A fresh political confrontation erupted in Uttar Pradesh after Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav accused the ruling BJP of encouraging “verbal violence” against a revered seer, saying such conduct was not only condemnable but sinful.

In a strongly worded post, Yadav said, “Attire may change, but words reveal a person’s true character.” Without mincing words, he added that using abusive or derogatory expressions against a Shankaracharya amounted to “verbal violence” and was a sin not just for the speaker but also for those who cheered or justified such remarks.

He further warned BJP legislators, stating, “When they step out of the House and face the public, people will hold them accountable on the streets.”

The remarks came a day after Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath addressed the Assembly, asserting that religious decorum and the rule of law must be maintained at public events. The Chief Minister had said that not everyone could assume the title of Shankaracharya at will and that such matters must align with established traditions and legal norms.

Responding sharply, Yadav questioned the government’s moral standing. He alleged that a government which, according to him, failed to present accurate figures of deaths during the Maha Kumbh and allowed irregularities in compensation had no authority to question anyone’s religious credentials. “Those who could not ensure transparency and justice have no right to lecture others on faith,” he said.

The controversy traces back to tensions during the Magh Mela in Prayagraj involving Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati. Addressing the Assembly, Adityanath had stressed that no individual could claim to head a religious peeth while disturbing public order, and that organisers must uphold both tradition and the law.

Swami Avimukteshwaranand also countered the Chief Minister’s remarks, stating, “In Sanatan Dharma, no government or political party decides who becomes a Shankaracharya.” He argued that spiritual authority does not flow from political endorsement and questioned the intersection of religious identity and state power.

In a pointed observation, the seer said, “A king may become a yogi, but a yogi does not return to kingship,” raising questions about the compatibility of ascetic values with holding executive office.