Public anger erupted online after a Delhi-based designer, identified by social media users as Shobhita Sachdeva, allegedly linked the recent Delhi blast near the Red Fort to a “false flag” operation.
The comment, “Diverting attention by killing people is the lowest of the low; this will not be forgotten”, went viral on X (formerly Twitter) after user @Vikspeaks1 shared a screenshot of her post, tagging Zomato and demanding a response from the food delivery company.
Sachdeva’s Behance profile lists her as a “Senior Designer – Zomato,” though Zomato has not issued any official statement confirming or denying her current employment status.
https://twiiter.com/AadiAchint/status/1988273794793042154?s=20
The post comes amid the backdrop of Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs confirming the blast as a terrorist attack, with forensic teams dispatched and an FIR filed under anti-terror provisions.
Several citizens and influencers criticised the remark for trivialising a national tragedy and implying conspiracy theories without evidence. It seems like “a continuation of corporate arrogance,” like Zomato’s earlier controversies involving bias and privacy breaches.
National outrage and corporate accountability
Social media erupted with hashtags like #BoycottZomato, calling on the company to clarify its position. Many users argued that a brand operating in India cannot afford to stay silent when employees appear to politicise terror incidents.
The anger stems from a deeper sentiment: that multinational corporations operating in India must demonstrate respect for national integrity. “If a designer working for an Indian company can publicly dismiss a confirmed terror attack as a false flag, what does that say about internal culture?”.
It can be argued that Indian firms should act swiftly in such cases, either confirming that the individual no longer represents the company or taking disciplinary action where necessary.
Zomato’s past controversies resurface
This isn’t the first time Zomato has faced criticism over perceived bias and selective activism. In 2019, when a customer refused food delivery from a driver belonging to a particular community, the company responded with the now-famous tweet, “Food doesn’t have a religion.”
While the post drew praise from some quarters, others accused Zomato of breaching customer privacy by publicly identifying users and showing bias in favour of one side. Commentators like Abhijit Iyer-Mitra had then pointed out the “dangerous precedent” that such selective disclosures set.
That context has now resurfaced, as users see a pattern of inconsistency, harsh on ordinary citizens, but silent when its own employees appear to make anti-national remarks.
Weaponising tragedy for ideology
What makes the latest episode particularly concerning is the timing. The Delhi blast has been confirmed as a terrorist act targeting civilians, a moment of national mourning and resolve. To use that tragedy for political commentary or conspiracy is seen by many as an attempt to divide public opinion and dilute seriousness around terror threats.
The outrage reflects not just anger at one individual, but growing frustration with corporate insensitivity toward national emotions. When brands benefit from Indian markets and identity, citizens expect them to uphold certain moral and cultural boundaries.
“If you earn from India, you must stand with India.”
Accountability and responsibility
As of now, Zomato has issued no public clarification on the matter, though calls for an official statement have intensified. The issue goes beyond one post; it highlights a larger question of corporate accountability in an age where personal expression online can influence public perception of national issues.
For Indian companies, neutrality cannot mean silence. It must mean clarity that the right to free speech does not extend to undermining the nation’s unity or trivialising terror attacks.
Whether Zomato chooses to respond or stay quiet, the controversy has already reignited debates about where Indian brands stand when national integrity and free expression collide.
