What’s in a name(plate)?

The UP order on food vendors legalizes untouchability and must be fought by all

Alok Tiwari

Just when you think you have seen the worst of now all too frequent Hindu-Muslim games in politics, along comes somebody to prove you wrong. The order of Uttar Pradesh government forcing all food vendors along the route of Kanwariya yatra to display their nameplate is one such. It is ostensibly to enable the Yatris to determine if they were eating food from “proper” source so as not to violate their religious beliefs. In reality, it is just to point to the Yatris and others which food outlets were owned by Muslims so that an unspoken boycott could be imposed on them.

Political observers say the move is result of BJP’s internecine battle between UP chief minister Adityanath and Union home minister Amit Shah. Apparently, the UP CM has moved to establish himself as standard bearers of Hindus before the preparations for state assembly elections begin in UP. In doing so, he has queered the pitch for party’s central leadership. Now they cannot publicly repudiate it and be seen as weak in their support of strident Hindutva. Nor can they back it for fear of losing a moderate image necessary to win wider support and keep the coalition government at the centre running. It speaks of the general intellect of those behind the move that it came just after the divisive politics of BJP has received a drubbing, particularly in UP.

But whatever the political motive behind the move, it is wrong at so many levels. It completely negates the principles of modernity that the country embraced at the dawn of Independence and provides a legal basis for enforcing untouchability. It is so nefarious and so obviously unconstitutional that it should be quashed at first legal challenge to it. Constitution, the country’s fundamental law, already bars discrimination based on caste, religion, and sex. There are other laws that advance the same principle of equality. UP government, facing criticism, has doubled down on the order and applied it all over the state. Not just that, some other BJP-run state governments are also issuing similar orders. It appears the party has learnt no lesson from the recent elections. Luckily the Supreme Court has stayed it while it hears a bunch of pleas challenging the order’s constitutional validity.

It speaks of the depths to which the country’s polity has fallen that we are no longer sure that even judiciary will stand firmly against moves with such a divisive agenda. If the logic of the order is somehow accepted at judicial level too, it opens the floodgates for all manner of regressive, hurtful, and cruel practices to come back in the name of religious beliefs. Let us not forget that the practice of untouchability that Babasaheb Ambedkar fought so hard against was also rooted in religious belief. So were the practice of sati and dowry. If those beliefs are to be respected, then laws banning them will need to be repealed. No religious belief, no matter how ancient and how deeply held, can be practised if it goes against the basic tenets of our Constitution and modern society.

If it becomes mandatory to identify religion of people who have prepared food so consumers can decide whether to eat it or not, what is to prevent them demanding identification of caste also? The principle is the same. Some people may have reservations about food prepared by people of certain castes. And why should then this be limited to only roadside eateries and vendors. Why should not consumers know who prepared the packaged foods, biscuits, chips they are purchasing from shops? The same will then need to be extended to grocery shops and all the way back to identification of farms where food is grown.

Also, we should then be defending the religious beliefs of not just consumers but also producers. It should be okay for the sellers to demand religion and caste identification of customers and they should be allowed to refuse service on that basis. Already, we have housing societies that bar people based on religion and even food habits. This order gives them a leg up. The next logical step would be to have packets of donated blood labelled with donor’s name, so we do not accidentally have “wrong” blood transfused in our body. The donors should also be able to specify that only people of certain caste and religion receive the blood and organs they are donating.

The move is so poorly thought out that it may not even have the intended consequences of uniting Hindus behind the BJP. In fact, by applying same logic to caste and gender, it would end up dividing them even more. Hence, this order needs to be fought by the Hindus more than the Muslims, who are its supposed target. It is wonderful that Hindus are part of the first legal challenge to the order in the Supreme Court. Those seeking to pull India back into dark ages must know the rest of us are firmly in opposition.

However, more than legal challenge the order needs to be fought politically. Unjust laws often survive challenges in court, but they cannot when popular mood is against them. How can that be mobilised? In the land of the Mahatma, that should be easy to answer. Remember what Gandhi did when faced with the British Salt Act. He simply defied in a nonviolent but impactful manner. He organized a march for with his supporters that attracted global attention to the issue and shamed the most powerful regime of its time. The regime the food vendors of UP and Uttarakhand are facing is much weaker by comparison. Just as Gandhi shook the foundation of British Raj just by lifting a handful of salt, maybe all Arif the fruit seller of Muzaffarnagar, and thousands in his position, need to do is pull off the nameplate from their cart.

This column appeared in Lokmat Times on July 24, 2024