top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

‘End defamation of Lohagad Fort’

Prominent mountaineering institute urges CM to take steps over digital defamation Mumbai: A prominent mountaineering institute has taken strong objection to the vilification of the historic Lohagad Fort in Pune – now a UNESCO World Heritage (2025) along with 12 Maratha forts – which shot into limelight last month for an alleged murder. Pune-based Akhil Maharashtra Giryarohan Mahasangh (AMGM) has shot off a memorandum to the Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis seeking an end to the ‘digital...

‘End defamation of Lohagad Fort’

Prominent mountaineering institute urges CM to take steps over digital defamation Mumbai: A prominent mountaineering institute has taken strong objection to the vilification of the historic Lohagad Fort in Pune – now a UNESCO World Heritage (2025) along with 12 Maratha forts – which shot into limelight last month for an alleged murder. Pune-based Akhil Maharashtra Giryarohan Mahasangh (AMGM) has shot off a memorandum to the Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis seeking an end to the ‘digital defamation’ of Lohagad Fort which stands as a symbol of valour of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. It has referred to the shocking alleged murder incident of June 18 of a Pune realtor Ketan Agarwal which was ostensibly masterminded by his fiancée Siya Goyal and her purported boyfriend Chetan Chaudhary, both arrested and currently under judicial custody. The gruesome incident has taken social media by a storm with a disturbing trend in which this 2000-year-old World Heritage Monument and the site of the alleged killing is now blatantly referred to as ‘Siya Point’. Disturbing Trend The AMGM claimed that besides the social media, it is reportedly ‘rechristened’ on certain digital mapping platforms, urging thrill-seekers to visit the site -- “which is a disturbing trend”. In the past few weeks, a commanding cliff in the Lohagad Fort has been repeatedly touted as ‘Siya Point’, sparking curiosity among the masses. However, the AMGM lamented that turning the site of a tragedy into a public attraction is deeply unfortunate and sets a dangerous precedent for other heritage monuments all over India by creating new macabre tourist landmarks. “Linking the identity of the historic fort to an isolated crime, assigning new names to locations within the fort, circulating memes, reels, jokes and sensational digital content, amounts to disrespecting both history and public sentiments. It must be immediately stopped,” an agitated AMGM President Umesh Zirpe told ‘The Perfect Voice’. Trekkers’ Pilgrimage In the presentation to the CM, the AMGM said that Lohagad Fort represents the history of Swarajya and is like a pilgrimage for trekkers, historians and lakhs of devotees of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Zirpe, along with AMGM Executive Yadav and Secretary Dr. Rahul Warange raised another concern that has repeatedly drawn flak from various quarters – the rampant commercial exploitation of forts for pre-wedding shoots, fashion photography, music videos, reels by social media influencers or other promotional advertising, disregarding their historical significance, cultural sanctity or environmental sensitivity. They pointed out globally, there are prohibitions or stringent regulations on commercial filming and photography at such World Heritage Sites, and the same must be made applicable to monuments in India and Maharashtra. “While individual visitors/tourists should be allowed to click personal photos/videos, all other commercial activities must be curbed or regulated through a robust policy, mandatory prior permissions, adhering to a strict code of conduct and punitive measures against violators,” suggested the AMGM.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page