Shankaracharya row flares again; Akhilesh Yadav strikes back after Yogi’s remarks
x
Avimukteshwaranand has announced that he will travel to Lucknow to stage a protest. | File photo

Shankaracharya row flares again; Akhilesh Yadav strikes back after Yogi’s remarks

UP CM Yogi Adityanath’s Assembly comments on Shankaracharya title dispute spark widespread political reactions, backlash, and fresh controversy


Click the Play button to hear this message in audio format

The controversy that began with the Magh Mela bathing issue in Prayagraj is now echoing in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly, with tensions rising over the Shankaracharya dispute. A direct confrontation has emerged between Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

Also read | Move over, Sanatana, what RSS truly cares about is political power

After Avimukteshwaranand recently issued a direct challenge to the chief minister, Yogi has now responded publicly in clear terms and spoken on the issue for the first time. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav has also reacted, once again heating up the political atmosphere.

Yogi speaks out on Shankaracharya row

The dispute that began over the Mauni Amavasya ritual bath at the Magh Mela in Prayagraj has escalated again. Speaking on the Governor’s address during the ongoing Budget Session of the UP Assembly, the chief minister directly addressed the matter, further escalating tensions.

Samajwadi Party MLAs had not only raised the issue of the alleged insult to the Shankaracharya but also created an uproar in the House. Speaking up on the issue for the first time, Yogi Adityanath said bluntly: “Not every person can write Shankaracharya before their name. No one in the country is above the law and everyone must follow it.” Responding directly to Swami Avimukteshwaranand, Yogi added that any responsible person should observe decorum.

In response, Avimukteshwaranand’s spokesperson Yogiraj Sarkar said: “Yes, it is true that not everyone can write Shankaracharya, but those who are will certainly write it. Out of the other three Shankaracharyas, two support Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati. So will someone else decide who is a Shankaracharya? His coronation has taken place and anyone can see the photographs. No one can question this.”

CM backs administrative action, targets SP

After Yogi’s statement in the Assembly on Friday, political reactions intensified. He also supported the administration’s decision to stop Avimukteshwaranand from going in a palanquin for the Magh Mela bath.

Also read | Congress attacks BJP over mistreatment of Shankaracharya at UP's Magh Mela

The chief minister said that amid a crowd of 4.5 crore devotees, allowing someone to move through the exit gate could have triggered a stampede. Targeting the Samajwadi Party, Yogi said: “If the SP wants to worship him (Avimukteshwaranand), they may do so. If he was truly a Shankaracharya, why was there a lathi-charge and why was a case registered?”

He referred to a 2015 incident during the SP government when an FIR was filed against Avimukteshwaranand in Kashi and police resorted to lathi-charge to stop him. Yogi raised this to corner the SP, as Akhilesh Yadav has been consistently supporting the swami since the Magh Mela dispute and had even spoken to him over the phone during his protest.

Dispute turns sharply political

The dispute between Yogi and Avimukteshwaranand has sparked political ripples. After the bathing controversy, the Shankaracharya called it an insult to himself and the Jyotish Peeth, while the administration questioned his use of the title and sought documentary proof.

The post of Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth is currently under litigation, and the notice was issued on that basis. Calling it an insult to Hinduism, the Shankaracharya launched protests.

Earlier, the UP CM had indirectly referred to conspirators against Sanatan Dharma as “Kalanemi,” a mythological demon, sparking controversy. In response, Avimukteshwaranand challenged Yogi to prove that he is a “real Hindu.”

During a visit to Kashi, the swami intensified his cow-protection campaign and directly attacked Yogi, even calling him “Aurangzeb” and alleging that temples were demolished during his rule while the chief minister remained silent. He also stressed that cow protection is the first condition of Hinduism and claimed Uttar Pradesh exports the most beef.

Saint organisations oppose remarks

However, several saint organisations and the Akhil Bharatiya Akhada Parishad opposed Avimukteshwaranand’s statements.

Political analyst Virendra Nath Bhatt said: “He is not a Shankaracharya because the matter is in court. But this dispute will grow before the 2027 elections. Akhilesh Yadav believes Yogi’s biggest political capital is his Hindutva image and is trying to weaken it. That is why this and other disputes are being presented along caste divisions, projecting Yogi not as a Hindu leader but as a Thakur leader.”

Also read | Magh Mela protest: Is BJP at odds with Shankaracharya?

Bhatt added that Avimukteshwaranand’s political statements also indicate the issue is being driven by electoral considerations and that he is becoming a pawn in political manoeuvring.

Akhilesh Yadav’s sarcastic response

Meanwhile, after Yogi’s Assembly remarks, Akhilesh Yadav posted on X, writing sarcastically: “Anyone may wear any robes, but their speech reveals the truth. Using deeply insulting words against the revered Shankaracharya is verbal violence and also a sin. Not only the speaker but those who applauded him will share the sin. When BJP MLAs step outside the Assembly and face the public, the people will hold a session for them on the streets.”

Meanwhile, allegations of sexual abuse of minors in Avimukteshwaranand’s ashram have been raised by Ramabhadracharya’s disciple Ashutosh Brahmachari, and a complaint has been filed in a POCSO court in Prayagraj.

Avimukteshwaranand has said this is a conspiracy to silence his voice. For now, following the UP chief minister’s statement and Akhilesh Yadav’s response, the controversy has deepened once again.

(This article was originally published in The Federal Desh.)

Next Story