Our Political Correspondent
New Delhi: The role of a state legislature is to enact laws that align with the best interests of its people, respecting their cultural and social sensitivities. However, these decisions often come under fire, particularly when political motivations seem to take precedence over public welfare.
A recent controversy involving the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government’s directive on identity disclosures by traders during the Chhath Yatra route is a case in point. While it ignited political unrest, it has brought into sharp focus the double standards employed in political discourse, especially when comparing the actions of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress.
Before the Chhath Yatra in UP, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s government issued a directive that required shop owners along the yatra route to display information about the shop’s ownership, employees, and the nature of the food being served—particularly whether the food was vegetarian.
The objective, as cited by the state government, was to ensure that devotees participating in the yatra, who may follow strict vegetarian diets, would not unknowingly consume non-vegetarian food, which could hurt their religious sentiments.
However, this move did not sit well with the opposition. Political rivals immediately accused the Yogi government of ulterior motives, alleging that this directive targeted a particular community. The backlash was fierce, with critics lambasting Yogi Adityanath and accusing him of attempting to polarize society along communal lines.
Despite the fact that the Supreme Court, responding to a petition, directed the government to put on hold —acknowledging the concerns of the complainants. The opposition persisted in its condemnation. Fast forward, and a similar directive has now been implemented by the Congress-led government in Himachal Pradesh, but under vastly different circumstances.
The order in Himachal Pradesh comes in the wake of concerns surrounding a migration of people from specific areas who have reportedly engaged in criminal activities and allegedly encroached upon properties. There is also a brewing controversy over the construction of a new mosque, which some claim had encroached upon government land. Despite the Congress government managing to resolve the dispute quietly, likely to avoid embarrassment, it highlights an uneasy truth: actions similar to those criticized when executed by the BJP are now being downplayed as necessary or even appropriate when executed by a Congress-led administration.
The core issue here is not the legality or necessity of such directives, but the hypocrisy that surrounds the political responses. When the BJP implements a policy or law, particularly one with religious connotations, it is quickly branded as communal. But when the Congress or other opposition parties introduce similar measures, it is deemed secular, justified, or necessary for maintaining law and order.
This stark contrast in reactions lays bare the political opportunism that has infected national discourse. Such selective outrage is not only damaging to the credibility of political parties but also to the image of the country as a whole. In a nation as diverse as India, where different cultures, religions, and communities coexist, the political class should prioritize unity over division. However, the reality is that identity politics has become a potent tool for both sides. While the BJP has been accused of catering to the majority at the expense of minorities, the Congress has often played the secularism card selectively, only to cater to specific vote banks. It is this brand of politics—marked by inconsistency and opportunism—that is tarnishing India’s image globally.
The focus should be on governance that respects diversity and ensures the safety, security, and dignity of all its citizens, regardless of faith or political affiliation. Unfortunately, when the same policy is painted as communal by one party and secular by another, the public interest is lost in the crossfire of political expediency. In the end, governance should transcend political rivalries.
Policies that aim to maintain law and order, ensure public welfare, and protect religious sentiments should not become the battleground for political point-scoring. The real tragedy lies in the fact that what should be genuine concern for public sentiment is being used as a political football, damaging the very fabric of India’s democracy.
