By Kavita Mistry 
Former Bollywood actor turned spiritual leader Mamta Kulkarni found herself engulfed in fresh controversy this week after publicly declaring that underworld figure Dawood Ibrahim Kaleem Omar Khan “did not carry out the Mumbai blasts and is not a terrorist.” The remark, made during her spiritual tour in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, immediately provoked outrage given Dawood’s designation as a global terrorist and alleged involvement in the 1993 Mumbai bombings.
Kulkarni’s statement, which appeared during a press conference as part of her three-day spiritual itinerary, spread rapidly on social media and in entertainment & news circles. Her exact words questioned widely accepted accounts of Dawood’s role in terrorism, suggesting he did not orchestrate the blasts. The backlash was swift: critics called the comments irresponsible, inflammatory and insensitive towards the victims of the attacks.
Facing mounting criticism, Kulkarni attempted to clarify her remarks within days. She asserted that she had been referring to alleged drug lord Vicky Goswami and not Dawood–a claim many observers described as a belated and awkward retreat. “I was misunderstood… I meant Vicky Goswami,” she stated, adding, “Dawood is indeed a terrorist.”
In her clarification, she emphasised that she had no connection with politics, films or anti-national elements. She said she is “completely devoted to spirituality” and asserted her commitment to Sanatan Dharma. Her attempt to reassure the public of her nationalist credentials did little to quell concerns raised about her original statement.
Why the controversy matters
The uproar over Kulkarni’s remarks is about far more than a verbal slip-up. It touches deeper sensitivities around terrorism, public memory and celebrity influence. Dawood Ibrahim is listed by India, the United States and other countries as a designated terrorist facing allegations of masterminding the 1993 Bombay blasts that killed hundreds of people. In this context, any suggestion that he lacked responsibility or terrorist status challenges established legal and historical narratives.
The incident also highlights how public figures must navigate the boundaries of commentary on national security-related matters. As an actress-turned-sanyasi with spiritual branding, Kulkarni’s remarks carry weight beyond personal opinion—they influence perception. The fact that she attempted to walk back the comment by blaming “mis-reference to Vicky Goswami” raises questions about accountability, accuracy and the consequences of public speech.
The timing and backdrop of Mamta Kulkarni
Mamta Kulkarni’s comments came while she was on a spiritual tour in Gorakhpur, a city known for its religious centres and as a hub of spiritual media coverage. During her visit, she paid homage at the Gorakhnath Temple and recounted her transformation under Nath sect guru Gagan Giri Maharaj. Her transition from mainstream Bollywood actress in the 1990s into the spiritual domain was already the subject of public fascination. The latest incident adds an unexpected firestorm.
Some analysts point to the impact of social-media amplification: the remarks were shared widely with minimal context, and the swift online reaction left little room for nuance. Others emphasise that public figures must be especially cautious when addressing issues of terror, culpability and extremism—misstatements can rapidly fuel misinformation or controversy.
What’s next
At this stage, no legal proceedings appear to have been initiated against Kulkarni for her statement. However, there is growing discussion among commentators and legal experts about possible defamation or national security implications of her remark. The fact-check-and-retraction dynamic may itself be under scrutiny: undoing a public statement rarely erases its impact.
For Mamta Kulkarni’s spiritual career, the controversy represents a test of credibility. Her attempt to disentangle herself from film-industry and political associations, and to reaffirm her devotion to spirituality, may come across as genuine religious commitment—or as damage control in the face of media backlash.
More broadly, this episode could set precedents in how celebrity statements on terrorism are monitored and discussed. As society becomes more sensitive to false or provocative claims about security events, the institutional response—media, legal, social—may grow stricter.
In the end, Mamta Kulkarni’s sudden claim and subsequent reversal reveal the volatile intersection of celebrity, memory and national trauma. Whether her clarification will settle the matter or just deepen suspicion remains to be seen. But for now, the controversy underscores how quickly a single phrase—uttered in the wrong context—can trigger a flood of public and institutional reaction.