Vijayvargiya said, “Today’s opposition leader kisses his sister in public. This is the impact of foreign culture, while in our tradition, people do not even drink water at their sister’s home.” He drew a contrast between what he described as imported values and indigenous Indian decorum. Congress leaders retaliated quickly, accusing him of insulting women and demeaning a sacred familial relationship. Party activists burned effigies in multiple towns, laid siege to Vijayvargiya’s Bhopal residence, and staged protests demanding his removal from office.
In response to the backlash, Vijayvargiya issued a clarification asserting that his remarks were misconstrued. He maintained he had not intended to question the sanctity of familial ties but aimed to draw attention to “cultural difference” and “maryada”. He added that had his full speech been heard, “this question would not have arisen.” He also noted he kisses his sister’s head in private but does not do so on public crossroads, reiterating his claim that he was critiquing conduct, not the relationship itself.
The controversy deepened when fellow BJP leader and MP minister Kunwar Vijay Shah came to Vijayvargiya’s defence. Speaking in Khandwa, he argued that public displays such as kissing a sister are alien to Indian tradition and ought to be confined to private settings. He urged that those who disagree “should do it in their homes and not on the crossroads,” framing his support in terms of cultural propriety.
Congress leaders used the incident to intensify pressure on both Vijayvargiya and the ruling state government. Madhya Pradesh Congress president Jitu Patwari accused Vijayvargiya of losing mental balance after repeatedly failing to secure the chief ministerial position. He confronted the BJP leadership to take action, asserting that the minister’s remarks had humiliated women statewide during the Navratri festival. Others demanded a public apology, citing the need for accountability in political speech.
Women’s groups and civil society actors voiced concern over the message such statements send about gender, intimacy and cultural norms. Some activists said the remark reinforces patriarchal control over women’s bodies and public presence, while others flagged it as an attempt to weaponize honour and shame in political discourse.
Political analysts suggest Vijayvargiya’s remarks point to a broader trend of invoking cultural nationalism in electoral politics. By framing behaviours as ‘foreign’ versus ‘Indian’, leaders may seek to create symbolic fault lines to rally core constituencies. Observers note that personal and familial relationships have increasingly become tools of public contestation—serving to frame opponents as alien or uncommitted to traditional mores.