A recent incident in Mumbai has sparked controversy and raised concerns over online harassment and derogatory comments. Shruti Parija, a woman from Mumbai, sought police intervention after a user named Prateek Aaryan made a derogatory reference to her dance video, associating it with a brothel. Despite Shruti’s repeated requests, Prateek refused to take down the video. This article explores the details of the incident, highlighting Shruti’s efforts to protect her reputation and the response from the Mumbai police.
The Controversy Erupts:
The controversy unfolded when Prateek Aaryan posted a video of Shruti Parija dancing at a college fest. In the comments section, a user made a derogatory reference to her performance, using the term “kotha,” which is associated with brothels. Shruti Parija, deeply affected by the comment, reached out to Prateek Aaryan, requesting him to remove the video. However, her requests were met with refusal, leading her to seek assistance from the Mumbai police.
Cultural Programs in Educational Institutions:
Indian schools and colleges are renowned for organizing cultural programs that celebrate traditional and regional cultures. However, Prateek Aaryan expressed concerns about the nature of these events in a post on social media. He criticized the prevalence of performances on item songs, questioning the cultural integrity of such programs. While he did not specifically target Shruti Parija, his comments sparked a broader debate about the state of cultural events in educational institutions.
Shruti Parija’s Response:
Shruti Parija, recognizing herself as the girl in the video, responded to Prateek Aaryan’s post. She clarified that she was not a student at the college but a professional performer who had been invited to judge the event. Shruti requested that Prateek remove the video, highlighting that associating her performance with a brothel was defamatory and damaging to her reputation. She emphasized that while everyone has the right to voice their opinions, it should not come at the expense of defaming others.
Prateek Aaryan’s Explanation:
In response to Shruti’s plea, Prateek Aaryan clarified that his comments were directed towards Indian schools and colleges in general, and he did not intend to target Shruti personally. He stated that he intended to criticize the cultural programs that prioritize item songs over traditional performances. Prateek emphasized that he had not engaged in slut-shaming or any form of personal abuse. He urged Shruti to revisit his original statement and consider if he had said anything wrong about her.
Involvement of Mumbai Police:
Feeling helpless in her attempts to resolve the issue, Shruti Parija tagged the Mumbai Police, seeking their assistance. She explained that she had made countless requests to Prateek Aaryan to remove the video, but he had refused and even resorted to blackmail. The Mumbai Police responded promptly, requesting Shruti’s contact details to address the matter directly.
Ongoing Concerns and Copyright Claim:
Shruti Parija provided an update on the situation, stating that she had successfully disabled the media within Prateek Aaryan’s post through a copyright claim. However, she acknowledged that the video might still be accessible in certain areas. The incident sheds light on the challenges of ensuring the removal of online content and the potential lasting impact it can have on individuals.
Conclusion:
The incident involving Shruti Parija and Prateek Aaryan’s derogatory comment on her dance video highlights the urgent need to address online harassment and maintain respectful behaviour in digital spaces. It emphasizes the importance of taking action against individuals who engage in defamatory or offensive behaviour. The response from the Mumbai police signifies the significance of their role in handling such incidents and providing support to those affected. As the case progresses, it is essential to continue raising awareness about online safety and fostering a culture of respect and empathy.
-Prisha Jaiswal