Anger rippled across Bihar after comments attributed to Giridhari Lal Sahu, husband of Uttarakhand’s Minister for Women and Child Development Rekha Arya, triggered condemnation from political parties, women’s groups and civil society organisations. The remarks, delivered during a public gathering, suggested that girls from Bihar could be “bought” for sums between ₹20,000 and ₹25,000, a statement widely described as demeaning and socially corrosive.The fallout was swift. Leaders from across the political spectrum in Bihar said the comment reduced women to commodities and reinforced harmful stereotypes about the state. Several parties demanded a public apology and called on Uttarakhand’s ruling establishment to clarify its position, arguing that silence would amount to complicity. Women’s rights activists said the statement echoed patterns of trafficking and exploitation that the country has long struggled to dismantle.
Officials in Bihar’s administration described the comment as “deeply offensive” and said it undermined constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. Senior figures noted that Bihar has invested in girls’ education, health and employment through programmes aimed at delaying early marriage and improving school retention, and argued that such remarks erase the progress made by families and communities.
The controversy also drew attention to the legal and social context surrounding trafficking and forced marriage. Law enforcement agencies have, over the years, recorded cases of women being trafficked across state lines for marriage and labour, crimes that carry severe penalties under national law. Activists cautioned that public figures and those connected to power bear a heightened responsibility because casual statements can normalise abuse and embolden criminal networks.
Within Uttarakhand, opposition leaders sought accountability from the state government, saying the episode raised questions about the standards expected of those closely associated with ministers entrusted with safeguarding women and children. They stressed that while Sahu does not hold public office, his proximity to a ministerial portfolio dealing with gender justice made the remarks especially troubling.
The minister at the centre of the storm faced calls to distance herself from the statement and to reaffirm her commitment to women’s welfare. Party colleagues said the comments did not reflect government policy, while critics countered that an unequivocal denunciation was necessary to prevent further damage. The state leadership emphasised that respect for women is a non-negotiable principle, though pressure continued for clearer action.
Women’s commissions and advocacy groups in Bihar announced plans to submit memoranda seeking formal censure. Several organisations organised demonstrations, holding placards that rejected what they termed the “marketisation” of women’s lives. Social media platforms amplified the outrage, with users sharing testimonies about the real-world consequences of stigma and objectification.
Legal experts weighed in on whether the remarks could attract criminal liability, noting that while offensive speech is protected to a degree, statements that promote exploitation or incite harm can invite scrutiny under existing statutes. They added that the threshold for action depends on context, intent and impact, and urged authorities to assess the matter carefully.
Beyond immediate politics, the episode reopened debate about entrenched prejudices faced by women from certain regions. Scholars said such stereotypes often intersect with caste, class and migration, shaping discriminatory attitudes in labour markets and marriage practices. Addressing these requires sustained public education, stronger enforcement against trafficking and a consistent message from leaders that misogyny has no place in public life.