A group of school children from a gurukul in Uttar Pradesh’s Shahjahanpur district have expressed disappointment after comedian-actor Rajpal Yadav did not meet or respond to them following his release from jail — despite their earlier gesture of financial support during his incarceration.

The episode has come to light after a 29-second video featuring nearly 40 students from Gurukul Seva Trust went viral on social media. In the clip, the children address the actor directly, congratulating him on his release and asking why he had not acknowledged the help they had sent.

According to school authorities, the students had collectively gathered money from their pocket expenses as a symbolic show of solidarity when Yadav was in jail. The children filled a piggy bank with their savings and, along with an emotional handwritten letter, posted it to the actor’s ancestral village address in Kundra on February 21.

Kumar Sagar, chairman of the Gurukul Seva Trust school, told PTI that the amount was collected voluntarily by the students, with some additional contribution added before dispatch. The gesture, he said, was entirely initiated by the children, who wanted to stand by someone they admired during a difficult phase.

In the widely circulated video, the students can be heard saying, “Namaste Rajpal bhaiya, we have learnt that you have returned home after being released from jail. Congratulations to you. We all want to meet you and know whether you received the help we sent. If you did, why did you not respond to our letter? We are upset with you.”

The children further added that even if a personal meeting was not possible, the actor could have at least spoken to them over the phone. Their appeal has struck a chord online, with many social media users praising their compassion while urging the actor to respond.

Speaking to PTI over the phone, Yadav said he had only recently returned home and had not yet been able to properly spend time with his family members. He added that he was currently in the process of gathering details about individuals and groups who had extended support to him during his legal troubles.

Addressing the children’s request, Yadav initially said he had been informed they were from an orphanage. “As far as meeting the children is concerned, I was told they were from an orphanage. In my view, if children have an ashram, they are not orphans,” he remarked.

When informed that the students were from a gurukul school and not an orphanage, the actor clarified his position. Emphasising his respect for the traditional guru-shishya system, he said, “I am a person who believes in the guru tradition, and all those children are my own. I will definitely meet them, hug them and take photographs with them.”

Yadav, known for his comic performances in Hindi cinema, was reportedly jailed after failing to repay a Rs 5 crore loan taken in 2010 from Murli Projects Private Limited for his film Ata Pata Lapata. Following legal proceedings over the unpaid amount, he was sent to jail. It was during this period that the students decided to send their savings as a token of encouragement and moral support.

Hailing from Shahjahanpur in Uttar Pradesh, Yadav has built a career as a popular character actor in Bollywood, often remembered for his comedic timing and memorable supporting roles. For the children at Gurukul Seva Trust, their act of kindness was rooted in admiration and empathy.

While the actor has now assured that he intends to meet them, the children’s viral video underscores the emotional significance of their gesture. For them, the issue is not the money they sent, but the hope for acknowledgement from someone they looked up to.

As of now, the promised meeting is still awaited, and many are watching to see whether the actor will soon turn his assurance into action.

Actor Taapsee Pannu, who was recently seen in Assi, has addressed the controversy surrounding her earlier remarks about how female actors are visually portrayed in Indian cinema. Speaking in a recent interview with Galatta Plus, the actress clarified that her comments were widely misinterpreted and reduced to a simplistic comparison between industries, when her intention was to highlight a deeper issue — the persistent male gaze shaping how women are presented on screen.

Taapsee explained that during a previous podcast appearance, she was asked about the long-standing perception that South Indian cinema tends to focus on the midriff while Hindi films highlight cleavage. Her response, she said, was never meant to create a division between industries or body parts. Instead, she intended to point out that there exists a broader, cross-industry fixation on showcasing women in ways designed to appeal visually, often dictated by commercial expectations rather than storytelling needs.

According to the actress, the real conversation should not revolve around whether one industry focuses on a particular physical feature over another. “Which part of yours is highlighted is not the point,” she noted, emphasizing that the larger issue is the underlying obsession itself. In her view, this fixation transcends regional cinema and reflects a systemic pattern in mainstream filmmaking where women’s bodies are frequently framed to cater to visual appeal.

She also spoke candidly about the discomfort that sometimes accompanies such portrayals on film sets. Taapsee described how these situations can become awkward, especially when discussions about costumes or visual presentation are handled in environments where there are few women present. Directors, she observed, are often required to communicate such creative choices indirectly, leading to an unspoken but evident pressure to conform to aesthetic expectations.

Reflecting on her early years in the industry, Taapsee acknowledged that she participated in such roles because she was new and believed it was part of the process of becoming a mainstream actress. She pointed out that in commercial cinema, certain roles or visual presentations are often seen as stepping stones toward wider acceptance and visibility. At the time, she felt that since many leading actresses were doing similar roles, it was expected of her too.

Importantly, Taapsee made it clear that she does not look back on those choices with regret. She explained that declining such opportunities might have left her wondering about missed possibilities. In an industry where mainstream success is frequently associated with specific kinds of roles, she noted that opting out entirely can make it difficult for an actor to gain that label.

Ultimately, Taapsee’s clarification shifts the focus from a regional debate to a more universal conversation about representation and agency. Rather than isolating one industry over another, she underscores the need to acknowledge how deeply ingrained visual expectations shape female characters across Indian cinema. Her remarks invite a broader reflection on evolving narratives and the gradual shift toward more nuanced portrayals of women on screen.