Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Friday mandated that all eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route must display the names of their owners. This decision came after the Muzaffarnagar Police faced backlash and reversed a similar order.
The new directive requires every food shop or cart owner to prominently display the owner’s name on a board.
The initial order from the Muzaffarnagar Police had sparked significant political outrage, with leaders from both the opposition and the ruling NDA expressing concerns that the mandate would create division. Former Union minister and BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi criticized the move, suggesting it would foster untouchability. “Hasty orders from some over-zealous officials may give rise to the disease of untouchability… Faith must be respected, but untouchability must not be patronized,” Naqvi wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
Despite support from many BJP leaders, Naqvi posted a photograph of himself participating in the Kanwar Yatra, asserting his respect and faith in the tradition. KC Tyagi, national spokesperson of Janata Dal (United), a key BJP ally, also criticized the order, warning that it could cause communal tension and should not discriminate based on religion.
After the backlash, the Muzaffarnagar administration revised its order, suggesting that the display of owners’ names on eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route could be voluntary. However, Yogi Adityanath escalated the issue on Friday, making it mandatory statewide.
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi condemned the order, accusing Yogi Adityanath of being influenced by “Hitler’s soul” and promoting untouchability. Owaisi argued that the mandate violated Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits untouchability, as well as Articles 19 and 21, which protect the right to livelihood and the right to life, respectively.
The Samajwadi Party, part of the opposition INDIA bloc, was the first to criticize the order. SP chief Akhilesh Yadav called it “a social crime aimed at dividing society” in a post on X, urging the judiciary to investigate the intent behind the directive and take appropriate action.
