A blunt rejection of Hindu identity by a senior Samajwadi Party leader has triggered a sharp political and social debate in Uttar Pradesh, reopening long-standing fault lines over caste, faith and social justice. Shivraj Singh Yadav, regarded as a close aide of party chief Akhilesh Yadav, told a public gathering that “Yadavs are not Hindus”, arguing that a religious order which, in his view, sanctions caste-based hierarchy cannot represent the dignity of his community.The comments were delivered at a meeting titled PDA Pathshala in Dandiyamai village, within the Sirsaganj assembly constituency. Addressing a mixed audience of party workers and local residents, Yadav said he rejected any belief system that classified human beings as inferior or superior by birth. He cited the Manusmriti, an ancient text often invoked in debates on caste, to question where Yadavs were placed within the traditional social framework and whether such classification justified continued discrimination.
Within hours, the statement drew reactions across the political spectrum. Leaders from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party accused the Samajwadi Party of promoting social division for electoral gain and of misrepresenting Hindu philosophy. Several BJP figures described the remarks as an attempt to polarise communities ahead of upcoming political contests in the state. Party spokespeople argued that Hinduism, as practised by millions, is diverse and reformist, and cannot be reduced to any single text or interpretation.
Samajwadi Party leaders moved swiftly to contextualise the remarks without disowning the underlying grievance. Senior figures said Yadav was articulating anger felt by sections of Other Backward Classes over social exclusion and lack of representation, rather than calling for religious schism. Akhilesh Yadav did not directly endorse the statement but reiterated his party’s commitment to social justice and constitutional equality, saying dignity and equal treatment were non-negotiable principles.
The controversy resonated beyond party lines, drawing responses from religious scholars, social activists and academics. Some scholars noted that Manusmriti has long been contested within Hindu thought, with many schools rejecting its authority or interpreting it historically rather than prescriptively. Others pointed out that caste identities such as Yadav have evolved through centuries of agrarian, political and social change, often negotiating their place within broader religious traditions while asserting distinct social identities.
For Dalit and OBC activists, the episode highlighted unresolved questions about the lived reality of caste discrimination. Several activists said the sharp language reflected frustration with slow progress on social mobility, land rights and political representation, particularly in rural areas. They argued that debates over religious identity should not obscure everyday inequalities faced by marginalised communities.
At the same time, critics warned that absolutist statements risk oversimplifying complex histories and hardening social boundaries. Political analysts observed that caste-based mobilisation has been a defining feature of Uttar Pradesh politics for decades, but framing it as a rejection of religious identity could alienate sections of voters who balance caste affiliations with faith-based belonging.
The setting of the remarks also drew attention. The PDA Pathshala format has been used by the Samajwadi Party as a grassroots forum to discuss social justice, constitutional values and minority rights. Party strategists see it as a way to consolidate support among Dalits, backward classes and minorities by foregrounding shared experiences of marginalisation. The controversy has amplified the reach of that messaging, though not entirely on the party’s terms.
Legal experts noted that the statement, while provocative, falls within the bounds of free expression unless it incites violence or hatred against a group. No police action was reported in connection with the speech, though complaints were said to be under consideration in some quarters. Civil liberties advocates cautioned against criminalising political speech, arguing that open debate is essential in a plural society.