A fresh controversy is brewing at Shri Sammed Shikharji, also known as Shikharji or Parasnath Hills in Jharkhand, one of the holiest pilgrimage sites of the Jain community. Social media is now rife with videos purportedly showing confrontations between Jain pilgrims and groups of visitors who claimed to have come to visit a ‘Parshuram Temple’. The disputes centre on allegations that some visitors are claiming that the temple dedicated to a Jain Tirthankara at the summit is a “Parshuram Temple”, while also raising Hindu religious slogans at the sacred hills.
The confrontation has once again brought attention to a larger and deeply sensitive question: what happens when a sacred religious site begins to be treated as an ordinary tourist destination, or when groups visiting it begin asserting a competing religious identity?
For Jains, this is not merely a dispute over slogans. It concerns the preservation of the religious character and sanctity of a pilgrimage site that occupies an unparalleled position in Jainism.
What happened at Sammed Shikharji?
Multiple videos circulating on social media show confrontations between Jain pilgrims and visitors at the hills. In one widely circulated video, a group of people is seen trekking through the Parasnath Hills while chanting “Har Har Mahadev”, following which a Jain woman confronts them and questions why such slogans are being raised at the site.
The crowd was chanting “Har Har Mahadev” while trekking at Parasnath Hills when a Jain woman stopped them saying “Shivji baithe hain kya yahan?” pic.twitter.com/XTNuyXlkZT
— Hindutva Vigilant (@Viglnthindutva) August 19, 2026
Other videos and social media posts allege that some visitors have gone further, describing the Jain shrine at the summit as a “Parshuram Temple” and asserting a different religious association with the site. These claims are based on material circulating on social media and should be distinguished from independent facts about the site’s history and administration.
The incidents have brought forth the question of whether the allegations go beyond visitors merely trekking through the hills. Jain devotees have alleged that some visitors are attempting to recast the shrine at the summit as a “Parshuram Temple” and claim that the hill is associated with Lord Parshuram. Several videos show tourists claiming they were scaling the hill to offer prayers at the “Parshuram Temple.”
That claim is particularly contentious.
The principal summit pilgrimage of Sammed Shikharji is a Jain religious circuit containing shrines associated with the Tirthankaras and Jain ascetics. Parshvanath, the 23rd Tirthankara, is central to the identity of the hill itself. The name Parasnath is derived from Parshvanath, rather than Parshuram. The site is traditionally revered by Jains as the place where 20 of the 24 Tirthankaras attained moksha.
Consequently, for Jain pilgrims, describing the summit shrine as a “Parshuram Temple” is not an innocent change of nomenclature. It is perceived as an attempt to impose a different religious narrative on a place whose identity has been deeply rooted in Jain tradition for centuries.
Why are the slogans causing concern?
There is nothing inherently objectionable about chanting a religious slogan in a place where that religious expression is appropriate. The issue here is the context.
A sacred pilgrimage site has its own established religious practices, traditions and decorum. When visitors enter such a site and deliberately introduce slogans associated with another religious tradition, particularly alongside claims that the site belongs to or is dedicated to another deity, it can understandably be perceived by the community that traditionally worships there as an assertion of competing ownership.
And this is where the controversy becomes bigger than a group of people shouting slogans while trekking.
An isolated slogan is not, by itself, an encroachment. But religious encroachment does not necessarily begin with the construction of a building. It can begin with changing the narrative around a place.
First comes the argument that a particular deity is also associated with the site.
Then comes the insistence that a shrine has another identity or another history.
Then come religious slogans and rituals intended to establish that association.
Once such practices become normalised, the next step can be a physical claim — a structure, a shrine, an idol or a temple.
That is why Jain devotees are alarmed by the social-media videos showing visitors calling the summit shrine a “Parshuram Temple”. The concern is not simply that someone uttered “Har Har Mahadev”; it is that repeated ritual assertions, coupled with a competing claim about the identity of the shrine, can eventually be used to manufacture a competing claim over a sacred space.
India has witnessed enough disputes over places of worship to understand why communities become sensitive when a new religious claim begins appearing at an established pilgrimage site.
Why is Sammed Shikharji so important to Jains?
Sammed Shikharji is not simply a hill containing a Jain temple.
It is one of the most sacred Jain pilgrimage centres in the world.
The pilgrimage involves undertaking a demanding trek through the Parasnath Hills, traditionally covering roughly 27 kilometres, to visit the various sacred sites associated with the Tirthankaras. The belief that 20 of the 24 Tirthankaras attained liberation here gives the place an extraordinary position in Jain religious tradition.
This is why Jains insist on a distinction between a pilgrimage centre and a tourist destination.
A tourist ordinarily visits a place to see it.
A pilgrim visits it because the place itself is sacred.
That distinction lies at the heart of the controversy that erupted three years ago.
The 2023 controversy: When Jains feared Sammed Shikharji would become a tourist hub
The current controversy cannot be understood without revisiting what happened in late 2022 and January 2023.
Jains across India launched major protests after developments concerning the promotion of tourism and eco-tourism around Parasnath Hills raised fears that Sammed Shikharji’s religious character would eventually be diluted.
The controversy was linked to the 2019 Eco-Sensitive Zone notification concerning the Parasnath Wildlife Sanctuary and the surrounding area, as well as the Jharkhand government’s tourism-related plans and policies. The Jain community argued that provisions permitting tourism and eco-tourism could fundamentally alter the character of the pilgrimage centre.
The National Commission for Minorities recorded that it had received representations from the Jain community regarding the proposed conversion of Sammed Shikharji into an eco-tourism hub and also noted complaints concerning encroachment and other problems at the site.
The protests spread across the country, with Jains taking to the streets in cities including Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Bhopal, New Delhi and Surat.
The fear was straightforward: once a sacred pilgrimage centre is opened up as a mainstream tourist destination, the nature of the people visiting it inevitably changes.
The more a place is promoted as a tourist attraction, the greater the possibility of visitors arriving without an understanding of its religious restrictions, traditions and sensitivities.
That could mean littering, commercialisation, inappropriate behaviour, consumption of prohibited substances, damage to religious structures, and, eventually, competing religious practices being introduced into the sacred landscape.
The Centre stepped in after the 2023 protests
The protests eventually forced the issue to the national level.
On January 5, 2023, the Union Environment Ministry announced that implementation of the relevant provisions of the Eco-Sensitive Zone notification concerning Sammed Shikharji would be stayed with immediate effect, including tourism and eco-tourism activities. The Jharkhand government was directed to take steps to implement the decision.
The Centre also directed the state to strictly enforce restrictions on activities such as the sale and consumption of liquor and other prohibited practices and to prevent activities that could defile sites of religious and cultural significance.
The intervention came after Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav met representatives of the Jain community amid widespread protests.
The National Commission for Minorities subsequently said that the Centre and Jharkhand government had decided that Sammed Shikharji would remain a pilgrimage site and not be converted into a tourism hub.
Importantly, the controversy should not be described inaccurately as the Union Ministry of Tourism formally declaring Sammed Shikharji a tourist destination. In a February 2023 Lok Sabha answer, the Ministry of Tourism said that it had not proposed to declare Sammed Shikharji a tourist place and that declaring destinations as tourist places did not fall within its work allocation.
The actual controversy centred on the state government’s tourism-related plans and the provisions of the 2019 ESZ notification that permitted tourism and eco-tourism activities.
This controversy has a much longer history
The anxiety among Jains did not begin in 2023.
The roots go back several years.
In 2015, the then Jharkhand government under Raghubar Das unveiled a Parasnath Hill Development Plan. The proposals included tourism infrastructure such as a helipad, a theme park, a tourism reception centre, parking facilities and a bus stand in Madhuban.
There were also proposals concerning development associated with the local tribal community.
Jain groups objected strongly, arguing that developing the hills along conventional tourism lines could undermine the character of one of their most sacred pilgrimage centres.
The “Save Shikharji” campaign subsequently emerged, with Jains across India seeking protection for the religious character of the site.
After sustained opposition, the development plan was eventually put on hold, and the Jharkhand government affirmed its commitment to maintaining the sanctity of the hill.
The issue resurfaced later through environmental and tourism-related policies, eventually culminating in the nationwide protests of 2023.
Why the 2023 episode matters to the latest controversy
This history explains why the present dispute is being viewed with considerably greater suspicion by Jain devotees.
In 2023, the community had already warned that opening up the sacred hills to unrestricted tourism could gradually alter the character of Sammed Shikharji.
Three years later, social media is rife with videos of confrontations between Jain pilgrims and visitors described by devotees as encroachers. The videos include allegations that some visitors are referring to a Jain shrine as a “Parshuram Temple” and chanting Hindu religious slogans while trekking through the sacred site. The developments have revived the concerns raised in 2023 about the gradual dilution or alteration of the site’s religious character.
The two issues are not identical.
Tourism does not automatically mean religious encroachment, and chanting a slogan does not automatically constitute an encroachment.
But they can become connected if there is a sustained pattern of treating a sacred pilgrimage centre as an ordinary tourist destination while simultaneously introducing competing religious claims and practices.
That is precisely why the distinction between visiting a sacred site and asserting ownership over it matters.
A sacred site cannot become a religious free-for-all
There is a legitimate argument for allowing people of different faiths to visit places of religious and cultural importance. India has a long tradition of shared sacred spaces and interfaith reverence.
But pluralism cannot mean that the established religious character of a site becomes irrelevant.
A Jain pilgrimage centre should not have to lose its Jain identity simply because people from another faith are allowed to visit it.
Likewise, respecting the religious character of Sammed Shikharji does not require denying anyone’s broader religious beliefs. It simply requires recognising that different sacred places have different histories, traditions and identities.
If a Jain temple is dedicated to Parshvanath, visitors cannot simply rename it a Parshuram temple and expect the community to treat that as an inconsequential semantic change.
If a hill is revered as the place where 20 Tirthankaras attained moksha, visitors cannot treat it as merely another trekking destination where any form of religious activity can be introduced without regard for Jain traditions.
And if the authorities have already intervened once to protect the sanctity of the site from indiscriminate tourism, they should be particularly vigilant about any attempt to alter its religious character on the ground.
The real issue is preservation of identity
The latest controversy should therefore not be reduced to “Jains objected to people chanting Har Har Mahadev.” Social media is showing a broader pattern of confrontations in which Jain pilgrims object to visitors allegedly asserting that a Jain temple is a “Parshuram Temple” and introducing competing religious claims at the site.
That framing misses the larger issue.
The real question is whether Sammed Shikharji will remain recognisably what it has always been for Jain devotees: a sacred pilgrimage centre, rather than a generic tourist destination or a contested religious landscape.
The lesson from the past is also clear.
Religious encroachment, where it occurs, need not begin with a temple dome or a permanent structure. It can begin with something that appears far more innocuous: a new ritual, a slogan, a claim about a deity, a renamed shrine or a reinterpretation of the site’s history.
By the time a physical structure appears, the more important battle, the battle over how the site is perceived and who is considered to have a legitimate religious claim over it, may already have been lost.
That is why the Jain community’s concerns over what is happening at Sammed Shikharji deserve to be examined seriously rather than dismissed as a quarrel over slogans.
The sanctity of a pilgrimage site is ultimately protected not merely by walls, gates or government notifications, but by preserving its religious identity, traditions and established character.
