The Badrinath-Kedarnath Temple Committee announced that visitors must swear allegiance to Sanatan Dharma via affidavit. Chairman Hemant Dwivedi pointed to Sara, a known Shiva bhakt, as someone who would need to follow suit.

Sara’s spiritual side has won her admirers. From posting darshan photos to chanting mantras publicly, she’s positioned herself as Mahadev’s ardent follower. Yet Dalwai dismissed this, arguing Sanatan Dharma equates to endorsing caste hierarchies, separate from modern Hinduism.

‘People are clueless about Sanatan Dharma—it’s the religion of caste,’ Dalwai said. He urged Sara to decide: submit the affidavit or skip the pilgrimage. It’s her right, he added.

Dalwai extended his critique to other events. He condemned the Varanasi Iftar boat arrests as ‘Hitler-like oppression,’ emphasizing Ganga’s universal appeal transcends religion.

Defending Rahul Gandhi against apology calls, he stressed parliamentary freedom of speech. On the acid attack tragedy, Dalwai demanded maximum penalties for the perpetrator.

This clash highlights deepening divides over religious access in India. Temples, symbols of ancient faith, now navigate modernity’s inclusivity debates. Sara’s next move could define her public spirituality—or spark further controversy.

Spokesperson ANS Prasad described the verdict as a damning exposure of Stalin’s unsuitability for office. He pointed to Stalin’s 2023 conference speech equating Sanatan Dharma with deadly infections – malaria, dengue, COVID – and urging its abolition, which BJP says deeply hurt millions of devotees.

On January 20, the Madurai Bench, led by Justice S. Srimathi, annulled the criminal case, ruling Malviya’s rebuttal on social media was no offense but a legitimate response. The judge slammed the FIR as an abuse of the legal system meant to suppress criticism.

Prasad reiterated BJP’s stance: inflammatory rhetoric by leaders cannot be shielded from scrutiny, nor can dissent be crushed via state machinery. ‘The Constitution enshrines religious liberty and equality; no oath-bound minister can violate this by insulting a major faith,’ he asserted.

The high court’s intervention strengthens the case for holding public officials accountable, Prasad noted. With DMK’s Stalin under fire, this could signal shifting dynamics in Tamil Nadu’s BJP-DMK rivalry. Resignation, he emphasized, transcends politics – it’s a moral necessity to restore public trust and uphold constitutional values.

Thakur Raghuraj Singh’s statement, made during a public address, advised Salman Khan to ‘not react to religious matters.’ This has been interpreted by many as an attempt to muzzle the star’s voice, especially given Khan’s history with controversies involving faith-based sensitivities. Ravindra Puri, a respected figure in Hindu religious circles, wasted no time in condemning the remark.

‘I am deeply angered by this interference,’ Puri declared, pointing out that public figures like Salman have every right to engage in public discourse. His response has amplified calls for restraint from political leaders when commenting on celebrities’ personal or professional lives.

The backdrop to this clash includes Salman Khan’s long-standing legal battles, such as the 1998 blackbuck hunting case, which still evokes strong emotions among communities. Singh’s comments appear to reference these events, urging caution to prevent reigniting old wounds. However, Puri argues that such advice is unwarranted and patronizing.

This isn’t the first time Thakur Raghuraj Singh has stirred the pot with his outspoken nature. Known for his influence in Uttar Pradesh politics, his words carry weight but also risk alienating diverse audiences. Puri’s rebuttal, delivered with authority, challenges this narrative and promotes a more inclusive approach.

Reactions poured in from fans, activists, and industry insiders. While some defend Singh’s intent to maintain peace, others rally behind Khan’s freedom of expression. The mahant’s stance could shift dynamics, pressuring political figures to think twice before targeting entertainers.

With elections on the horizon, this feud might have broader implications. It highlights the intricate interplay of religion, cinema, and politics in India, where a single statement can spark nationwide conversations. Salman Khan’s silence so far keeps the spotlight on his critics, but a response could change the narrative entirely.

During a public address, Yadav reportedly stated, “Why do we have to spend money on lamps and candles and put so much thought into it? What can we expect from this government? It should be removed. We will make sure that there are more beautiful lights.” He also advised learning from global Christmas illuminations, which he noted last for months.

BJP national spokesperson Vinod Bansal vehemently criticized Yadav’s comments on social media. He accused the Samajwadi Party leader of praising Christmas during the Diwali season and suggested that the sight of traditional diyas (earthen lamps) had deeply troubled him. Bansal further alleged that Yadav, whom he controversially labeled a ‘so-called messiah of jihadis and conversion gangs,’ exhibits a pattern of glorifying foreign festivals over indigenous Indian culture. He pointed out that Diwali has ancient roots, predating Christianity, yet Hindu society is being advised to learn from Christian customs.

Bansal extended his criticism to governance, claiming that illegal religious conversions flourished under leaders like Yadav, who allegedly included criminals and extremists in their cabinets. He accused Yadav of being disturbed by the burgeoning celebrations in Ayodhya, implying that Christmas, still two months away, seemed to have arrived early for him, while the upcoming Diwali and the diyas made by local potters caused distress.

Further escalating the attack, Madhya Pradesh minister Vishwas Sarang suggested Yadav might be better known as ‘Antony’ or ‘Akbar,’ given his perceived opposition to Diwali worship and lighting lamps. Sarang even questioned the Yadav family’s religious affiliations, proposing an inquiry and linking Yadav’s stance to a historical alleged firing on Ram devotees. He also criticized Yadav for belittling the efforts of the Prajapati (potter) community, whose handcrafted diyas illuminate homes during Diwali, calling it an insult to these traditional artisans.