The Uttar Pradesh government’s directive requiring shop owners along the Kanwar Yatra route to display their names has sparked significant controversy and legal challenges. The directive mandates that all food and beverage establishments along the yatra route display the name and identity of the operators prominently. This measure is intended to ensure the smooth conduct of the Kanwar Yatra and maintain the sanctity of the pilgrims’ faith.
Background of the Directive
The UP government, led by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, issued the directive as part of several measures to manage the Kanwar Yatra, which commenced on July 22. Authorities argue that the directive aims to prevent confusion and potential conflicts among pilgrims, known as Kanwariyas, by ensuring transparency about the ownership of establishments along the route. The directive also includes actions against those selling halal-certified products, emphasizing the provision of ‘Satvik’ (pure vegetarian) food for fasting Hindus.
Legal Challenge
The directive has been challenged in the Supreme Court by the NGO Association of Protection of Civil Rights (APCR). The petition argues that the directive is discriminatory and could incite communal tensions, particularly targeting Muslim shop owners. The Supreme Court has listed the case for hearing and will examine the legality and implications of the government’s order.
Reactions and Controversy
The directive has drawn mixed reactions:
- Support: Some support the directive, viewing it as a necessary step to ensure the pilgrims’ religious sentiments are respected and to prevent potential law and order issues.
- Criticism: Critics, including opposition leaders and civil rights activists, have condemned the order as discriminatory. They argue that it fosters division and could lead to communal discrimination. Former Union Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi described the directive as promoting “untouchability” and urged its withdrawal.
Government’s Defense
The UP government maintains that the directive is purely administrative and aims to ensure the smooth conduct of the Kanwar Yatra without any intent of discrimination. Officials have stated that the measure is to avoid confusion and disputes over food quality and ownership transparency during the yatra.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter will be crucial in determining the balance between administrative measures for religious events and the protection of individual rights against discriminatory practices. The controversy highlights the challenges in managing large-scale religious events while ensuring communal harmony and legal fairness.