'What's in a Name?': UP's Kanwar Yatra Directive - Left, Right, and Centre Culture

In light of the ongoing Kanwar Yatra, the Uttar Pradesh government issued a directive mandating eateries along the yatra route to display the names of their owners. Issued by the Muzaffarnagar police, the order aimed to prevent confusion among Kanwariyas, the devotees who undertake a pilgrimage to collect holy water from the Ganges, regarding the food establishments they patronise, particularly given their dietary restrictions during the holy month of Shravan.

However, the directive faced backlash from various political parties, civil society groups, and even some allies of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who argue that it disproportionately targets Muslim-owned businesses and could lead to economic boycotts based on religious identity. Critics, including prominent opposition leaders, have likened the order to historical instances of discrimination, asserting that it undermines the secular fabric of Indian society.

In response to the uproar, the Supreme Court intervened, issuing an interim stay on the enforcement of the directive, stating that while eateries may be required to indicate the type of food served, they cannot be compelled to disclose the names of owners or the staff.

Jargon

Kanwar Yatra: An annual Hindu pilgrimage where devotees, known as Kanwariyas, travel to collect holy water from the Ganges river to offer at Shiva temples, typically undertaken during the month of Shravan.
Nameplate Directive: A government order requiring food establishments along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners, aimed at preventing confusion among pilgrims regarding the food being served.
Article 17: A provision in the Indian Constitution that prohibits untouchability and any form of discrimination based on caste or religion.
Halal certification: A designation for food that is permissible under Islamic law, which has been a point of contention in the context of the Kanwar Yatra directives.

Viewpoints 💭

‘Left’ Viewpoint

Ideological Differences

‘Right’ Viewpoint

The directive requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display owners’ names is viewed as discriminatory, particularly targeting Muslim traders, and exacerbating communal tensions.
Critics argue the order undermines the secular fabric of Indian society, likening it to historical instances of discrimination and economic boycotts against minorities.
The Supreme Court’s intervention is welcomed, emphasising the need to uphold constitutional rights and secularism, and questioning the legal foundation of such directives.
Opposition parties and civil society members argue that the directive could harm the livelihoods of many, regardless of their religious affiliations, creating an atmosphere of fear and division.
The enforcement of name displays is criticised as a politically motivated action by the BJP government, seen as an attempt to marginalize minority communities and promote a divisive agenda.

The left views the directive as a form of religious discrimination and an attack on the secular principles of the Constitution, while the right sees it as a necessary step for the safety and dietary preferences of pilgrims.
Critics from the left argue that the order exacerbates social divisions and targets minority businesses, potentially leading to economic boycotts, whereas supporters on the right justify it as a measure of transparency and accountability.
The intervention of the Supreme Court is praised by the left as a defence of fundamental rights and secularism, while some on the right perceive it as a hindrance to religious and cultural practices.
The left raises concerns about the broader implications of the directive on communal harmony and the livelihoods of shop owners, especially those from minority communities. In contrast, the right emphasises the importance of maintaining order and respecting pilgrims’ faith during the Kanwar Yatra.
While the left accuses the BJP government of using the directive to further a divisive political agenda, the right defends it as a continuation of existing practices aimed at ensuring the well-being of pilgrims, highlighting a deep ideological divide over the interpretation of the order’s intent and impact.

Supporters argue the directive aims to ensure the safety and comfort of Hindu pilgrims by allowing them to make informed choices about their dietary preferences during the Kanwar Yatra.
The BJP and its allies defend the order as a measure for transparency and safety, not intended to discriminate but to facilitate devotees.
Some right-leaning voices argue that the order is a continuation of existing regulations, necessary for maintaining law and order during the religious pilgrimage.
There is a belief among some right-wing supporters that the directive respects the faith of Kanwar pilgrims and asserts that local Muslim traders do not oppose it.
The directive is seen as a routine measure to prevent past incidents of tension related to unidentified eatery operators, enhancing accountability and safety.

Prominent Voices 📣

From the ‘Left’

From the ‘Right’

A M Singhvi (Senior Advocate): Highlighted the exclusionary and unconstitutional nature of the directives, emphasising their potential to foster communal divisions. [1] [2]
Aakar Patel (Activist and Columnist): Criticised the directives for their discriminatory nature and potential to incite economic boycotts against Muslim shop owners. [3] [4]
Abhishek Manu Singhvi (Senior Advocate): Expressed concerns about the economic and social exclusion the directive could cause, emphasizing its lack of legal authority. [4] [5]
Ajay Rai (Uttar Pradesh Congress Chief): Described the order as impractical and harmful to societal brotherhood, urging its immediate cancellation. [6] [7]
Akhilesh Yadav (Former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh): Condemned the police order as a social crime that undermines peace and harmony, calling for judicial intervention. [8] [7]

Abhishek Singh (Muzaffarnagar Police Chief): Stated that the order was implemented to prevent confusion among pilgrims and maintain law and order. [9] [10]
Amit Malviya (BJP Leader): Defended the order as a right for Hindus to choose their food during the yatra. [7]
Jamal Siddiqui (BJP Minority Morcha Chief): Argued that the order is not discriminatory, rather it ensures transparency during the festival. [11]
Baba Ramdev (Yoga guru and businessman): Stated that everyone should be proud of their name and emphasised “purity” in work. [12] [13]
Yogi Adityanath (Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh): Defended the order as a measure to respect devotees and maintain order during the pilgrimage, emphasising its necessity for protecting the sanctity of religious pilgrims. [14] [15]