Namita Thapar vs Baba Ramdev: Shark Tank judge calls out controversial marketing tactics amid 'Sharbat' controversy

Emcure Pharmaceuticals Executive Director and Shark Tank investor Namita Thapar has strongly condemned Baba Ramdev for his controversial remarks during the promotion of Patanjali products. Ramdev’s statements, which suggested that certain beverages like Rooh Afza were financing mosques and madrasas, have stirred significant debate. Thapar, taking to social media, referred to Ramdev’s remarks as "hate marketing" and praised Hamdard’s response as a "class act."

The remarks were made during a promotional video posted by Patanjali on social media. Ramdev accused companies like Hamdard, the producer of Rooh Afza, of using their profits to support religious institutions, making a direct comparison to Patanjali products, which, according to him, contribute to the development of institutions like Gurukuls and Patanjali University. Ramdev also introduced the concept of "sharbat jihad," claiming that drinking certain beverages supported religious causes he did not agree with.

Ramdev's Contentious Comparison and Thapar’s Criticism

In the viral video, Ramdev compared Rooh Afza to "toilet cleaners" and suggested that purchasing these drinks indirectly funded the construction of mosques. He claimed that Patanjali's offerings, however, would contribute to creating institutions aligned with Indian values. He further compared the situation to "love jihad" and "vote jihad," terms associated with divisive political discourse. These remarks have since been widely criticized for promoting communal disharmony.

Thapar responded to the situation by highlighting the contrast between Ramdev’s approach and Rooh Afza’s more inclusive message. She shared on X two contrasting images: one from a news article showcasing Ramdev's comments and another showing a Rooh Afza advertisement promoting harmony among different faiths. Thapar’s post, which asked, “What is the India we want to create for our kids?” sparked widespread conversation about the potential dangers of using divisive rhetoric in marketing.


Legal Action and Court Response

The legal implications of Ramdev's comments have escalated as Hamdard filed a lawsuit against him, accusing him of defamation and communal incitement. The Delhi High Court responded sharply, with Justice Amit Bansal calling Ramdev’s remarks "shocking" and "indefensible." The court ordered the removal of the controversial videos and posts from social media platforms. Hamdard’s legal representative, Mukul Rohatgi, argued that Ramdev’s comments amounted to hate speech, accusing him of using religion to divide communities.

Following this, Ramdev’s legal team agreed to remove the content containing "sharbat jihad" from circulation. The case continues to unfold, with many now questioning the ethics of leveraging religion and communal issues for commercial gain.