A social media firestorm has erupted, reigniting the contentious demolition of actress Kangana Ranaut’s Mumbai office in 2020. An old tweet from the owner of Habitat, a popular Mumbai-based social space, has resurfaced, where he allegedly mocked the demolition with the phrase “Ukhaad Diya” (meaning “uprooted it”). This tweet, now widely circulated, has triggered a wave of outrage, casting a shadow over the ongoing debate surrounding selective demolitions and perceived biases within the city’s municipal authorities.
The tweet, reportedly posted shortly after the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished parts of Ranaut’s Pali Hill office, was perceived by many as insensitive and celebratory. The demolition, carried out citing “illegal alterations,” sparked a massive political row, with Ranaut alleging political vendetta by the then-ruling Shiv Sena government. The Bombay High Court later deemed the BMC’s action as “malafide” and ordered compensation for the actress.
For years, the incident remained a point of contention, highlighting the complexities of urban development regulations and the potential for political interference. Now, with the resurfacing of the Habitat owner’s tweet, the controversy has taken a new turn, adding a layer of social media scrutiny to the already heated debate.
The phrase “Ukhaad Diya,” considered flippant and dismissive by Ranaut’s supporters, has been interpreted as a reflection of a perceived bias against the actress. Social media users have accused the Habitat owner of celebrating the destruction of private property, questioning the ethics of his comment and demanding an apology.
The incident has also brought back into focus the broader issue of selective demolitions in Mumbai. Critics argue that the BMC often targets individuals perceived to be critical of the ruling political establishment, while overlooking similar violations by others. They point to the timing of Ranaut’s office demolition, which occurred shortly after her vocal criticism of the Shiv Sena government, as evidence of political motivation.
The resurgence of the tweet has also ignited a debate about the responsibilities of public figures and business owners on social media. Many argue that individuals with significant social influence should exercise caution and sensitivity in their online communications, especially when commenting on sensitive issues. Others contend that social media users should be held accountable for their past actions and statements, regardless of the time elapsed.
The Habitat owner’s silence on the matter has further fueled the controversy. While some have called for a boycott of the establishment, others have demanded a public explanation and apology. The incident has also raised questions about the potential impact of social media controversies on businesses and brands.
This incident serves as a stark reminder of the enduring power of social media and its ability to resurrect past controversies. In a digital age where every tweet and post is potentially permanent, individuals are increasingly held accountable for their online actions, regardless of the time elapsed. The “Ukhaad Diya” tweet has become a potent symbol of this reality, demonstrating how a seemingly innocuous comment can trigger a massive public backlash.
Moreover, this incident highlights the delicate balance between freedom of speech and social responsibility. While individuals have the right to express their opinions, they must also be mindful of the potential consequences of their words, 1 especially in a politically charged environment. The controversy surrounding the Habitat owner’s tweet underscores the importance of thoughtful and responsible social media engagement.
As the debate continues to unfold, the incident serves as a cautionary tale about the enduring nature of online content and the importance of ethical communication in the digital age. It has reignited a crucial conversation about fairness, accountability, and the power of social media to shape public perception. The incident also serves as a reminder to those in positions of power and influence to consider the impact of their words and actions, as they can have far-reaching and long-lasting consequences.
