Ranvir Shorey Calls Swara Bhasker’s Padmaavat Jauhar Remarks ‘Utterly Shameless’

Ranvir Shorey has strongly criticised Swara Bhasker over her renewed objections to the jauhar sequence in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s 2018 film Padmaavat. Responding through his verified X account on September 3, 2026, Shorey questioned the connection Bhasker drew between the sequence and the experiences of rape survivors before describing her argument as “utterly shameless.”

His post is the latest response to comments Bhasker made at the India International Centre in New Delhi on August 31. During the Woman | Life | Freedom conversation, she revisited the open letter she had written to Bhansali after Padmaavat was released eight years ago.

The present controversy is therefore not simply an old clip returning online. Bhasker restated and explained her 2018 criticism at a new public event, following which excerpts circulated on social media and drew fresh reactions.

What Ranvir Shorey said about Swara Bhasker’s argument

In his post on X, Shorey objected to comparing the film’s depiction of jauhar with the choices and experiences of rape survivors. “Where’s the connection?” he asked.

Shorey argued that the two involved completely different circumstances. He further alleged that Bhasker’s interpretation was intended to malign one community while protecting another. He offered no evidence establishing such an intention, making that portion of his post an accusation rather than a confirmed fact.

His response did not engage directly with Bhasker’s clarification that she was criticising the contemporary message she drew from the film’s staging, not condemning the historical women represented in the sequence.

What Swara Bhasker actually said

At the officially listed India International Centre event, Bhasker recalled watching the climactic sequence in which Rani Padmavati and other women enter a fire rather than face capture.

She explained that the scene made her consider how a survivor of sexual violence might interpret its association between death, bravery and honour. Her central question was whether such imagery could leave a survivor feeling that choosing to remain alive was somehow cowardly.

After edited clips of the discussion circulated, Bhasker said her remarks had been mistranslated or misrepresented. She specifically denied calling Rani Padmavati or the women depicted performing jauhar cowards.

Her argument was about the possible message communicated to present-day survivors. On September 1, she reiterated through her verified X account that “rape survivors have the right to life” after sexual violence.

This distinction is essential: Bhasker said a survivor could be made to feel cowardly by the film’s presentation. She did not say the historical women shown in the sequence were cowards.

The criticism began with a 2018 open letter

Bhasker first articulated her objections in a January 2018 open letter published by The Wire. Addressed to Bhansali, the letter criticised what she considered the glorification of jauhar and sati in the film.

The letter acknowledged Bhansali’s right to tell the story and praised parts of the production, but argued that women should not be reduced to questions of sexual purity or honour. Its most widely circulated phrase Bhasker saying she felt reduced to a “vagina” overshadowed much of her broader argument about women’s autonomy and their right to survive sexual violence.

At the August 31 event, she said she had waited several days after watching Padmaavat before writing the letter, indicating that the criticism was not an immediate social-media reaction.

Padmaavat writer Prakash Kapadia defends the scene

Prakash Kapadia, who co-wrote Padmaavat with Bhansali, has also responded to the renewed discussion. In an interview with Hindustan Times, Kapadia said the filmmakers followed their research and sought to depict what they understood to be the reality of that period.

He described the situation presented in the film as one of “do or die” and maintained that individual viewers could interpret the sequence differently.

Kapadia’s defence and Bhasker’s criticism address two related but distinct questions. Kapadia is defending the inclusion of jauhar within the story’s historical setting. Bhasker is questioning how the sequence was cinematically framed and what that framing may communicate to a modern audience.

Showing a historical or literary event and debating the emotional meaning created by its presentation are not mutually exclusive positions.

The film’s literary and cinematic context

Directed by Bhansali and starring Deepika Padukone, Shahid Kapoor and Ranveer Singh, Padmaavat was released in January 2018 after months of protests and legal controversy.

The film was presented as an adaptation of Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s epic poem Padmavat, rather than a documentary account of verifiable history. Its official trailer and promotional material framed Padmavati’s actions through ideas of courage, sacrifice and Rajput honour.

That framing is central to the disagreement. Shorey and Kapadia view the climax primarily within the violent circumstances depicted in the narrative. Bhasker evaluates the same images through their possible effect on contemporary ideas about sexual violence, survival and honour.

Ranvir Shorey and Swara Bhasker previously worked together

An overlooked detail is that the two actors have previously shared the screen. Shorey and Bhasker appeared together in Anusha Bose’s short film Shame, which explored class hierarchy, personal dignity and retaliation inside a luxury hotel.

Their present disagreement is a public dispute over the interpretation of another film rather than a newly disclosed personal or professional conflict. Neither actor’s post established that the disagreement extends beyond the subject being debated.

The Celebrity Hour Take

The controversy is being reduced online to a simpler and less accurate claim that Swara Bhasker called Rani Padmavati cowardly. Her clarification and original argument do not support that description.

The actual disagreement concerns two levels of interpretation. One side considers the climax within the extreme circumstances faced by the women in the story. The other asks whether the film’s visual treatment risks presenting death as more honourable than survival.

Ranvir Shorey is entitled to reject Bhasker’s interpretation, but his allegation about her intention cannot be treated as established fact. Equally, Bhasker’s reading is a critique of the film’s message, not proof that every viewer will receive the sequence in the same way.

Preserving those distinctions produces a more useful discussion than turning a sensitive debate about history, cinema and survivors into a binary celebrity feud.

Sources & Verification

This report was prepared using Ranvir Shorey’s verified X post, Swara Bhasker’s verified response, the India International Centre’s official event listing, Bhasker’s original 2018 open letter, Padmaavat’s official promotional material and attributed interviews with co-writer Prakash Kapadia. The article distinguishes each participant’s interpretation from independently established facts and does not rely on anonymous social-media reactions.