Have former members or insiders accused Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of sexual harassment or abuse, and what evidence has been presented?

1. What the reporting actually documents about accusations and protests

Two contemporaneous items describe student protests that coincided with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s campus visits but make clear the demonstrations were about an unrelated sexual-harassment complaint against a medical college head of department, not allegations against Sri Sri himself: Hindustan Times reported students protesting alleged inaction over a complaint against a HoD while Sri Sri attended events ^[1], and Medical Dialogues likewise framed the disturbance as opposition to college authorities for not registering an FIR against the accused professor during Sri Sri’s address ^[2].

2. What the sources say about sexual-misconduct allegations in the guru milieu

Several pieces place Sri Sri within a broader context in which Indian spiritual leaders have faced allegations ranging from sexual abuse to land grabs, and where critics warn of the vulnerabilities that allow abuses to go unexamined; these are analytical or comparative critiques rather than allegations against Sri Sri personally ^{[6] [5] [7]}. India Legal and Scroll contextualize a pattern of controversies surrounding "gurus and godmen," noting accusations against multiple figures but not supplying former-member testimony that implicates Sri Sri ^{[7] [5]}.

3. Sri Sri’s own public stance and the absence of insider accusations in these reports

In the sampled reporting Sri Sri is shown publicly condemning particular accused figures—he criticized Asaram Bapu and urged public accountability for leaders who err ^{[3] [4]}—and speaking on social issues like violence against women ^[8]. None of the sources provided include whistleblower statements, anonymous former-disciple allegations, internal complaints, or legal filings accusing Sri Sri of sexual harassment or abuse; the available evidence in these reports is therefore absence of documented insider accusations rather than affirmative exoneration ^{[3] [4] [8]}.

4. What evidence would be needed and what the current sources lack

Robust evidence of insider accusations would appear as named or anonymized former-member interviews, internal complaint documents, FIRs or police reports, court filings, or investigative reporting that cites witnesses and documentary records; the present set of sources supplies none of those items concerning Sri Sri specifically and therefore cannot substantiate a claim that former members or insiders have accused him of sexual harassment or abuse ^{[1] [2] [6] [5]}. Because the reporting does show protests and critics linking guru culture to abuses generally, it is possible other outlets exist with different materials, but those are not in the provided corpus ^{[6] [5]}.

5. Competing narratives, motives, and implicit agendas in the coverage

The sources demonstrate competing framings: some journalists and commentators treat controversies around spiritual leaders as systemic problems requiring scrutiny ^{[5] [7]}, while Sri Sri’s own media interactions emphasize clarification and moral leadership, including distancing himself from other accused gurus ^{[9] [4]}. Protests reported during his visits reflect local grievance politics (a college’s handling of a harassment complaint) rather than necessarily being an indictment of Sri Sri, and commentators warning about “the Sri Sri syndrome” may have editorial motives to critique charismatic authority ^{[1] [5] [7]}.

6. Bottom line and limits of the record

Based on the provided reporting, there are no documented accusations from former members or insiders specifically alleging sexual harassment or sexual abuse by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and no evidentiary records presented in these sources to support such a claim; the materials instead document protests about others, general critiques of guru culture, and Sri Sri’s public statements about other accused figures ^{[1] [2] [6] [5] [3] [4]}. This assessment is limited to the supplied sources; it does not assert that allegations do not exist elsewhere beyond the reviewed reporting.