Urvashi Rautela Clarifies Temple Comment After Backlash: “Never Claimed It Was My Temple”:

Urvashi Rautela was, and still is, in the spotlight due to her controversy involving an interview where she stated a temple adjacent to Badrinath was built after her. This spurred outrage from locals and religious leaders who deemed the statement downright oppressive and shocking.

Push-Back From Religious Circles

Some members of the community did not take things lying down. Among them was Bhuwan Chandra Uniyal, Badrinath Dham's religious official. He claimed the actress has no attachment to the enduring temple in question as, it's an ancient shrine dedicated to Goddess Sati, one of the 108 Shaktipeeths. In his statement he added that there is no relation between the actress and the temple “for her assertion is nowhere near the truth.”

Urvashi’s Team Responds with Official Statement

Controversial statements have always resonated with speed, hence, Urvashi Rautela's team sought to control things on the very next day on 19th of April via Instagram. In their explanation they claim that the claim we’ve made on the temple is being taken out of context where hence she possesses no temple, neither does any form of worship done to her.

The group released the following statement:

“Urvashi Rautela does not in any way claim a temple which exists in Uttarakhand as her temple. She mentioned it as a ‘temple in her name’, not ‘Urvashi Rautela’s temple.’ She does not mishear or misinterpret, as people seem to make her out to do. One, simply listen to the video before coming up to conclusions.”

They noted how legal action for misrepresentation could also be pursued against the so-called disseminators of misinformation.

‘Damdami Mai’ Comment Sparks Further Reactions

In the same breath, Urvashi added in her interaction with Sidharth Kanan that she has, to her knowledge, been called ‘Damdami Mai’ by students of Delhi University, a blurb she described as perched on some collection of student folk tales. She backed her claim with an article from some journal of sorts.

Her statement, “(the temple) should be there. Since I’ve worked in South India,” is allegedly under interrogation for sounding presumptive, particularly in context of religion.

Disputes portray lack of Culture Communication and Sensitivity Understanding Offensiveness

As the dispute illustrates, care is required for all forms of mentioning and referring to sensitive matters of religion. Even with so much backlash, Urvashi Rautela still stands her ground when stating she does not perceive any form of disrespect to the uttered words, however this situation serves as a striking example of in-voluntary response in when traditions or monuments treated with public tenderness and dis-surrounded with the idea of heritage.