Lucknow, October 19, 2025: A political controversy has erupted in Uttar Pradesh following comments made by Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Akhilesh Yadav on the occasion of Diwali, drawing sharp criticism from leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and stirring concerns within traditional artisan communities. The debate centers around Yadav’s comparison of Diwali celebrations with Christmas festivities observed in cities around the world and the implied critique of expenditure on traditional lighting, particularly the use of diyas during the festival.

Vinod Bansal, a senior leader of the VHP, on Sunday condemned Yadav’s statements, describing them as indicative of an “anti-Sanatana mindset.” Bansal specifically instructed Yadav to “celebrate Christmas in Vatican City,” in response to his suggestion that India could learn from how cities abroad illuminate Christmas festivities. According to Bansal, Yadav’s comments not only reflected ignorance about Indian cultural traditions but also sent the wrong message to communities who take pride in their traditional roles in sustaining these customs.

Bansal highlighted the concerns of the Kumhar community, the traditional artisans who make diyas, or oil lamps, which are integral to Diwali celebrations. He said that while the Kumhar community continues to uphold its centuries-old heritage, the remarks made by Yadav had created a sense of unease. The community, Bansal noted, viewed the remarks as a potential undermining of their craft and cultural significance. “The community that makes diyas, the Kumhar community, which we are proud of, wants to illuminate the entire world with their diyas. But they are concerned lest the community of PDA gets illuminated too, lest they earn some money,” he said.

The controversy arose when Yadav, addressing a public gathering during Diwali, suggested that India should take cues from how cities across the world celebrate Christmas. He stated, “In the entire world, all the cities get illuminated during Christmas. And that goes on for months.” He added, “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.”

Bansal responded sharply, highlighting that Diwali is a festival with deep cultural and historical significance in India, celebrated long before the advent of Christianity. “Even when Christianity didn’t exist, Diwali was celebrated. Today, on Diwali, he is lecturing about Christmas… Christmas will come two months later,” Bansal remarked, accusing the SP leader of demonstrating a lack of understanding of the Indian festival calendar.

The VHP leader’s criticism was not limited to cultural commentary; it carried political undertones as well. Bansal highlighted that Yadav’s remarks appeared disconnected from the realities of Uttar Pradesh, particularly in terms of governance and infrastructure. He suggested that Yadav’s comparison to foreign Christmas celebrations seemed misplaced when local administration faced challenges in addressing issues such as electricity supply, traffic congestion, and urban sanitation.

Yadav’s comments came in the backdrop of his larger criticism of the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government. In his address, he described the state administration as a “futility government” and highlighted persistent challenges faced by residents of the state, particularly in urban centers like Lucknow. He criticized the city’s management, stating, “Don’t expect electricity from it. The state of the state is such that Lucknow is experiencing traffic jams everywhere, yet it is being called a smart city.” He further suggested that an FIR should be lodged against the official who had proclaimed Lucknow the third-smartest city, adding, “There is so much garbage and traffic in the city. They spend crores of rupees but still cannot manage the traffic.”

These remarks, while framed as observations on governance and civic management, were coupled with Yadav’s cultural comparison, thereby intensifying the backlash from traditionalist groups and political opponents. The timing of the statements, coinciding with Diwali and Dhanteras celebrations, further heightened sensitivities. Leaders of the VHP and other Hindu organizations perceived the comments as an affront to one of the most widely celebrated and culturally significant festivals in India.

The response from the VHP underscores the broader political and cultural context in which Diwali is celebrated in Uttar Pradesh. For many communities, including the Kumhars, Diwali is not merely a festival but also a vital source of livelihood and cultural expression. The making and selling of diyas and other traditional decorations during the festival season represents a substantial economic activity that supports local artisans and small businesses. Any perceived devaluation of these traditions can, therefore, be interpreted as both cultural disrespect and economic disregard.

Bansal’s pointed reference to Vatican City was symbolic, reflecting the VHP’s stance that foreign festivals, no matter how grand or well-celebrated abroad, should not be imposed as a standard against which India’s indigenous practices are judged. He also used the opportunity to remind the public that Diwali, with its centuries-old traditions, holds a unique place in Indian society, and any suggestion to emulate foreign customs must be weighed carefully against local values and historical context.

Political analysts suggest that the controversy is likely to resonate deeply with voters in Uttar Pradesh, a state where festivals like Diwali carry immense cultural and political significance. Public statements on religious and cultural practices often influence electoral perceptions, and political opponents can leverage such remarks to question a leader’s cultural alignment and sensitivity to traditional values. The intersection of politics, culture, and community livelihoods in this instance highlights how even seemingly routine remarks can escalate into major controversies.

While Yadav’s intentions might have been to critique government inefficiency and suggest modernized celebratory methods, the way his comments were framed and timed has drawn criticism from multiple quarters. VHP leaders argue that the emphasis should remain on strengthening traditional practices and supporting communities whose livelihoods are intertwined with festival celebrations, rather than comparing them to foreign customs.

The broader debate also touches upon themes of secularism, cultural preservation, and political messaging. Yadav’s remarks, viewed through a secular lens, may have been an attempt to highlight inclusivity and global cultural awareness. However, for groups like the VHP and the Kumhar community, the focus is on maintaining respect for age-old traditions and ensuring that festivals such as Diwali are celebrated in ways that honor cultural heritage.

In conclusion, the exchange between Akhilesh Yadav and VHP leader Vinod Bansal highlights the delicate balance between cultural commentary, political critique, and community sensitivities in India. It demonstrates how statements on festivals, traditions, and governance can quickly evolve into broader debates about cultural identity, political allegiances, and the protection of artisanal communities. As Uttar Pradesh moves closer to the next election cycle, the discourse around Diwali, public spending, and cultural preservation is likely to remain a focal point, influencing both public sentiment and political strategies.

The controversy serves as a reminder that in India, festivals are not only a celebration of faith and tradition but also an arena where politics, culture, and community interests intersect, and where even casual remarks by political leaders can trigger widespread debate and public scrutiny. For now, the focus remains on how leaders across the political spectrum navigate the intersection of governance critique, cultural sensitivity, and public perception in a state deeply tied to its heritage and traditions.