Eiffel Tower Tours Spark Row, Government Climbs Down With Not Involved Defence

The French government and Indian authorities are facing questions over an incident involving the Eiffel Tower and the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), a Hindu religious organisation. The controversy erupted after the iconic Paris landmark was reportedly shut for a day following allegations that demands were made concerning interactions between women employees and members of the visiting group. Paris city officials have begun a formal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the shutdown. BAPS, however, has denied making any demands to restrict or limit interaction between women employees and members of the group. The incident has also acquired a political dimension because it occurred shortly after Prime Minister Narendra Modi virtually inaugurated a BAPS built temple in a Paris suburb. During his 10 minute address, Mr. Modi described the temple’s construction as a new chapter in India, France cultural relations. The timing of the two events has prompted questions about whether there was any connection between the Prime Minister’s engagement with BAPS and the Eiffel Tower controversy. The External Affairs Ministry, however, rejected any suggestion of Indian government involvement, saying that the Prime Minister frequently addresses such community and cultural events and that India had no role in the dispute surrounding the Eiffel Tower. The controversy has therefore developed along two separate tracks, the inquiry into what happened during the religious group’s visit to the Eiffel Tower, and the political debate in France over the wider implications of the incident. For now, the allegations remain contested. While officials investigate the circumstances behind the tower closure, BAPS has denied the reported demands and the Indian government has maintained that it was not involved in the matter. The inquiry is expected to provide greater clarity on what led to the shutdown and whether the allegations concerning the treatment of women employees were substantiated. Until then, separating verified facts from political claims will remain central to understanding the controversy.