A fashion show by designer duo Shivan & Narresh in Gulmarg during the holy month of Ramzan has started a controversy that has now reached the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. In a region with a Muslim-majority population, the event has been met with criticism, with some religious figures calling it nothing less than a “cultural invasion”.
The display of skin-showing models on the runway during a sacred month has led to demands for legal action, with calls to hold those responsible for “hurting religious sentiments” accountable. The gravity of the backlash is evident by the fact that Chief Minister Omar Abdullah felt compelled to intervene, ordering an inquiry into this matter.
The reality of public sentiment in India is more than just an emotional response. In many cases it sets the boundaries of discourse, defining what is deemed acceptable and what is seen as a step too far. This isn’t unprecedented. Community values hold weight, and their influence extends far beyond mere public opinion.
However, while accepting this ground reality of India, I also want to advocate for being more tolerant towards each other. When someone realises that their actions have hurt people’s sentiments and makes an effort to apologise and make amends, should they not be forgiven?
The designer duo now find themselves surrounded by controversy. Recognising the backlash, they issued a formal apology, expressing deep regret for any hurt caused by their show. But the outrage hasn’t stopped. For many, an apology is simply not enough.
The demand for further action, for something more concrete than remorse, reveals a bigger issue: in a country where cultural and religious sensitivities are deeply embedded in public life, is there ever a path to genuine reconciliation?
Also read: People who use food to show off imagined moral superiority aren’t just wrong but also idiots
Policy based on religion
Respecting public sentiment isn’t just important—it is the way India functions, a foundational value upon which India is built, an unspoken rule to navigate public life.
But where do we draw the line? Should outrage always lead to punishment, even when remorse is genuine? Shouldn’t acknowledging mistakes, expressing regret, and trying to make amends count for something? Or we have become a society that refuses to forgive, that insists on dragging every misstep into an unending cycle of outrage—one that’s stuck, endlessly replaying the same script of punishment and retribution.
We’ve seen something similar in the case of Ranveer Allahbadia, where one misjudged joke has led to a backlash so intense that he is being treated as though he is a dangerous criminal. The outrage hasn’t stopped at just criticism and demand for legal action—it has extended to his family, with even his parents facing real-life consequences at the hands of some. He may have offended people’s sensibilities, but what is unfolding now shows that there isn’t a way forward for him and Samay Raina, at least not immediately.
Such reactions due to public sentiment aren’t just limited to individuals, sometimes they also define government decisions, for example, the declaration of a dry day and restrictions on meat sales during the Ram Mandir inauguration.
This is not the first time that public policy or social behaviour has been influenced by religious sensibilities. India has long witnessed policy decisions shaped by religious and cultural considerations. As early as 1832, a Parsi-led protest, famously known as the Bombay Dog Riots, brought the city’s commercial centre to a standstill after the British extended a law permitting the killing of stray dogs. It deeply offended the Parsi community.
In April 2022, the mayors of South and East Delhi called for meat shops to remain shut during Navratri, reasoning that “most people do not consume non-vegetarian food” during the festival—even though no official order was issued by the civic bodies. Similarly, All India Bakchod (AIB), at the centre of controversy over their live roast show, issued an unconditional apology to the Mumbai Archdiocese and the Christian community for their remarks. Smoking or bringing intoxicants near a Gurudwara is widely discouraged as a mark of respect for Sikh beliefs.
India has always been a country where faith and sentiment matter. While some view these actions as respect for tradition, others see them as examples of how religious sensitivities shape public life, often extending beyond the followers of a particular faith. State-imposed prohibitions, even temporary ones have become the norm for religious observances. As India navigates its diverse and pluralistic identity, these debates are bound to surface time and again—challenging us to strike a balance between faith, governance, and personal choice.
When public sentiment is hurt, civil society expects that the person responsible must apologise and face some sort of consequences. But what happens when that apology is not enough according to some people, when no path to redemption seems available? Are we creating a society where one mistake defines a person forever? Or can we embrace a more just approach—one that acknowledges the offence but also allows room for remorse, growth, and redemption?
Amana Begam Ansari is a columnist, writer. She runs a weekly YouTube show called ‘India This Week by Amana and Khalid’. She tweets @Amana_Ansari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Tolerance is now a mocking joke that strong men use on weak men and forgiveness for any mistake is unheared of in current culture of toxic chauvinism.