Arise Bharat

By: Kuldeep Jha

Bharat’s vibrant culture is exemplified by the sacred month of Shravan, featuring the Kanwar Yatra. During the first fortnight of Shravan, Kanwariyas from Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh converge in Haridwar to collect holy Ganga water, which they carry back to offer to Lord Shiva. With over 20 million participants from diverse communities, the pilgrimage is marked by strict rules, including avoiding placing the Kanwar on the ground and consuming only saatvik food.

Historically, local communities organized the Kanwar Yatra adhering to pilgrimage rules. Recently, local administrations have stepped in to support the event, introducing security measures and traffic management. Despite this, attempts to discredit the Yatra have arisen, often focusing on isolated incidents of misbehavior or traffic disruptions.

Videos alleging unsanitary practices by street vendors, such as spitting on food or serving adulterated items, have circulated widely, distressing Kanwariyas and offending their religious sentiments. Complaints to the police have seen little action due to challenges in tracing offenders.

Furthermore, some Kanwariyas seeking food from establishments with Hindu names have found these places, run by Muslims, serving non-vegetarian food, contradicting their dietary restrictions. This has led to confusion and disruption during their pilgrimage.

For the 2024 Kanwar Yatra, from July 22 to August 2, social and religious organizations urged authorities to address dietary concerns. In response, the Muzaffarnagar District Police issued a July directive requiring all eateries and vendors along the Yatra route to display their names to ensure transparency and facilitate complaint resolution. Vendors complied, but during a press conference, District SP Abhishek Singh clarified that this measure applied to all vendors equally, regardless of religion, to avoid misunderstandings.

On July 17, controversy erupted over the directive, with critics on social media and some fact-checkers claiming it was discriminatory against Muslims. This led to political accusations of bias and constitutional violations. The Muzaffarnagar Police clarified that the directive was meant to aid Kanwariyas and prevent disputes, and was consistent with past practices.

Critics claimed victory, asserting that the Muzaffarnagar Police had withdrawn the directive, although it was always voluntary. Mainstream media also misreported this interpretation.

On the same day, UP CM Yogi Adityanath directed officials on Kanwar Yatra management. While no formal orders were issued, social media misinterpreted this as mandating vendor name displays. Haridwar police later introduced similar measures. District SP Parmendra Singh Dobal and Uttarakhand CM Pushkar Singh Dhami emphasized that name display was standard practice, not discriminatory.

Ujjain city administration also mandated shops to display owner names and contact numbers. Compliance revealed that some eateries with Hindu names were owned by Muslims, leading to further revelations:

• Sheetal Dhaba and Janata Vaishno Dhaba in Saharanpur, owned by Abdul and Mohammad Anas Siddiqui, respectively.
• Sangam Hotel in Muzaffarnagar, owned by Saleem Khan.
• Chai Lovers Point in Khatauli, initially renamed Wakeel Sahab Tea Stall, later Wakeel Ahmed Tea Stall, owned by Sadiq.
• Shuddha Chhole Bhature in Meerut, owned by Zakir.
• Neelam Sweets and Cheetal Grand in Haridwar, owned by Arshad and Sadiq Bhai, respectively.

A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India by the Delhi-based NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights, along with prominent figures, challenging the directive as a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15(1), 17, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the directive discriminated against Muslims and Dalits, promoted untouchability, and caused job losses for Dalits. The Supreme Court issued notices to State Governments and granted an interim stay on the name display, though food sellers may continue to show the type of food offered to Kanwariyas.

Following the interim stay, premature claims of victory circulated. However, several key questions remain:

1. Food Safety: How will viral videos of unsanitary food practices be addressed if vendor names are not displayed?
2. Dietary Traditions: Why disregard Kanwariyas’ dietary restrictions, which are integral to their pilgrimage?
3. Health Risks: How will health risks from adulterated or unhygienic food be managed?
4. Discrimination Claims: Why view the directive as discriminatory against Muslims and Dalits, while many participants are from backward and scheduled castes?
5. Business Practices: Why do some Muslim-owned eateries use Hindu names, potentially misleading customers?
6. Consumer Rights: Shouldn’t existing consumer protection laws be enforced rather than opposing the directive?

These questions highlight the need for a nuanced discussion rather than simplistic claims of victory. The issue appears to be part of a broader strategy to discredit Hindu traditions and provoke societal divisions.

This narrative suggests that certain forces are using deceit to incite chaos and destabilize India. It is crucial for society to remain vigilant, expose such tactics, and prevent further unrest.