Haryana, India – India’s most recognisable yoga guru, Baba Ramdev, has once again sparked controversy–this time by coining the phrase “Sharbat Jihad” in a video that critics say weaponises religious identity to promote his business empire, Patanjali Ayurved. 

The video was posted earlier this month on the official Facebook page of Patanjali Products. In it Ramdev urges Hindus to boycott a competing beverage, implicitly referencing the popular syrup Rooh Afza, produced by Hamdard, the Ghaziabad based food company. He accuses the rival brand of funelling profits into mosques and Islamic educational institutions. 

“If you drink that sharbat, there will be masjids and madrasas made. But if you drink Patanjali’s gulab sharbat, then gurukuls (traditional Hindu schools), Acharyakulam Patanjali University, and the Bharatiya Shiksha Board will be built,” Ramdev claims in the viral clip, which has garnered over 37 million views.

Framing the issue as part of a broader cultural and economic struggle, Ramdev has likened the consumption of rival soft drink brands to what he terms “sharbat jihad.” 

He places this phrase alongside other politically charged terms such as “Love Jihad” – a controversial narrative promoted by some Hindu nationalist groups, alleging that Muslim men deliberately target Hindu women for conversion through marriage – and “Vote Jihad,” a phrase recently invoked by political figures like Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in 2024 to suggest that Muslim communities vote strategically to undermine Hindu nationalist parties like the BJP.

The statement, both provocative and polarising, was shared with a caption warning viewers to “protect your family and innocent children from the poison of toilet cleaner being sold under the name of ‘sharbat jihad’ and cold drinks.”

On April 18, Baba Ramdev defended his “sharbat jihad” remark, clarifying that he hadn’t named any particular brand. 

But at the heart of the controversy lies Rooh Afza, a rosy-hued drink that’s been a staple during Ramadan iftar meals across South Asia for over a century.

“If they see themselves in it, then maybe they are doing it,” Ramdev said.

The syrup was created in 1906 by Hakim Hafiz Abdul Majeed, from a blend of herbs, fruits, flowers, and roots, and is typically mixed with cold water or milk to make a sweet, refreshing drink — especially during the summer months. Outside of Ramadan, it remains a popular choice for cooling down, and for many, the drink carries cultural, not religious, significance.

The implications are troubling. “This isn’t just about sharbat,” Delhi based cultural commentator Nadeem Khan, told TRT World. “It’s about reducing every aspect of public life: what you eat, who you marry, who you vote for into a religious binary. That’s not a recipe for national unity. That’s a formula for social fragmentation.”

In an important legal development, the Delhi High Court recently took note of Ramdev’s “sharbat jihad” remark, issuing notice in a plea by Hamdard Laboratories, which said such communal references damaged the brand’s secular image and business. The court has asked for Patanjali’s response.

Commercial crusade or cultural commentary?

What appears on the surface as a product endorsement swiftly unravels into a deeper and more troubling commentary on how religious identity is being leveraged in India for commercial and political gains. 

Ramdev’s remarks are not an isolated incident but part of a recurring pattern where religion is increasingly being woven into consumer choices and economic participation.

The use of terminology like ‘sharbat jihad’ in advertising raises questions about the ethical boundaries of product promotion in India’s deeply diverse society. Critics have condemned the remark as inflammatory and irresponsible, pointing out the potential for such rhetoric to incite communal hatred.

“His business is slowing down, that’s why he has launched a new product,” Aakash Khan, one user commented beneath the video. Another wrote, “Which direction is the country moving in? Lala ji comes up with Sharbat Jihaad now.”

Others were more scathing: “Fake, uneducated baba will make you fool. Be careful. His products have no food standards. Sell your products on quality standards, not on the basis of religion,” a user wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

The irony of halal certification

Ramdev’s attempt to cast his competitors as beneficiaries of religious bias has also opened up scrutiny of Patanjali’s own business practices. 

In 2020, Patanjali received a halal certification from Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind to export products to Gulf countries, an essential step for accessing the multi-billion-dollar Middle Eastern market.

This revelation has fuelled accusations of hypocrisy.

“If your company has received halal certification to sell abroad, how can you criticise others for doing the same here?” questioned a user on social media.

The contradiction underscores a familiar pattern where religious identity is weaponised within the domestic market for populist appeal while being set aside in pursuit of international profits.

Regulatory silence and public accountability

What is perhaps even more concerning is the silence of regulatory bodies like the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI).

Neither has issued a formal statement or initiated an inquiry into the ethical implications of Ramdev’s “sharbat jihad” campaign, despite widespread outrage.

“This isn’t just about hurting sentiments, it’s about using unverified claims to mislead consumers and fuel economic and communal divisions,” said a media ethics professor at Jamia Millia Islamia, requesting anonymity over fears that Ramdev’s close ties with the BJP government in India could lead to repercussions. “The inaction from regulatory bodies reflects a troubling tolerance for communal marketing. It goes against advertising ethics and risks deepening religious sensitivities, particularly among Muslims.”

Legal experts echo the concern. “India has advertising regulations that prohibit misleading claims and communal content,” advocate Vinod Mehra told TRT World. “But enforcement has always been selective, particularly when the offender enjoys political or cultural clout.”

This is not the only time Patanjali has faced legal trouble. In March 2024, the Supreme Court was told that the company was forced to stop the sale of 14 products after their manufacturing licenses were suspended. The court also pulled up Ramdev and his company for misleading advertisements. 

In February 2025, a judicial magistrate in Kerala issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna, the co-founder of Patanjali, in a separate case involving allegedly misleading medical advertisements. Yet, the yoga guru continues to operate with considerable impunity.

Public health or public posturing?

Apart from its communal undertones, Ramdev’s message also paints competitors’ products as physically dangerous. Repeatedly referring to popular soft drinks as “toilet cleaners” while suggesting that Patanjali’s beverages are the only safe and spiritual choice.

However, public health experts say such claims are not backed by science. “This kind of messaging can mislead consumers into thinking that non-Patanjali drinks are literally toxic,” a prominent dietician and food policy researcher, who requested anonymity citing concerns over professional backlash, told TRT World. “It’s dangerous fear-mongering.”

Even some Patanjali customers were unimpressed. “Instead of focusing on communal angles, improve your product quality,” read a comment under the video. 

Others asked for transparency, demanding Patanjali reveal how many gurukuls and universities it has actually established with beverage profits.

Religious identity as market strategy

Ramdev, who has long blended yoga with Hindu nationalist rhetoric, appears to be tapping into the anxieties of a section of India’s population that feels culturally threatened. 

In recent weeks, he has also supported the Waqf (Amendment) Act, describing it as a step toward “one law for all religions.” At a public event, he claimed that Muslims should accept Ram as their ancestor too.

“Ram is our nation, religion, culture, our basic nature, dignity,” he said.

Such statements, critics argue, push India further from its secular constitutional ideals. “The more public figures like Ramdev normalise this language, the harder it becomes to have rational, inclusive conversations about our shared national identity,” activist Sara Ansari of Citizens for Secular India told TRT World.

Several other Muslim organisations across the country also condemned Baba Ramdev's remarks, accusing him of promoting communal hatred under the guise of marketing. They urged law enforcement agencies and advertising regulators to take immediate action against him, stating that such statements not only hurt religious sentiments but also violate advertising ethics.

The “sharbat jihad” controversy is more than just a tempest in a teacup or a sharbat bottle. It reveals how deeply entrenched communal narratives have become in India’s commercial and cultural imagination. It raises serious questions about consumer ethics, religious freedom, and the role of state institutions in maintaining secular accountability.