Why was the Eiffel Tower closed after a BAPS Hindu visit, and what happened to female staff in Paris

Eiffel Tower Hindu searches surged after a private visit by a delegation linked to the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, or BAPS, triggered a dispute over the treatment of female employees at Paris's best-known landmark. Around 100 members of the Hindu delegation visited the tower on Saturday, 5 September 2026, while in France for events surrounding the inauguration of a new BAPS temple near Paris. Staff representatives say women working at the monument were told to leave certain posts or areas as the group passed through, with male colleagues taking some of their positions. The dispute escalated over the weekend and on Monday, 7 September, employees stopped work, leaving the Eiffel Tower closed to visitors while staff met management. The monument reopened on Tuesday, 8 September, according to its official visitor information, The WP Times reports.

The central issue is more specific than some early descriptions of the row suggested. There is no evidence that the Eiffel Tower was generally closed to women during the BAPS visit, nor that female tourists were barred from entering. The documented dispute concerns employees: union representatives said female staff were moved from their workstations and told not to enter certain areas, while Société d’Exploitation de la tour Eiffel, or SETE, later acknowledged that the visiting delegation had asked for the tour to be organised in a way that limited “interactions with women”. SETE said those conditions should not have been accepted. BAPS, for its part, said the visit had been coordinated with the Eiffel Tower team because of the delegation's size, stated that to its knowledge nobody had been denied access to the monument, and apologised for any hurt or inconvenience caused.

The dispute is therefore about how a religious delegation's request was translated into workplace instructions for female employees, not about a blanket ban on women entering the Eiffel Tower.

Why the Eiffel Tower closed after the BAPS Hindu delegation's visit

The events began on Saturday, 5 September, when the BAPS-linked delegation arrived for a private visit. Reuters reported that the group numbered around 100 people. Diane Davoine, a union representative for Eiffel Tower staff, said women were moved as the delegation passed through and that men were placed in some of their positions. According to her account, the instructions caused particular anger because they affected staff on the basis of sex rather than because of their job, security clearance or operational role. The BBC account supplied for this report gives the same core sequence. Davoine said women were told to move when the delegation arrived and described the reaction among employees as one of humiliation. The monument's operator subsequently confirmed that the delegation had asked for the visit to be arranged so as to limit interactions with women.

“Women were asked to leave their workstations so that men could take their places.”
(Diane Davoine, union representative, speaking to Reuters, 7 September 2026.)

A separate staff statement, reported by European and French media, used stronger workplace language. Employees condemned what they described as professional instructions that had resulted in female colleagues being “sidelined, replaced and made invisible because of their sex”. Reports based on the staff account said some women were asked to leave their posts and withdraw to other areas, some were replaced by male colleagues, and female staff were instructed not to pass through particular zones while the delegation was present.

That distinction matters. A visiting group may have its own religious customs governing contact between men and women, but the controversy began when those preferences were implemented through instructions to employees working at a major public tourist site. SETE manages the tower on behalf of the City of Paris. The question for management is therefore not merely what the visitors requested, but who authorised the request, how it was communicated to operational teams and why female employees were the ones required to alter their duties.

What happened from 5 to 8 September

The timeline is relatively clear from staff accounts, SETE's subsequent position and the reopening information published on the Eiffel Tower's official website.

1. Saturday, 5 September: roughly 100 people associated with BAPS visited the Eiffel Tower during a privately organised group visit. Staff representatives say female employees were moved away from certain workstations as the delegation passed.
2. Over the weekend: discontent spread among employees. Davoine said tensions increased after workers learnt how female colleagues had been treated.
3. Monday, 7 September: staff stopped work and met management. The Eiffel Tower did not open normally, and signs at the site referred to a delay for “operational reasons”. The closure was caused by the staff protest rather than by a structural, security or technical emergency.
4. Later on Monday: BAPS Paris issued a statement acknowledging the concerns and apologising for hurt or inconvenience while setting out its account of how the visit had been arranged.
5. Tuesday, 8 September: the monument reopened. The Eiffel Tower's official website listed the attraction as open from 09:30 until 23:00.

The phrase Eiffel Tower closed therefore refers specifically to the interruption on Monday. By Tuesday the operational status had changed, and the tower was again admitting visitors through the usual security controls. The labour dispute and management investigation, however, did not disappear simply because the attraction reopened.

The protest was not described by workers simply as a dispute over scheduling. Davoine said employees wanted two things from management: an explanation of how the situation had been allowed to happen, and a guarantee that women would not again be treated in the same way. Reuters reported that management had apologised to staff.

For the employees, the immediate question was not the theology or customs of BAPS but whether management could alter women's professional duties solely to accommodate a visitor's gender-related request.

What SETE admitted about the request

The most consequential factual development came from SETE itself. The company acknowledged that the Hindu delegation had requested arrangements designed to limit “interactions with women” during the visit. It also said that the conditions “should not have been accepted”. That statement is significant because it confirms that the controversy was not based solely on a misunderstanding among employees after the event. A request concerning interaction with women existed, and the operator accepted arrangements connected to it.

Ariel Weil, president of SETE and mayor of central Paris, later described the situation as unacceptable and said an internal inquiry would examine how managers had implemented it. Reporting on his comments described him as blaming overly zealous operational management for allowing such an arrangement to go ahead.

“It is clearly not an acceptable practice.”
(Ariel Weil, president of SETE, commenting on the treatment of female staff, 8 September 2026.)

The management issue is particularly important because private or group visits are not unusual at the Eiffel Tower. Large groups, VIPs, delegations and organised tours can require adjusted entry times, security arrangements or movement through the site. None of that in itself created the controversy. The problem arose because staff say one of the adjustments concerned whether women could remain visible and perform their normal jobs.

SETE's statement did not suggest that the delegation ordered individual employees directly to leave their posts. It instead places the focus on an organisational chain: the delegation made a request, management accepted conditions that SETE later said it should have refused, and operational instructions were then given to staff. The inquiry is expected to establish who approved those instructions and how broadly they were applied.

What BAPS said about its Eiffel Tower visit and why the group was in France

The Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha is an international Hindu organisation commonly known as BAPS. Its delegation was not in Paris for an isolated tourist trip. Members were in France during a programme surrounding the inauguration of a new BAPS Swaminarayan Hindu Mandir in Bussy-Saint-Georges, east of Paris. BAPS describes the project as the first traditional Hindu mandir of its kind in France and organised a wider Festival of Culture around the opening.

According to BAPS's own programme, Mahant Swami Maharaj, the organisation's spiritual leader, was in Paris from 29 August to 16 September 2026. The organisation announced a 13-day Festival of Culture beginning on 2 September. Events included religious ceremonies, public processions, cultural programmes, a women's convention, a Jal Yatra boat procession on the River Seine and ceremonies associated with the consecration and dedication of the new mandir.

The Eiffel Tower visit took place inside this broader programme. That context explains both the size of the delegation and BAPS's statement that it had coordinated the timing with tower staff. It also explains why the group was in Paris in early September rather than travelling as a conventional tourism party.

BAPS said its Eiffel Tower visit had been arranged with the monument's team at the start of normal opening hours because the group was large and organisers wanted to minimise disruption to other visitors. The organisation did not accept the implication that people had been excluded from the site and said that, to its knowledge, no one had been prevented from accessing the tower.

“To the best of our knowledge, at no point was anyone prevented access to the Eiffel Tower.”
(BAPS Paris statement, 7 September 2026.)

BAPS also apologised “for any pain or inconvenience caused” and said it was committed to values of mutual respect and service. The wording is careful. It acknowledges the effect of the episode without directly confirming the staff account that women were intentionally removed from operational positions because of the delegation's requirements.

That leaves two accounts which overlap on some facts but differ in emphasis.

• BAPS says the visit was coordinated with the Eiffel Tower team because of the size of the delegation.
• BAPS says it was not aware that anyone had been denied access to the monument.
• SETE says the delegation requested that “interactions with women” be limited.
• Staff representatives say female employees were removed from positions, replaced in some cases by men and told not to enter particular areas.
• SETE says those conditions should not have been accepted.
• BAPS apologised for hurt or inconvenience but did not publicly adopt the staff's description of what happened.

The statement that nobody was prevented from accessing the Eiffel Tower does not directly resolve the employees' complaint. A member of the public being denied admission and an employee being reassigned or told not to enter an operational zone are different questions. BAPS's wording addresses the first. The staff protest concerns the second.

What the BAPS visit was connected to

The new temple at Bussy-Saint-Georges is central to the background of the trip. BAPS presented its opening as the culmination of a long-term project to establish a traditional Hindu mandir in France. The organisation's official programme says the idea was connected to a visit by Yogiji Maharaj to Orly Airport in 1970 and was later advanced under Pramukh Swami Maharaj and Mahant Swami Maharaj.

The 2026 programme was extensive rather than confined to a single consecration ceremony. BAPS listed a Jal Yatra along the Seine, a Nagar Yatra, a Palkhi Yatra in Bussy-Saint-Georges, daily Vedic ceremonies, a murti-pratishtha consecration, a dedication assembly, a women's convention and devotional music programmes. The Eiffel Tower excursion was therefore one activity undertaken by people in France during a much larger religious and cultural gathering.

This context is relevant because initial headlines describing merely a “Hindu group” can make the delegation sound like an unidentified religious party arriving without prior organisation. In fact, BAPS is an established international movement, the Paris visit had been arranged in advance, and its representatives were participating in a structured series of events connected with the French mandir.

At the same time, that background does not alter the specific workplace allegations. Whether a delegation is large, formally organised or part of an important religious festival does not answer why female staff were moved. That is why SETE's admission concerning the request to limit interactions with women became the central factual point in the French debate.

The size and purpose of the delegation explain why its visit was specially arranged; they do not explain why female employees were reportedly required to leave normal positions.

What BAPS says about itself

BAPS describes itself as a volunteer-driven Hindu spiritual organisation based on the Swaminarayan tradition. It runs temples, cultural centres, educational activities and community programmes in a number of countries, including Britain, the United States, India, Australia and the United Arab Emirates.

Its international profile also means that senior religious figures often travel with sizable delegations and that major temple openings are accompanied by programmes lasting several days. The Paris festival followed that model, with religious rites, community events and public-facing cultural activities taking place over nearly two weeks.

In Britain, BAPS is particularly associated with the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in Neasden, north-west London, which has operated since the 1990s and is one of the organisation's best-known European sites. The new French mandir expands that institutional presence on the continent.

For the purposes of the Eiffel Tower dispute, however, the most relevant fact is narrower: members associated with BAPS were visiting Paris during the French temple inauguration, and a delegation of about 100 people went to the tower on 5 September under arrangements made with the monument's team.

Why French politicians reacted to the Eiffel Tower staff dispute

The row moved quickly from an internal employment dispute to a national political story because the Eiffel Tower is owned by the City of Paris and because the allegations concern differential treatment of female workers. Politicians from the left, centre and right all framed the incident around equality between women and men and the principle that religious preferences cannot override employment standards in a public setting.

Paris mayor Emmanuel Grégoire said the circumstances would be investigated and described employees' anger as legitimate. He said gender equality did not stop “at the foot of our historical monuments” and must apply everywhere in the city.

The political response did not depend on whether BAPS intended individual female employees to be excluded. The concern was that an accommodation requested for religious reasons had apparently resulted in workplace instructions based explicitly on sex. For French politicians, the dispute therefore touched two established themes in public life: equality between women and men, and the limits of religious accommodation within institutions providing services to the public.

Yaël Braun-Pivet, president of the National Assembly, argued that welcoming foreign visitors could not mean requiring French women to disappear from public view. Reuters reported her saying that women are fully present in French public life and should not be instructed to become invisible.

Aurore Bergé, the minister responsible for gender equality, called the incident unacceptable and stated that no religion was above the law in France. Marine Le Pen also condemned the idea that women's presence could be “limited”, while former prime minister Gabriel Attal said no belief or form of worship should dictate women's place. The unusually broad political response reflects the fact that politicians who disagree on immigration, religion and secularism nevertheless converged on the narrower principle that female employees should not be removed from work because visitors prefer not to interact with women.

The political argument can be separated into three questions:

1. Was the delegation entitled to express a religious preference? Individuals and religious groups can observe their own practices, but that does not automatically require an employer to change other people's working conditions.
2. Was SETE entitled to accommodate that preference by moving female employees? SETE itself has said the conditions should not have been accepted.
3. Did the instructions amount to unlawful discrimination? That is a legal and investigative question, and the available reporting does not establish a final legal finding against individual managers or the delegation.

This third point is important for accurate reporting. Political condemnation is not the same as a judicial determination. The facts established so far are that a request to limit interactions with women was made, that SETE accepted arrangements it later said were inappropriate, that staff say women were moved or replaced, and that employees then protested.

What is confirmed and what remains under investigation

Several details no longer depend solely on anonymous accounts or speculation. SETE has acknowledged the request concerning interactions with women. BAPS has acknowledged that its delegation made a specially coordinated visit. Staff representatives have publicly described the orders given to female employees. Management has apologised to staff, and the monument closed during the resulting protest.

Other details remain less clear.

The unresolved management chain is likely to be the most important factual issue in the inquiry. A religious organisation can make a request, but employees act on instructions from their employer. Establishing who decided that the appropriate response was to relocate women is therefore necessary to distinguish between the request itself and the operational measures implemented inside the tower.

The BBC report also records Davoine saying management apologised to workers after the incident. She said employees wanted to ensure women would never again be treated in this way at the company.

Why the Eiffel Tower itself matters to the dispute

The location amplified the reaction. The Eiffel Tower is not simply a private venue hired by a religious organisation. It belongs to the City of Paris and is operated by SETE. Millions of people visit it each year, and its employees work within an organisation responsible for receiving the public at one of France's most internationally recognised monuments.

For that reason, political statements repeatedly referred not only to workplace equality but to republican values. The argument was that a public-facing French institution should not translate the religious preferences of a visitor into sex-based restrictions for its workforce.

This is also why the episode became a larger story than a short-lived Monday closure. The physical disruption ended once the tower reopened. The institutional question remains: what rules govern requests from private delegations when those requests conflict with the normal roles of employees?

The official Eiffel Tower website confirms that the attraction was open again on Tuesday, 8 September, from 09:30 until 23:00. There was no indication on the visitor page of a continuing shutdown related to the staff protest.

By Tuesday morning the tourism disruption had ended; the investigation into the decision affecting female staff had not.

Background on the BAPS France visit, temple inauguration and Paris programme

The BAPS delegation's trip took place during one of the organisation's largest programmes in France. Mahant Swami Maharaj arrived in Paris at the end of August for events marking the inauguration of the BAPS Swaminarayan Hindu Mandir at Bussy-Saint-Georges. The organisation lists his Paris stay as running from 29 August to 16 September and describes a Festival of Culture beginning on 2 September.

Bussy-Saint-Georges lies east of central Paris in the Seine-et-Marne department and has developed into a significant residential centre in the Île-de-France region. BAPS's new mandir there was conceived as a permanent religious and cultural centre for Hindu worshippers in France rather than a temporary festival venue.

The organisation's official programme around the inauguration helps explain why a delegation of about 100 people could be visiting the Eiffel Tower together. Senior religious figures, volunteers and worshippers had travelled to France for multiple ceremonies and public events taking place over the same period.

Among the activities listed by BAPS were:

• a Palkhi Yatra procession in Bussy-Saint-Georges;
• a Jal Yatra involving a boat procession along the River Seine;
• a Nagar Yatra;
• daily Vedic Mahayagna ceremonies;
• the murti-pratishtha, or consecration, of sacred images;
• a formal dedication assembly;
• a women's convention;
• devotional music programmes;
• events marking Mahant Swami Maharaj's birthday according to the religious calendar.

The presence of a women's convention in the same festival is part of the broader background but does not settle the Eiffel Tower dispute. It demonstrates that BAPS's programme in France included events specifically involving women. It does not establish what instructions were requested or understood during the separate Eiffel Tower visit.

Likewise, BAPS's apology should not be read as an admission of every allegation made by staff. The organisation acknowledged the concerns, explained the logistical basis for the scheduled visit, said nobody was denied access to its knowledge and apologised for pain or inconvenience. SETE's statement goes further on the specific point at issue by acknowledging that a request to limit interactions with women had been made and should not have been accepted.

Those two statements establish the current factual boundary of the story. BAPS disputes the implication that people were excluded from the Eiffel Tower and says the visit was coordinated to minimise disruption. SETE accepts that gender-related conditions formed part of the arrangement and says management should have rejected them. Staff say those conditions resulted in women being removed from their jobs while the delegation passed. There is also no basis in the available evidence to describe the incident as a general policy of BAPS towards women at public attractions, or as a policy of the Eiffel Tower. The reporting concerns one organised visit on 5 September and the decisions made around that visit.

The next established stage is institutional rather than operational. The monument has reopened, while Paris officials and SETE are examining how the arrangement was authorised. Any fuller attribution of responsibility will depend on the findings of that process rather than on political statements made in the immediate aftermath.

Materials used: Reuters reporting on the 5–7 September events, the BBC report supplied with the source material, statements from Eiffel Tower staff and SETE reported on 7–8 September, the official Eiffel Tower visitor information, and the official BAPS programme for Mahant Swami Maharaj's 2026 visit to Paris.

Read about the life of Westminster and Pimlico district, London and the world. 24/7 news with fresh and useful updates on culture, business, technology and city life: What will Ruthin School closure mean after 742 years of
teaching in North Wales