There is a rather fascinating phenomenon at play within India’s modern secular framework. It operates with a marvelously selective conscience. The moment the Hindu festival of Diwali appears on the calendar, the entire secular ecosystem suddenly awakens, transforming into highly concerned environmentalists.

Hindus are swiftly subjected to endless, unsolicited masterclasses on air quality, prodded to abandon their ancient traditions, and instructed to sanitize their celebrations to please a handful of elite activists.

Yet, by some miracle of modern science, this intense ecological panic completely evaporates when Christmas arrives. Millions of wax candles are burned, massive grids of electrical decorative lights are switched on across the nation, and plastic packaging reaches peak consumption. Strangely, no nationwide moral campaigns are launched. Nobody demands that Christians tone down their joy to save the ozone layer.

Even more astonishing is the absolute silence during Bakrid. When tens of thousands of animals are slaughtered in a single day, the celebrity-driven environmental outrage that aggressively targets Diwali is nowhere to be found. The activists who weep for the climate in autumn mysteriously lose their voices by Eid.

The irony reaches its peak when citizens point out this blatant hypocrisy. The second someone dares to ask why Hindus are exclusively chosen for these environmental lectures, the country’s secular identity is suddenly treated as if it is under a grave constitutional threat.

The latest, and perhaps most baffling, example of this selective outrage comes directly from the judiciary. On Tuesday, November 3, the Bombay High Court felt the urgent need to intervene in the controversy surrounding Bollywood actor Dia Mirza’s anti-firecracker video. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had removed her video—which promoted an "environment-friendly" Diwali—following objections from BJP leaders.

Stepping in to save the day, a division bench comprised of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale directed the BMC to restore the video. The judges did not hold back their irritation regarding the political backlash the actor faced. Showcasing their priorities, the bench officially noted it was “disturbed by the stray comments made by some politicians”.

To resolve a basic civic dispute over a deleted social media video, the court then took it upon itself to remind the entire nation that India is a secular country. Delivering what was presented as a groundbreaking revelation, the court observed that environmental protection affects everyone, regardless of religion or caste. Cementing this scientific fact, the bench remarked, “Everyone is breathing the same air, be it anyone”.

It is an undeniably fair point. We do all breathe the same air. But a logical mind cannot help but wonder: does this supposedly shared atmosphere possess a magical filter that only catches Diwali smoke while ignoring the carbon emissions from other religious celebrations?

If the court wanted to stick strictly to administrative fairness, it could have simply asked the BMC why it selectively deleted Dia Mirza’s video while happily retaining similar Diwali sermons from actor Madhuri Dixit, actor Nishigandha Wad, and cricketer Ajinkya Rahane. That would have been a sound, logical inquiry into the civic body's consistency.

Instead, the court chose to dramatically invoke the concept of secularism, expressing deep emotional hurt over the comments made by politicians, and missing the broader point of public frustration entirely.

This brings us to a pressing question: does "secularism" in India legally require Hindus to accept arrogant, uninvited instructions on how to observe their holy days? Or should environmental responsibility actually mean holding every single community to the exact same standard?

Diwali Faces Relentless Green Scrutiny While Other Religious Traditions Conveniently Evade Accountability

Every single year, like a perfectly timed seasonal reflex, a highly predictable routine begins just before Diwali. Bollywood stars, elite environmental campaigners, and prominent public figures step out of their air-conditioned vanity vans to tell Hindus exactly how they should celebrate.

Firecrackers are aggressively villainized, traditional practices are dissected under a microscope, and ordinary citizens are scolded, reminded that their joy must conform to the strict expectations of a very select, self-appointed group of moral judges.

Let us be perfectly clear: air pollution is a massive, deadly crisis in India. Discussing the impact of firecrackers is completely valid, and responsible celebrations should absolutely be encouraged. But why is it that this deep, agonizing pain for Mother Earth only seems to activate when Hindus are preparing for a festival?

Consider Christmas again. Candles are a core, non-negotiable part of the festivities, alongside massive plastic decorations and extreme commercial consumption. The production of wax candles alone leaves a significant carbon footprint, as does their burning. Yet, society does not expect the High Courts to bravely intervene, nor do we see Bollywood actors filming deeply concerned videos telling Christians to reflect on their carbon output.

Then comes Bakrid, an event defined by the mass sacrifice of livestock. The environmental devastation caused by global livestock production is not a matter of opinion; it is documented science. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in its comprehensive 2023 assessment, estimated that global livestock agrifood systems accounted for approximately 12% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, using 2015 as the reference year. This includes the massive emissions from cattle, buffaloes, sheep, and goats across their entire supply chain.

Obviously, not all of these global emissions happen solely on Bakrid. But it is an undeniable, verifiable fact that large-scale animal slaughter carries an enormous environmental footprint. Why is discussing this suddenly a taboo?

Furthermore, the issue of animal cruelty is glaring. The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) repeatedly issues advisories just before Bakrid, urging state authorities to stop illegal slaughter and unspeakable cruelty. Its June 2023 advisory explicitly noted that large numbers of animals were slated for slaughter and desperately called for the strict enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

So, the question is remarkably simple: where is the celebrity-led campaign for the animals?

Why do we never see Bollywood stars looking somberly into a camera, asking people to reconsider the devastating environmental footprint of the meat industry during Bakrid?

If we truly "breathe the same air," as the High Court so wisely reminded us, then surely everyone must be equally accountable. Environmental responsibility cannot be a one-way street where Hindu traditions are treated as toxic hazards needing an urgent cure, while the practices of other religions are treated as sacred and untouchable.

The Judiciary’s Sudden Reliance on Secularism Creates More Contradictions Than Resolutions

The Bombay High Court’s observation that India is a secular country is not controversial; it is a basic civic fact. What deserves intense scrutiny is the bizarre context in which it was weaponized.

The immediate issue was a municipal corporation taking down a PR video because of political pressure. The BMC had commissioned several celebrities to promote a green Diwali, in line with previous judicial directions. Mirza’s video was dropped, while others were kept.

The court was 100% justified in questioning the BMC's lack of consistency.

However, we must question the judiciary’s strange habit of turning every minor defense of Hindu festivals into a crisis of secularism. Why must any objection to an elitist environmental campaign involving Diwali be viewed as a threat to the nation’s secular fabric?

There is a massive, glaring difference between wanting to pollute the air and simply questioning why a wealthy celebrity has been appointed to lecture a community about a civilizational tradition they have observed for centuries. People can want cleaner air while simultaneously rejecting Bollywood's hypocrisy.

The court’s side remark—that it had not seen politicians making their own videos about pollution—misses the point entirely. Public representatives are elected to fix infrastructure and enforce laws, not to act as social media influencers for clean air. Their failure to make awareness videos does not suddenly validate the hypocrisy of celebrity activism.

Courts carry immense moral and institutional weight. When a High Court judge invokes "secularism" over a deleted civic body tweet, it shifts the narrative. It distracts from the core issue: whether environmental standards and public awareness campaigns are actually being applied consistently across all communities.

Secularism is supposed to guarantee equal treatment. It was never designed to create a bizarre social contract where Hindus must constantly apologize for their culture and defend their practices against elite public lectures. If the court truly wants everyone to breathe cleaner air, it should demand a consistent environmental conversation across all communities, rather than allowing the impression to grow that Diwali is uniquely deserving of judicial scrutiny.

Bollywood’s Elite Eco-Warrior Frequently Demonstrates a Disconnect From the Realities of Citizens

This entire saga also serves as a brilliant opportunity to examine Dia Mirza’s highly publicized brand of environmental activism.

Mirza has successfully branded herself as one of Bollywood’s most prominent environmental voices. She frequently lectures the masses on plastic pollution, sustainable living, climate change, and the desperate need for ordinary, struggling citizens to change their consumption habits.

However, her grand interventions frequently reveal a staggering disconnect from the realities of the very people she chooses to educate.

Take, for instance, her appearance in June 2026 on Soha Ali Khan’s podcast. Mirza narrated an anecdote involving her five-year-old son, Avyaan, and a man whose only job was trying to deliver coconut water to their house.

According to Mirza, the delivery worker arrived with coconuts packed in plastic bags, accompanied by plastic straws. Her young son confronted the working-class man and instructed him to take the plastic back, proudly declaring that plastic was not allowed in their household.

Mirza shared this story beaming with pride over her son’s environmental consciousness and his willingness to stand up against plastic consumption.

But let us apply a shred of logic here: what exactly was that daily-wage delivery worker supposed to do?

He was just a man doing his job. He had absolutely zero power to dictate the packaging policies of the business that employed him. If Mirza was genuinely upset about the plastic, she could have easily taken it up with the business owner or switched to an eco-friendly supplier.

Instead, a poor man trying to make a living became a prop—a convenient subject in an anecdote used to highlight the moral superiority of a celebrity household. This is precisely where celebrity activism begins to look entirely disconnected from ground realities. Working-class Indians do not have the luxury to dictate terms to their employers. Real environmental responsibility requires a basic understanding of their economic circumstances.

Then came another breathtaking display of intellect during the exact same podcast appearance.

Mirza decided to tackle the entire global climate crisis by making sweeping remarks that men were responsible for the changing climate, ultimately declaring that patriarchy was the root cause of the crisis. Taking a firm ideological stance on the matter, she stated on record, “It is the men in this world. It is the men who have driven climate change, and they are totally responsible for the chaos”.

She subsequently tried to clarify her viewpoint, explaining that she was referring to patriarchal systems of domination, extraction, and endless consumption, rather than blaming every individual man on earth.

Regardless of her backpedaling, reducing a deeply complicated global catastrophe—driven by centuries of fossil fuels, mass industrialization, deforestation, corporate emissions, and government policies—down to an ideological catchphrase raises serious doubts about the actual substance of her environmental commentary.

We must also question the broader reality of celebrity lifestyles. Environmental responsibility cannot be measured merely by the number of awareness campaigns a celebrity participates in or the number of public lectures she delivers. It must involve consistency in everyday consumption and an honest assessment of one’s own massive environmental footprint.

These episodes do not establish that Mirza personally violates every environmental principle she advocates. But they absolutely expose the severe limitations of her approach and the massive disconnect between elite celebrity activism and the realities of ordinary Indians.

The core problem is not that Mirza advocates for cleaner air or reduced plastic use. Those are legitimate concerns. The problem begins when this environmental advocacy transforms into arrogant public sermonizing, where wealthy celebrities assume they have the authority to instruct everyday citizens on how they should live and celebrate their festivals.

Hindus Require No Unsolicited Eco-Guidance From Elite Cinema Personalities

If you look closely at India’s public discourse, a deeply insulting pattern emerges. Diwali is relentlessly discussed through the harsh prism of air pollution. Holi is attacked through the lens of water conservation. Ganesh Chaturthi is reduced to a debate on immersion-related pollution. Almost every Hindu celebration is met with intense questions about noise limits, safety hazards, and ecological damage.

Yes, some of these concerns are entirely legitimate and deserve real attention. Hindu communities can and should explore practical ways to make their celebrations more sustainable, and many already do.

But why is this exact same sense of urgency completely invisible when other religious practices are discussed?

Why must Hindus be expected to quietly accept lectures about firecrackers, while questions about the heavy environmental footprint of other festive practices are conspicuously absent from mainstream celebrity activism?

Why should a simple argument over an actor’s video become an occasion for the Bombay High Court to remind the entire nation that India is secular, while the broader, much more important principle of equal environmental accountability receives so little attention?

There is absolutely no reason why Hindus should be exempt from environmental regulations. But neither should their religious traditions become convenient, easy targets for celebrities seeking to quickly demonstrate their environmental credentials to the public.

The BMC was undeniably wrong to selectively remove Mirza’s video if its campaign was genuinely based on public-health concerns. The Bombay High Court was entirely entitled to question that administrative decision. But the judiciary should also be highly mindful that invoking secularism in such controversies creates a false impression. It makes it seem as though questioning celebrity sermons directed at Hindus is somehow incompatible with India’s constitutional values.

Dia Mirza is completely free to advocate for a cracker-free Diwali. Citizens, however, are equally free to question her approach, examine her public record, and ask why her environmental sermons appear so highly selective.

And the Bombay High Court is free to insist that public awareness campaigns should not be withdrawn just because of political pressure. But the court must also recognize that true secularism does not require Hindus to surrender their right to question the manner in which their festivals are portrayed, judged, or policed.

If everyone breathes the same air, then absolutely everyone must be held to the exact same environmental standards. If every festival deserves respect, then no single community should be singled out for unsolicited moral instruction. And if environmental activism is to command true public respect, those who preach it must demonstrate real consistency rather than demanding unquestioning acceptance of their sermons.