By Mohamed Atherulla Shariff
The Eiffel Tower is among the world’s most recognisable symbols of Paris, and, by extension, of modernity, openness and equality. That is precisely why the controversy surrounding the recent visit of Mahant Swami Maharaj, spiritual leader of the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), deserves serious scrutiny.
On September 5, a BAPS delegation of around 100 people visited the Eiffel Tower during events connected with the inauguration of the organisation’s new Hindu temple in busy-Saint-Georges Paris. According to Eiffel Tower employees and union representatives, female staff was instructed to leave their workstations, withdraw to other areas or avoid certain zones while the delegation was present. In some places, women were reportedly replaced by male colleagues.
The controversy became so serious that Eiffel Tower employees staged a walkout on September 7, forcing the monument to close temporarily. The landmark reopened on September 8 following discussions between staff and management.
The episode has raised a fundamental question that should concern democrats, feminists and religious communities alike: Can the religious preferences of a visiting spiritual leader justify making women invisible in their own workplace?
The reported request to limit interactions with women has been attributed to the visiting BAPS delegation. The Eiffel Tower’s operating company, SETE, subsequently acknowledged that the delegation had requested that the visit be organised to limit ‘interactions with women’ and admitted that such conditions should not have been accepted. The women were employees, not religious participants. This is the central issue. The women affected were not attempting to enter a religious ceremony. They were not challenging the swami’s beliefs. They were not demanding interaction with him. They were employees doing their jobs.
According to the employees’ own account, some were asked to leave their posts and others were instructed not to enter or cross particular areas while the delegation was present. Workers described themselves as having been ‘side-lined, replaced and made invisible because of their sex’. That cannot be acceptable in any democratic workplace.
Religious Freedom has Limits
If Mahant Swami Maharaj, as a Hindu monk, follows a tradition requiring separation from women, that is a matter of his religious practice. Again the question arises whether it is his personal belief or it is new version of Hinduism?
But still it does not automatically give that believer the authority to reorganise the lives and workplaces of people who do not share those religious restrictions.
A religious visitor can choose not to speak to a woman. He can choose not to shake hands with a woman. He can maintain whatever personal religious distance his tradition requires. But the woman working nearby should not have to leave her job station because of that choice. The person observing the religious restriction should bear the responsibility for observing it.
The Failure of Eiffel Tower Management
The controversy also exposes a serious failure on the part of the Eiffel Tower’s management. SETE has effectively acknowledged this itself. The company said the delegation requested arrangements limiting interactions with women and that “these conditions should not have been accepted.” That admission raises a simple question: Why did management agree?
A private religious delegation can reasonably request security, privacy, crowd control or special visiting hours. But there should have been one clear boundary: No employee will be treated differently because she is a woman. Instead, the women were the ones who had to adjust. That is precisely the kind of institutional decision that allows discrimination to pretence as accommodation.
BAPS’s Apology Deserves to be Examined
BAPS has attempted to clarify its position. The organisation said the visit was arranged with Eiffel Tower management at the beginning of normal operating hours because of the size of the delegation. It denied that anyone was prevented from accessing the Eiffel Tower and said it believed in “universal values of mutual respect and service.” It nevertheless apologised for “any pain or inconvenience caused.”
But it also leaves important questions unanswered. If BAPS did not intend to discriminate against women, why did the Eiffel Tower management conclude that the visit should be organised to limit interactions with women? What precisely did the delegation request? Who made the request? Who approved it? And why were female employees the ones required to change their behaviour?
This happened at the Eiffel Tower, a monument associated worldwide with Paris and France. Parisian authorities have responded by ordering an investigation. Political leaders have also criticised the reported treatment of women. The message from French officials has been that equality between women and men cannot be suspended to accommodate particular visitors. And religious privilege must not become permission to discriminate against third parties.
The Women Did Nothing Wrong
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the episode is that the women, who were reportedly removed, had done absolutely nothing wrong. They were not the religious visitors. They were not challenging anyone’s faith. They were simply employees. Yet they were allegedly treated as the problem that had to be removed.
The Eiffel Tower has reopened. The immediate dispute may be over. But the larger question remains. The irony is that the Hindu religious head has discriminated the women of a country which has allowed constructing a Hindu temple in its land.
