It is not often that India’s film industry collides so fiercely with the voices of spiritual leaders. But in recent days, a storm has been brewing — and this time, the winds have carried pointed accusations toward some of Bollywood’s most celebrated stars. At the center of this tempest is storyteller and kathavachak Aniruddhacharya, whose sharp words have pierced through the glitz and glamour to question the very values Bollywood projects onto society.

His comments have not only sparked heated debate but have also pulled into the fray one of the most revered names in Indian cinema — Amitabh Bachchan, the man widely known as the “Shahenshah” of Bollywood. And alongside him, actor Ranveer Singh, famed for his exuberance and flamboyance, also finds himself at the receiving end of Aniruddhacharya’s criticism.

It was during an interview with Aaj Tak that Aniruddhacharya’s words caught everyone off guard. Calm but firm, he addressed a matter that has long been whispered about but seldom voiced with such boldness — the portrayal of women and men in films, and the message it sends to a society that still grapples with questions of morality, culture, and influence.

In his view, modern cinema has crossed lines that should never have been blurred. The depiction of women, often in revealing outfits, he argued, does not reflect the values of a “civilized society.” But his criticism was not limited to female portrayals — he was equally disapproving of male nudity on screen, making it clear that the issue was not about gender, but about decency.

“Why,” he asked pointedly, “should a wealthy and influential star pose in such a manner? Is this what our society needs to see? Shouldn’t people raise their voice against this nudity? I have only stood against it — but the moment I did, everyone came forward to oppose me.”

Many recalled Ranveer Singh’s infamous semi-nude photoshoot, which had earlier ignited its own social media frenzy. For Aniruddhacharya, such imagery is a dangerous precedent — one that normalizes behavior which he believes can erode cultural values.

In his perspective, cinema has a responsibility beyond entertainment. The visuals that flood screens, billboards, and Instagram feeds do not exist in isolation; they shape the ideas, aspirations, and behaviors of millions.

Perhaps the most shocking part of his interview came when Aniruddhacharya brought Amitabh Bachchan into the conversation. Not with regard to any recent role, but referencing an old song — “Jeena agar zaroori hai, toh peena bahut zaroori hai” (“If living is essential, then drinking is essential too”).

His interpretation was scathing. “Bachchan sahab,” he said, “must be feeding alcohol to his children with a spoon in their childhood if he promotes such a line.” It was an exaggerated analogy, designed to drive home a point: if a superstar of such stature drinks onscreen, he feared it could inspire audiences — especially the young — to follow suit.

This, he argued, is the ripple effect of celebrity influence. “When our children watch his movies, they will think — if Amitabh Bachchan drinks, why shouldn’t we? And if society starts drinking after seeing his films, will Bachchan sahab not be responsible?”

At its heart, Aniruddhacharya’s message was a call for responsibility in storytelling. To him, nudity and the glamorization of drinking are not simply creative choices — they are social decisions with far-reaching consequences.

He questioned the moral compass of a society that tolerates — or even celebrates — such depictions without protest. In his view, cinema should uplift, inspire, and protect cultural dignity, not chip away at it.

The kathavachak didn’t stop at actors or particular scenes. He also targeted the kind of songs that dominate charts today, singling out tracks like “Blue Hai Pani Pani,” which, according to him, “placed women half-naked for the world to see.”

“What will your sons and daughters learn from this?” he asked, his voice rising. “Such films should be banned entirely.”

His statement resonated with those who believe Indian cinema has drifted far from its traditional roots. But for others, it felt like a step backward — an attempt to censor creativity and limit artistic freedom.

As expected, the backlash was swift. Supporters of artistic liberty argued that films reflect reality, and that adults should be trusted to interpret entertainment without it dictating their moral choices. Many felt Aniruddhacharya’s words were too extreme, especially his personal attack on Amitabh Bachchan, a man who has for decades maintained an image of dignity and respect.

On the other hand, there were those who felt relieved that someone had spoken up against what they see as a growing wave of vulgarity in popular culture. Social media comment sections became battlegrounds, with heated debates over morality, freedom, and influence.

What makes this controversy particularly gripping is the stature of those involved. On one side, Bollywood — India’s cinematic powerhouse, with stars worshiped like demigods. On the other, the spiritual and religious sphere, with leaders like Aniruddhacharya commanding deep respect among millions.

When these two worlds collide, it’s more than just a celebrity feud — it’s a cultural confrontation that forces the public to ask uncomfortable questions about identity, values, and the kind of future they envision for their children.

Interestingly, neither Amitabh Bachchan nor Ranveer Singh has publicly responded to the remarks. Whether this is a calculated choice to avoid escalation or a sign of disregard for the comments remains unclear.

Bollywood has often been accused of ignoring criticism from outside its circle, and this could be yet another instance where the industry chooses silence over engagement.

At its core, this controversy is not just about nudity or alcohol. It’s about the age-old question: who shapes society’s morals — art, or the people consuming it?

Aniruddhacharya believes that art leads society, for better or worse. His critics argue the opposite — that cinema merely mirrors the world as it is. The truth, perhaps, lies somewhere in between.

This is not the first time Indian cinema has been accused of corrupting morals. From the outrage over bold scenes in the 1970s to more recent debates over kissing scenes and item numbers, the struggle between conservative values and modern expression is as old as Bollywood itself.

Yet, each new clash seems to grow louder, amplified by social media’s unforgiving spotlight.

As the debate rages on, one thing is certain: the audience is no longer a silent spectator. Viewers today have the power to voice opinions instantly, to call out what they dislike, and to demand change.

Whether they side with Aniruddhacharya’s call for restraint or defend Bollywood’s right to creative freedom, their choices — what they watch, share, and celebrate — will ultimately decide the direction popular culture takes.

For now, the war of words between a kathavachak and Bollywood’s elite remains unresolved. But it has forced an uncomfortable question into the open: in the balance between entertainment and ethics, where should the line be drawn?

And perhaps more importantly — who gets to draw it?