Critics of the opposition's protest argue that the use of religious imagery and the portrayal of sacred figures in a satirical skit was deeply offensive and crossed a line of public decency. They contend that while political dissent is a cornerstone of democracy, it should not come at the cost of mocking the deeply held beliefs of millions of citizens. By dressing as a temple priest to perform a skit about theft, these critics argue that the MPs intentionally provoked religious sentiments, which inevitably led to a volatile public reaction. They maintain that such actions are irresponsible and serve only to deepen social divisions rather than foster constructive political discourse.
From this perspective, the incident at the press conference is viewed as a natural, albeit regrettable, reaction to the perceived disrespect shown by the lawmakers. Critics argue that when public figures engage in provocative behavior that targets the core identity of a community, they must be prepared for the resulting public backlash. They emphasize that the focus should be on the accountability of the MPs for their conduct, rather than solely on the security incident itself. For these stakeholders, the priority is to uphold the sanctity of religious institutions and ensure that political protests remain respectful and focused on policy issues rather than resorting to stunts that hurt religious feelings and incite public anger.