Eiffel Tower Incident: Disgrace to Women or Dignity to Indian Sadhus?- Page 3

Originally posted by: WormikaGrubby

Yeah but the difference is that you chose to go to the monastery ,which is their living space. Their house their rules. We have similar rules at Indian ashrams No short skirts ,no sleeveless clothes, no tight clothes ,no gaudy make up ,don't sit too close to male devotees or male monks , don't touch male monks during pada Pooja etc. At one of the ashrams I go to ,there's a no slang rule. You're supposed to use formal English, so even when I talk to my mother I have to say " Yes" and not " Yeah. All these rules are in place to help them and their devotees have a conducive environment to live their way of life in their living spaces. And we as visitors have an obligation to comply . If we don't want to ,we have the option of staying away.

But here these monks were at a public place, that too at one of the most famous and busiest tourist spots of the world. Yes theres the lift , there are restaurants ,shopping centres and so on on the Eiffel. Any request to limit interactions between female staff and these hundred monks would not only disrupt their work schedules but would also involve replacing ,like you said a female employee with a male one. This goes against the work ethic of any secular place because it's sexist to the woman who is posted as the lift operator . And going by the reports this applied to many female staff members. I don't even get why these monks had to crawl up the Eiffel , there's nothing there for them Or anywhere in Paris for what matter. Escargot , brothels , haute couture, gay bars lol

ETA :- I agree, this is on the management. They should have refused right away instead of putting the female employees through this. Either the management of the middle men who negotiated on the monks' behalf made it much worse

( Greek monasteries are so pretty btw arent they !)

Oh I get your point now. Yes that I agree on. The monks had no right to ask for such considerations and even if they did, then the management should have said no. But we see such things so often - a rich person can easily block off anything for themselves, politicians take precedence over regular people, an actor gets everything, police pay attention to high profile cases more, white people get precedence over people of other races, so on and so forth.

My point was that they should never have tied this to Hindu religion or India as a whole. It was one sect of monks. Yes they may not have had any right to ask for such an exception, but they did and they did it with utmost respect. Now whether they were right or wrong is a discussion for another day, but I definitely do not like how this issue was broadened to cover a full religion.

So pretty! When we were told they were on tops of mountains, we were expecting something more rudimentary, not such beauties! There were a lot of stairs too. My mom only did one and then sat in the tour van for the rest. But the rest of us went to them all and loved each one.

So far, I've copied and pasted the statements and views from management, authorities, and others involved in this issue, and I've read and appreciated the thoughtful opinions shared by our knowledgeable IF members.

I would now like to share another important aspect for everyone's consideration. BAPS has stated that it is not a part of the Hindu religion. In that context, here are a few facts and references from their past events that may provide some additional perspective and help us understand the matter better.

It depends on whether it is a demand or a request.

If it is a demand, did they use any force to make the Eiffel Tower management agree?

If it is a request, why did Eiffel Tower management agree? They could have said no.

Yes, we must follow the law of the land, at the same time we are all within our rights to make a request not demand.

Cheers..

BAPS stating that it is not part of the Hindu religion was purely to circumvent the Harijan Temple Entry Act. The SC, in it's landmark judgement, ruled against this claim.

I think BAPS now does identify as a Hindu denomination.

https://www.baps.org/About-BAPS/WhoWeAre.aspx

Here they say- we are socio-spiritual Hindu faith having base in Vedas.

Originally posted by: mnx12

https://www.baps.org/About-BAPS/WhoWeAre.aspx

Here they say- we are socio-spiritual Hindu faith having base in Vedas.

I still believe that a guest should not impose their own rules and system in the host's house.

I don't know why the authorities allowed it... So they share the blame too.

What was the need of sadhus to go visit Eiffel tower, that too on their own terms & conditions. Were the authorities so desperate for their visit or was there some external pressure, that they would change their system?

What next - some orthodox muslim royal family or Maulana goes to visit Eiffel tower so the Eiffel tower orders their staff to wear burka or hijab? 🤔

I also read some quite questionable things about the BAPS (among others about what Madhuri posted), but that is not the task of the French management SETE to consider... the group of monks were tourists at that moment and the decision had been in the hands of SETE management.

Of course they could have refused to accomodate the group and the monks would have had the choice to make a visit nevertheless. But that was not the case... so, imo, the fault was entireley the SETE management's one in how they handled the request and the visit.

Although BAPS seemingly grants women autonomy within their own wing, also with this religious group obviously 'not all that glitters is gold'.

A Sanyasi/ Sadhu's vow of renunciation is his spiritual responsibility....not society's obligation.

If his cult's rules require avoiding women, the onus is on him to avert his eyes, maintain distance, or choose an appropriate setting/ place. They cannot expect women in a public place to be removed, hidden, or displaced merely to accommodate his/ their personal religious vows.

This is especially important because Hindu philosophy does not regard women as inferior or spiritually impure. The tradition reveres and honours women such as Gargi and Maitreyi as profound spiritual thinkers, and has its own traditions of Sadhvis and Sannyasinis.

Therefore, while the management may bear responsibility for what happened at the Eiffel Tower, a larger question remains--- if a group chooses to follow such strict vows, why visit a crowded public place in the first place, and is asking female staff to step aside so that the monks need not encounter them, in itself, an insult to the dignity and equality of women!!

Personal vows deserve respect, but they cannot become demands imposed on society.

Hinduism deeply honours the Divine Shakti and has never denied women's spiritual dignity. So, if such strict vows must be followed, why visit a busy public place like the Eiffel Tower and expect female staff to step aside? Whatever, the management slipped aside from it's responsibility, asking women to leave their workplace merely to accommodate a Sadhu delegation's vow can understandably be seen as an affront to their dignity and equality.

In my view, the responsibility lies on both sides....and for two different reasons.

First, the management's mistake-- it should never have bowed to the demands of a particular religious/ spiritual group by asking female staff to step aside. A public institution cannot compromise workplace dignity and gender equality to accommodate someone else's personal religious restrictions.

Second, the Sadhus' mistake-- if their religious vows require strict avoidance of women, the responsibility is theirs to maintain those boundaries. They chose to step out of their secluded environment and visit one of the world's busiest public monuments. They cannot expect the outside world to be reshaped around rules meant to govern their own conduct.

The management failed in its duty, while the Sadhus overstepped the boundary of personal religious/ organisation's discipline. Both choices contributed to the controversy.

Religious vows are a personal choice; public spaces belong to everyone. No institution should displace women to accommodate a private vow, and no spiritual discipline should demand that society bend around it and adjust for it. Respect for a religious/ spiritual belief cannot come at the cost of women's dignity, equality and rightful place in public life.

Two things from my side relative to the BAPS... as for me, it's a sect with special rules which doesn't represent Hinduism to me.... and we don't know how things were worded during the preleminary meeting for the early morning visit.

That's why I concentrated on the known things which only make the SETE management the responsable for the treating of the women-employees.

As it is known by now, I'm not a friend of religious groups, but if one can find a mutual agreement with the concerned persons, one can tolerate certain rules.

It is the mindset of the management that - imo - is worth to get the repercussion it got.