By now, the controversy of the Kanwar Yatra procession and Uttar Pradesh enforcing a bizarre diktat around it, with regards to eateries and restaurants on the roads that the holy religious procession will pass by, has also caught the attention of the foreign media.
The Supreme Court has stayed the controversial and absurd order by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand police asking eatery owners along the Kanwar Yatra path to display the names of the staff. The top court has deemed it discriminatory.
However, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokespersons have defended the order, arguing that there should be no issue with displaying names if there is nothing to hide and emphasised that the rule applies to everyone, not just Muslims. But this argument misses the point. The question should not be why someone would want to hide their name but why any organisation should be required to reveal the names of its owners. Businesses are set up to draw in clients and profit. The identity of the owner and employees should not determine business operations.
Moreover, it is dishonest to say that displaying names has no discriminatory element when the entire context of this decision was to avoid offending Kanwar Yatra sentiments. If the intention was not to create religious discrimination but to facilitate devotees, a legitimate concern in itself, the authorities could have simply required eateries to display whether they serve pure vegetarian food. How could the name of the owner and staff provide clarity on whether or not a place serves only sattvic vegetarian food? This approach would have been more transparent and practical, focusing on the actual needs of the devotees without infringing on privacy or fostering discrimination based on religious identity.
Let’s not forget that there are extreme Right-wing elements that support an economic boycott of Muslims. Even though they do not speak for the majority of Indians, orders like these only facilitate these ideological extremists. The State’s responsibility is to curb such extreme elements, not appease them. By enforcing discriminatory measures, the government risks validating and empowering these fringe groups.
Also Read: ‘Parallel arrangement, creates doubt’ — UP bans halal certification for food items except exports
The ‘halal’ idea
One very crucial point in this debate is the concept of halal meat. The Uttar Pradesh government has already banned halal certification, except for products designated for export. There is a need for greater awareness about halal processes and food. Simply put, halal refers to food that Muslims are allowed to eat. It means that there are no forbidden elements in the dish and that it has been cooked in accordance with Islamic dietary regulations. The idea that halal is inherently discriminatory is valid only in the context of Muslims being allowed to perform the slaughter. Beyond this, there are no rituals associated with halal process that discriminate against anyone. No one is denied the right to serve halal products, nor is anyone denied the ability to obtain a Halal certificate based on their religious identity. From McDonald’s to Krishna Industries to Amul, many industries have obtained halal certificates from a third party.
Having said that, most of the time, there is no need to require halal certification. Muslims may readily decide whether a product is suitable for consumption by reading the ingredient lists. Moreover, using halal certification unduly involves religion in the decisions made by customers. Instead, by transparent labelling and consumer education, it might be prevented from complicating the market landscape and dividing consumers.
It’s also understandable that people who don’t follow Islam might not want to eat halal meat due to the specific Islamic rituals attached to its preparation; they have the right to consume what they prefer. However, there are also those of other faiths who have no issue with consuming halal meat. As a result, many eateries often find it more convenient to serve halal. This way, they cater to both Muslims who require halal and non-Muslims who do not have objections to it.
Similarly, eateries are now opening with sattvik certificates. The Sattvik Council of India, the world’s first vegetarian food safety and regulatory compliance body, provides these certificates to ensure adherence to strict vegetarian standards. Such certified restaurants offer a trusted option for those seeking pure vegetarian food. These eateries can cater to most people, including Muslims.
While we are discussing food and the sentiments attached to it, imposing choices on others based on personal sentiment is not the way to approach it. There should be space for people to follow their own preferences. While non-vegetarian food seems to offend Kanwariya sentiments, alcohol appears to cause similar concerns in Kashmir, according to MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, who has submitted a private member’s Bill to enforce a complete prohibition on liquor and intoxicants in the Union Territory.
The irony here is that this Bill is being introduced by a Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (JKNC) member who previously served in Omar Abdullah’s government. During that time, his government issued liquor licenses in the region, and he was a cabinet minister in the same administration that collected approximately Rs 337 crore from liquor sales in 2010-11, with revenue rising to Rs 385 crore in 2011-12—the highest since 1980. This Bill, therefore, seems to be little more than a political gimmick, as Mehdi now seeks to impose religious sentiments on everyone, including tourists.
Also Read: Hijab, halal, Navratri – The message is for Hindus, not Muslims, in Modi’s India
Respect sentiments, but not at the cost of freedom
In a multicultural nation like India, we must figure out how to honour people’s feelings without forcing them on others. The religious sentiments of kanwariyas must be respected, but not by enforcing rules that are discriminatory and attack the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. Similar is the case with Mehdi’s demand. We must acknowledge religious and cultural sensitivities without opening a pandora box in the world’s largest democracy. The ban on liquor in Gujarat has only led to the rise of an all-powerful liquor mafia and a black market of alcohol trade thrives in the state.
The State has to strike that fine balance that the Constitution of this land demands from it, that is, to ensure that the eight major world faiths who live in India practise their religious customs fearlessly. The freedom of the individual in a democracy is more sacred than that of a group. Denying an individual their liberties is mobocracy and the State cannot facilitate that.
Amana Begam Ansari is a columnist and TV news panelist. She runs a weekly YouTube show called ‘India This Week by Amana and Khalid’. She tweets @Amana_Ansari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)