BAPS, the Eiffel Tower and the curious silence on secularism

I was a little surprised to see how some of those whom I respect for taking a firm stand on patriarchal issues reacted to the manner in which they responded to the recent incident in Paris, in which women employees of the Eiffel Tower were asked to remain "invisible" on September 5 when 100 BAPS sadhus visited one of the world's top tourist destinations.

BAPS' exclusionary stance towards women is well known. I have personally experienced, and written about, their religious gurus' behaviour towards women. In one instance, amidst the dastardly Akshardham terrorist attack in September 2002 in Gandhinagar, a Times of India colleague covering the event was stopped by BAPS sadhus from taking shelter in their residential area even as bullets were flying next to her.

Instead of pointing the finger directly at the monument's operating company, SETE (Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel), for falling in line with the hijab protagonists in France, a section of enthusiasts preferred to mainly attack Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS).

I have read numerous comments on social media attacking BAPS. One of them was from Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Priyanka Chaturvedi, who strongly criticized the sect, stating that the demand to remove women from the Eiffel Tower was "not a reflection of how India thinks -- in policy or in the Constitution." She insisted that if BAPS enforces such customs, they must "keep it restricted to those confined areas", adding, "please don't expect the world to follow the diktat."

Not that I disagree with what Chaturvedi and others have to say. Their viewpoint on BAPS -- or, for that matter, other religious sects, be they of any religion -- is not only correct, it needs to be repeated umpteen times in India. In India, religious establishments are known to discriminate against women. However, what shocked me was that these reactions had little to say about the SETE directive to its female staff.

Hijab is known to be strictly regulated or prohibited in specific public institutions, roles, and contexts under the French doctrine of laïcité (state secularism). Yet, SETE seemed to violate the very principle it is supposed to uphold. It favoured the exact opposite logic. The underlying justification for religious veiling -- or restrictions on interaction between unrelated men and women -- is that female visibility and male-female contact must be regulated according to faith-based modesty standards.

When SETE management agreed to accommodate the BAPS delegation's celibacy vows by directing female workers to clear their desks, hide in back rooms, and let male colleagues take over, it effectively legitimized the premise that a woman's physical presence in a public workplace can be treated as a religious impediment. Clearly, SETE yielded to a conservative religious modesty doctrine at the expense of workplace equality.

Indeed, it was commendable that on September 7, 2026, the Eiffel Tower was forced to close for the day after its staff staged a walkout and strike. The industrial action followed anger over the management directive during the BAPS delegation's visit on September 5 (Saturday), when female employees were reportedly ordered to step away from their workstations, stay out of sight, and be replaced by male colleagues. As anger escalated among the staff during the weekend, the primary trade union representing the workers, CGT, called an emergency meeting, leading to the strike on September 7 (Monday), shutting down the monument to tourists.

The staff union condemned what it described as a humiliating and discriminatory workplace violation. According to statements released by the CGT, the union objected to female employees being formally directed to leave their assigned duties and wait in separate back rooms or offices while the delegation toured the monument. At customer service, ticketing, and operational desks, women were directly swapped out and replaced by male coworkers so that no female presence would be encountered along the delegation's route. Further, female workers were forbidden from walking through or entering common corridors, lifts, and platforms during the BAPS visit.

Workers emphasized that the Eiffel Tower is a preeminent global symbol of France and secular public life. They argued that coercing female public-facing staff to "render themselves invisible" because of their sex directly violated French labour laws, non-discrimination protections, and the fundamental principle of gender equality (égalité).

The incident provoked strong condemnation across French civil society and the political spectrum. Emmanuel Grégoire, the Paris deputy mayor, backed the workers' strike as entirely legitimate, declaring: "Equality between women and men will never stop at the foot of our historical monuments, nor anywhere in this city."

An official inquiry was launched into how management authorized the request. Former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal and French Equality Minister Aurore Bergé both issued statements affirming that no religious doctrine, belief, or visiting delegation can supersede French labour laws or dictate the presence of women in public spaces.

I personally seem to agree with those in India who assert that the blame should be directed at Eiffel Tower management. The management should have simply said "no." Religious groups make accommodation requests everywhere; it was the duty of Eiffel Tower management to know French secular and labour laws and simply refuse the terms if they violated workplace equality. BAPS was a visiting delegation, not an employer in France, and had no legal authority to order French civil staff into back rooms. Therefore, SETE management caved inappropriately to customer preferences at the cost of its own workers.

Meanwhile, BAPS supporters are defending the sect's monastic vows, arguing that the monks' vows of celibacy and non-interaction with women are "voluntary" and centuries-old ascetic disciplines. They argue that European institutions "often bend rules" or "accommodate other religious sensibilities", so what is wrong if SETE acted the way it did at BAPS' request?

There appears to be reason to believe that SETE acted the way it did to appease the current French ruling establishment, which is known to be close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The BAPS delegation's controversial visit to the Eiffel Tower took place a day after Modi virtually inaugurated the sprawling BAPS temple in Paris.

Not without reason, the Indian government opted to distance itself entirely from the dispute. When asked about the incident during a press briefing in New Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson stated: "We are aware of the opening of a temple by the BAPS Sanstha in the Paris area. As to the particular issue pertaining to the Tower, this is a matter purely between the entities concerned."

When questioned about Modi having virtually addressed the inauguration of the BAPS temple in Paris just a day prior, the MEA dismissed any political link, calling it standard protocol for the Prime Minister to send goodwill messages for major cultural milestones.

Modi thinks it's a cultural milestone? Do the French authorities also think the same way?

I am really puzzled.