Non-state actors aligned with certain Hindu organisations appear increasingly eager to operate in close proximity to the ruling BJP. Recent episodes involving Swatantra Bhardwaj in Delhi and Malcolm Pereira in Goa illustrate this pattern with unsettling clarity. What unfolded at the Eiffel Tower in Paris has only intensified the sense of unease. These persons and some organisations function as non-state actors, yet their actions raise serious questions about the boundaries between private initiative and political power.
In Delhi, Swatantra Bhardwaj, a self styled Hindutva activist, publicly claimed he had cracked a man’s skull during protests at Jantar Mantar and faced no meaningful consequence. He spoke of blessings from senior figures and suggested that political connections shielded him. The remarks triggered widespread condemnation, police action, and sharp distancing by some of the leaders he named. The episode left an impression of entitlement and protection that many found difficult to reconcile with the rule of law.
In Goa, Malcolm Pereira stands accused in connection with an assault on an opposition political worker and the Sarpanch of Chinchinim. Despite assurances of prompt action, his handling by authorities has drawn protests and accusations of preferential treatment. The episode reinforces a broader perception that certain individuals operating outside formal party structures seem to enjoy informal latitude that ordinary citizens do not.
The most striking international instance occurred in Paris. A high ranking spiritual leader of the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha visited the Eiffel Tower as part of celebrations surrounding a new temple. Reports indicate that arrangements were made to limit the presence of women staff during the visit. Female employees were asked to step aside or remain out of sight. The request, once accepted, provoked a staff strike that closed the monument for a day and drew sharp criticism from French politicians across the spectrum.
Why was the presence of the high priest at the Eiffel Tower necessary in that form? The gesture appeared to symbolise the expectation that local norms of equality could be set aside to accommodate the internal disciplines of the visiting group. In a country whose republican identity rests on secularism, equality, and fraternity, the episode was widely read as an attack on Frenchness. Many asked whether France had begun to dilute the very principles that define its public life. The temporary sidelining of women at a national landmark suggested that religious accommodation had crossed into the territory of gender discrimination. For critics, the incident signalled that those foundational values were under strain. What is so French is now dead. The ideals of secularism, equality, and fraternity that once stood as the proud heart of the Republic appeared momentarily surrendered at the foot of its most iconic monument.
These developments do not remain confined to the organisation involved. They create a persistent shadow over the ruling BJP. Association, even if informal or claimed rather than formal, generates embarrassment. When non-state actors boast of proximity or appear to receive unusual consideration, the governing party is left explaining actions it did not formally authorise. The pattern begins to look less like soft power cultural outreach and more like the exercise of hard power through private networks. Soft power relies on attraction and persuasion. Hard power involves coercion, exclusion, and the quiet assumption that rules can be bent. When such assumptions become visible and are publicly challenged, the claim of informal authority collapses under scrutiny.
The cumulative effect is corrosive. It suggests that certain non-state actors believe they can operate alongside the ruling establishment without accountability. Once exposed, the arrangement appears not merely awkward but fraudulent and unbecoming of a democratic government. Responsible political leadership requires clear distance from vigilantism and from any demand that public institutions suspend equality to satisfy private religious codes. Failure to maintain that distance risks turning temporary embarrassment into lasting damage to institutional credibility and to the secular foundations of both Indian and French public life.
