Premanand Maharaj ko Mili Jaan Se Marne ki Dhamki 😱Premanand Maharaj Living relationship Controversy

In a country as diverse and complex as India, the line between freedom of expression and socially insensitive commentary is increasingly becoming blurred. A recent controversy involving two well-known Indian spiritual figures — Swami Aniruddhacharya and Premanand Maharaj — has sparked nationwide debate. The issue centers on their remarks concerning the moral character of young women, which were widely circulated on social media, drawing both sharp criticism and staunch defense.

The uproar began when a clip of Swami Aniruddhacharya went viral, in which he stated that “25-year-old girls go around with multiple partners.” The phrasing, seen as derogatory and crude by many, particularly the expression “muuh maar kar aati hain” (a Hindi slang implying promiscuity), was condemned as deeply misogynistic. The backlash was swift and furious. Celebrities like Khushboo Patani, sister of Bollywood actress Disha Patani, publicly lambasted the guru, accusing him of being “anti-national” and “disrespectful to Indian women.” Legal complaints were lodged, with demands for his arrest and prosecution.

As the controversy escalated, another video began to circulate — this time of Premanand Maharaj, another spiritual leader with a massive following. In the video, he can be heard saying, “Only 2 to 4 girls out of 100 are truly pure.” He continued, “How can a girl who has met multiple boys be considered a true daughter-in-law? And how can a boy who has been with multiple girls be considered a true husband?” These remarks, while couched in a spiritual and moral framework, were quickly seized upon by netizens as further evidence of the patriarchal and regressive mindset often attributed to some religious preachers.

What followed was a sharp divide across social and digital media platforms. On one side, many individuals — including influencers and actors — voiced their outrage, accusing these gurus of shaming women and promoting outdated gender norms. On the other hand, figures like actress Ankita Lokhande stepped forward to defend Premanand Maharaj, stating that his words were taken out of context and misinterpreted. Lokhande went as far as uploading the full video clip to her Instagram account and wrote, “He is absolutely right. He spoke equally about both men and women. There is nothing wrong with what he said.”

In the full version of the clip, Premanand Maharaj elaborates on his concerns regarding live-in relationships. He argues that “live-in relationships are a sign of moral decline,” and states that living together before marriage goes against traditional Indian values. He further remarks that “our culture is dharma-based,” implying that those engaging in live-in relationships or premarital intimacy are contributing to the degradation of societal values. He also references religious traditions, particularly within Islam, to support his stance, claiming that “even looking at someone with lust is a sin.”

Supporters of Premanand Maharaj assert that he is merely highlighting what they see as the moral decay of modern youth culture, especially with the growing prevalence of casual relationships and cohabitation without commitment. To them, the backlash against the guru is a symptom of a society that refuses to face uncomfortable truths. “If you feel offended by his words, ask yourself why,” say some defenders. “Are you seeing yourself in the 96 percent he criticized, or do you see yourself among the 4 percent he praised?” They argue that instead of threatening him, critics should engage in open debate, post counter-videos, and present facts to refute his claims — not resort to abuse or violence.

This sentiment is not without merit. India, as a democracy, guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of its Constitution. However, this freedom is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly when speech incites violence, promotes hatred, or threatens public order. While neither Aniruddhacharya nor Premanand Maharaj explicitly called for violence, their generalized comments on women’s character have raised serious concerns about the responsibility that comes with influence, especially in a society where words from spiritual leaders are often taken as gospel.

Critics argue that the statements made, particularly when seen outside of a spiritual or religious setting, are not just outdated but dangerous. They claim that such remarks perpetuate harmful stereotypes, reinforce patriarchal norms, and normalize the judgment of women’s personal choices. In a country already grappling with gender inequality, victim-blaming, and honor-based violence, the casual moral scrutiny of women’s lives — especially from figures of authority — can have real-world consequences.

Furthermore, the notion that a woman’s purity or a man’s virtue can be measured by their past relationships is a fundamentally flawed and deeply regressive idea. Modern India is home to a vast urban population that is increasingly globalized, educated, and open to diverse lifestyles. Concepts like live-in relationships, premarital dating, and individual freedom are not just personal choices but legal rights. The Supreme Court of India has upheld the legality of live-in relationships, stating that two consenting adults living together is not illegal. So when religious leaders publicly denounce such practices as “immoral” or “impure,” they are, in effect, trying to impose personal beliefs over constitutionally protected freedoms.

At the same time, the reaction from some quarters has also crossed the line. Threats of violence — including beheading and murder — directed at these spiritual figures are not only criminal acts but also deeply hypocritical. If society claims to be progressive and tolerant, then intolerance towards opposing views, however distasteful they may be, is a contradiction in itself. Engaging in civil discourse, legal recourse, or even public counter-narratives is a more constructive approach than resorting to abuse or threats.

This controversy brings to light a larger question: Who decides what is moral in a rapidly evolving society? Is morality a fixed, unchanging code rooted in ancient texts and traditions? Or is it something dynamic, constantly being redefined by the people living in the present? For some, returning to “traditional values” is a way of restoring order and meaning in a confusing world. For others, clinging to rigid definitions of morality is a way to control and suppress, especially women.

What is perhaps most alarming is how quickly debates in India turn into digital lynchings. Social media, while a powerful tool for accountability, can also be a brutal weapon when wielded without context or nuance. A short video clip, often missing key background information, can ruin reputations, fuel mob rage, and trigger real-world violence. The responsibility lies not just with public figures to choose their words carefully, but also with the audience to engage critically, not emotionally.

In conclusion, this issue is not black and white. Swami Aniruddhacharya and Premanand Maharaj may believe they are guiding the youth towards a more righteous path. Their critics may believe they are standing up for modern values and gender equality. Both sides believe they are protecting society. But perhaps what society really needs is neither blanket judgment nor blind support — it needs dialogue, understanding, and a willingness to see the gray in between.

If freedom of speech is a pillar of democracy, so too is accountability. But accountability must be pursued with reason, not rage. The moment we lose our ability to engage in calm, critical discussion, we risk becoming a society where neither tradition nor progress can thrive — only noise.

Play video :