Delhi | 25°C (windy)

The Unseen Undercurrent: How a Gesture to Amitabh Bachchan Ignited a Firestorm for Diljit Dosanjh

  • Nishadil
  • October 29, 2025
  • 0 Comments
  • 2 minutes read
  • 3 Views
The Unseen Undercurrent: How a Gesture to Amitabh Bachchan Ignited a Firestorm for Diljit Dosanjh

Honestly, you could say that for public figures, every single move, every gesture, is scrutinized, sometimes even weaponized. And in the complex, often fraught, landscape of Indian celebrity and politics, Punjabi superstar Diljit Dosanjh has just found himself—rather unexpectedly, one might argue—at the very heart of a swirling controversy. It wasn’t a new song or a film announcement that put him there, no, it was a seemingly innocuous moment involving the legendary Amitabh Bachchan.

Reports, or perhaps more accurately, whispers, began to circulate that Dosanjh had, in a show of respect, touched Amitabh Bachchan’s feet at some public gathering. A simple gesture, right? A common act of reverence in Indian culture towards an elder, a towering figure. But in this instance, it wasn't simple at all. Far from it, in truth.

Almost immediately, this alleged action drew the sharp, unforgiving ire of a pro-Khalistan group, specifically ‘Sikhs for Justice’ (SFJ). Their warning to Dosanjh was stark, bordering on a thinly veiled threat, a chilling reminder that history, particularly painful history, is never truly forgotten. The reason? Amitabh Bachchan’s purported role and alleged rhetoric during the horrific 1984 anti-Sikh riots, a dark chapter etched into the collective memory of the Sikh community.

For context, the SFJ, an organization advocating for an independent Sikh state of Khalistan, has long accused Bachchan of inciting violence during those riots. They point to a specific, deeply damaging phrase—a chilling call for “blood for blood”—which they attribute to Bachchan, claiming he uttered it following the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Whether Bachchan actually made such a statement has been a point of contention and debate for decades, a scar that refuses to heal, but for many, the perception is enough.

So, when images, or rather the idea of Dosanjh bowing before Bachchan emerged, it was seen as a profound betrayal, a desecration of the memory of those lost in 1984. Diljit, to his credit, was quick to address the storm. He didn’t back down, not entirely. He shared a video, showing what actually transpired: a respectful greeting, yes, with folded hands, but crucially, no touching of feet. A small but significant distinction in the eyes of his community, perhaps.

And he didn’t stop there. He thoughtfully, yet firmly, reminded everyone of his steadfast support for the farmers during the recent, monumental protests against agricultural laws—a period when Bachchan and many other Bollywood personalities were criticized for their perceived silence or alignment with the government. It was, you could say, a strategic and deeply human move: a way to implicitly highlight his own consistent solidarity with his community’s causes, even as he navigated this fresh wave of accusations.

What this episode truly underscores is the immense pressure public figures like Dosanjh face. They are, for all intents and purposes, cultural ambassadors, expected to uphold certain values, to remember historical injustices, and to navigate treacherous political waters—all while living under an almost microscopic level of public scrutiny. This isn't just about an alleged gesture; it’s about the enduring weight of history, the unresolved pain of past atrocities, and the perilous tightrope walk of celebrity in a deeply polarized world. The shadows of 1984, it seems, continue to lengthen and complicate the present, even for a simple, respectful greeting.

Disclaimer: This article was generated in part using artificial intelligence and may contain errors or omissions. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. We makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Readers are advised to verify the information independently before relying on