UP nameplate order springs from prejudice

Asking citizens to act out their biases is a new low

The Uttar Pradesh government order that shops along the route taken by the Kanwar yatra pilgrims must display the names of their proprietors is notably egregious, and the Supreme Court has stepped in to stay it. The government order sought to sow division by prompting the Hindu pilgrims to buy their victuals only from shops owned by Hindus, and, perhaps, as some observers have pointed out, also encouraged caste discrimination. The problem was compounded by the copycat action of the government of Uttarakhand, a state through which, too, the pilgrims pass. To begin with, it must be noted that the pilgrimage has been undertaken for decades without any problem. So, there are no grounds based on necessity. As nameplates were expected to be fixed to trading establishments, including roadside stalls and temporary eateries, the mood among Muslim vendors was gloomy, since they harboured the apprehension that many pilgrims would take their custom to establishments run by their coreligionists.

The fact that governments are actually inviting citizens to act out their biases is a new low. The Constitution actually outlaws such discriminatory practices among both the citizenry, and obviously, the legally constituted organs of the state. No comprehensible justification was offered for this pernicious administrative fiat. Uttarakhand Chief Minister Prakash Singh Dhami argued that this was a transparency drive and no one should hide their names. One wonders whether he realises exactly how meaningless that defence is. By that logic, every commercial establishment in the state should post all particulars about their owners prominently so that customers and clients have full knowledge. The fact is that customers and clients are usually not interested in who exactly is selling them an orange or a bottle of water. In Uttar Pradesh, cabinet minister Kapil Dev Agarwal offered an even less coherent justification, essentially arguing that there was nothing wrong with the order. Everything was wrong with the order because it amounted to religious profiling. In this case, the profiling had the obviously malign intent of hurting the economic interests of one class of people on the basis of their religion. That was a step on the road to fascism.

The silver lining to this particular dark cloud was that some of the members of the National Democratic Alliance protested this measure. The Bihar-based Janata Dal (United) and Lok Janshakti Party, as well as the Uttar Pradesh-based Rashtriya Lok Dal, called out the order for what it was: an attempt to divide people on the basis of religion. The JD(U) had also demanded sapiently that the order be withdrawn.