations, employment, transparency, corruption and accountability should be dismissed through derogatory labels or engaged with through substantive debate.
India’s Gen Z has increasingly emerged as an important social and political constituency, particularly around education, employment opportunities, institutional accountability and constitutional values.
The exchange between Ramdev and Ranaut, however, has shifted much of the public conversation from these issues towards their respective personal histories and controversies.
The episode has consequently raised questions about the responsibility of public figures when commenting on young people and their behaviour.
While Ranaut’s comments have been criticised for their sweeping characterisation of an entire generation, Ramdev’s response has itself been questioned for moving into personal territory.
Ultimately, the confrontation offers a lesson in public discourse: those who themselves have faced controversy or criticism may need to exercise caution before passing sweeping judgments on others. As the familiar saying goes, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
