Eiffel Tower Incident: Disgrace to Women or Dignity to Indian Sadhus?- Page 8

From a neutral perspective, the blame for this issue lies on both parties. Firstly, what would Eiffel Tower have anything to offer to a group of people that claims to be living under very strict religious beliefs. This wasn't a monastery up in the hills of Paris, nor was it known for its spirituality. Okay let's say, the said-people are humans, curious about sight-seeing in a foreign country. The biggest question is why make such a request in the first place? How did they manage to avoid all the women during their whole journey from India to Paris, did they request every official to have women removed from their vicinity? airplane, hotels, roads?? If their issue was being in close compartments with the opposite sex in a hugely visited tourist spot, it's the religious group that should have avoided the place and situation. In this case, the request was not only unreasonable, but it was clearly demeaning as well. Unfortunately, it is these kinds of religious fanatics that sometimes make a religion look like a cult...

On the other hand, what even was the French management thinking, why would they even entertain such an outrageous proposal. Eiffel Tower is widely visited by tourists from all over the world, it is a landmark that represents them. Even if the request was to limit the level of female interaction, wasn't there one sane person who could think what kind of a PR nightmare they would expose themselves to or the kind of potential lawsuit? The only logical explanation seems to be that this could have been an official request which was officially approved as well from people high above the food chain of the management.

One doesn't have to be overtly religious or an expert in religion to see that this issue definitely has the potential to escalate in terms of how Indians are regarded outside of India. Majority of the westerners consider Indians as Hindus, irrespective of your origin or religion. As much as one might like to believe that not everybody is unaware of the different religious sects that exist within India, an incident like this definitely interlinks India, Indians and Hinduism, especially when the PM of the country himself strongly represents the said religion. With the growing anti-immigration movement in the western countries, an incident like this is only going to bolster the argument of how Indians are imposing their presence and beliefs upon others, when they themselves are nothing more than aliens in those countries. It also represents a very bad picture of how Indians perceive women under the guise of religion. One can definitely expect a litany of articles appearing portraying not only the religion, but the country and its people in poor picture...

Originally posted by: WormikaGrubby

If I went to South Africa and demanded that my interactions with black waiting staff be limited since it's against my beliefs to talk to dark skinned people , and if the hotel complied , would the management get all the blame or do I get some too for having had the audacity to voice such a ' request '? Let's say I issued a non apology afterwards claiming I never made this request and later it turned out that my religious book tells me not to speak to dark people , do I get still get the benefit of the doubt ; would charity work and Ted talks for drunks clear me of all wrong doing ?

How can we be sure that it was r e a l l y the Monks who made a request. I'm not so sure of that... that's why I put the blame completely on the management... a sort of hint to the respective pecularity of the group could have been conveyed by an Indian organiser (even a kind of request like "Would it be possible... Could you...")...

I suspect that the management (who was aware of the publicized inauguration of the Temple with even involving Modi himself through a video call) over-zealously wanted to accomodate an Indian group to not - probably - face a diplomatic issue... I give the management this beneficion of a doubt that they - at the moment of saying "yes" - didn't anticipate the repercussion. But after this moment of the "yes", there had been time to handle this in a more tranparent (and honest) way towards the female stuff which the decision makers did not.

I don't feel that this is a case to use condemning/judging the group of the visitors... in my eyes that would be unfair as it would implicate a kind of pressure the group had put on the management and for t h a t, there is no proof, not even a hint. If there had been a n y outside pressure, even only slightly, I think it would have come from another side...

What I find sad is that most probably the incident gives way (again) to generalize judgements over I n d i a n s... which would be the most unfair thing to do.

Originally posted by: Clochette

How can we be sure that it was r e a l l y the Monks who made a request. I'm not so sure of that... that's why I put the blame completely on the management... a sort of hint to the respective pecularity of the group could have been conveyed by an Indian organiser (even a kind of request like "Would it be possible... Could you...")...

I suspect that the management (who was aware of the publicized inauguration of the Temple with even involving Modi himself through a video call) over-zealously wanted to accomodate an Indian group to not - probably - face a diplomatic issue... I give the management this beneficion of a doubt that they - at the moment of saying "yes" - didn't anticipate the repercussion. But after this moment of the "yes", there had been time to handle this in a more tranparent (and honest) way towards the female stuff which the decision makers did not.

I don't feel that this is a case to use condemning/judging the group of the visitors... in my eyes that would be unfair as it would implicate a kind of pressure the group had put on the management and for t h a t, there is no proof, not even a hint. If there had been a n y outside pressure, even only slightly, I think it would have come from another side...

What I find sad is that most probably the incident gives way (again) to generalize judgements over I n d i a n s... which would be the most unfair thing to do.

If nobody from BAPS had communicated such a requirement, how would the French management even know about a rule that is specific to their religious practice? Most Indians themselves had never heard about this BAPS, and of such a BAPS-specific restriction. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask why the decision to remove or relocate the female staff was made, and why it was accepted by SETE?

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the management for agreeing to such a discriminatory arrangement, but the origin of the request should also be acknowledged. On foreign soil, religious customs may be respected, but they should not be allowed to override the principles of equal treatment and the laws of the country. Here are a few SS that prove the request from BAPS.

Media & Public Discourse: French media widely questioned why a state-backed national symbol would compromise its own laws and societal values. Commentators pointed out that while the monks' celibacy vows are a personal religious right, forcing a public landmark to alter its workplace staffing based on sex is a direct violation of French labor laws. [1, 2]

In a statement on X, BAPS said the trip was "arranged in conjunction with the Eiffel Tower team".

It apologised "for any pain or inconvenience caused", adding "we believe in the universal values of mutual respect and service".

Originally posted by: mnx12

Did I say it's bad to be a woman?

Did I say baps is a progressive sect?

It's just one of the sect of Sanatan Dharma. All sects & non sect believers don't even bother about what other sect is doing. Can the entire Sanatan Dharma be judged on basis of what one sect does? Every sect believes in different representatives of faith. But they all belong to Sanatan Dharma. So is it right to drag entire Hindu religion?

Use Google? Whatever happened to having background knowledge before copy pasting any view so proper justice is done to the subject?

If they have actually asked the women to be hidden then it's a big mistake. File a case against the institute. Ban them from all the countries including India. Give them proper punishment for behaving in this manner. Can that be done? Act instead of just raising voice.

But before reaching any conclusion, wait for the investigation results. Listen to both the sides.

Where did I blame everyone? I did blame religion as religion directly always leads to regressive views by its very nature. If you believe you already know all the truths then you will never progress or change your views. And it holds humanity back in all fields, from culture to education to science to human rights.

Still, it is not clear who exactly conveyed this contestable wish to the management... the organiser / those who made the arrangement with the SETE management doesn't/don't have to be directly from the BAPS.

Stating the continuation of the events still lacks t h a t information and stays vague... so lack of transparency... there was a request, but maybe not directly from the monks to the management, but maybe through a call from someone else...

As far as I know, it isn't the first time that the SETE management accomodates VIP people in not always unquestionable ways... were the monks' group VIP? Why did they got this status... because of the temple inauguration?

Originally posted by: Clochette

Still, it is not clear who exactly conveyed this contestable wish to the management... the organiser / those who made the arrangement with the SETE management doesn't/don't have to be directly from the BAPS.

Stating the continuation of the events still lacks t h a t information and stays vague... so lack of transparency... there was a request, but maybe not directly from the monks to the management, but maybe through a call from someone else...

As far as I know, it isn't the first time that the SETE management accomodates VIP people in not always unquestionable ways... were the monks' group VIP? Why did they got this status... because of the temple inauguration?

The continuation of the events, therefore, still leaves an important gap in transparency. There was apparently a request, but the identity of the person or organisation that communicated it remains unclear. Another legitimate question is whether the group was accorded VIP status, and if so, why. Was it connected to the temple inauguration or some other official arrangement? These details matter, because they could explain why the SETE management was willing to make an otherwise unusual accommodation.

In future Eiffel Tower authorities are welcome to refuse such requests from other religious groups ..if it does not go well with their citizens /employees/ religious beliefs.

Just like many European countries are not permitting prayers on the roads /public spaces.
To each his own yaar.