he thing about Hindutva, like many of its ideological ancestors, is that it tries to invent a legacy and design for itself, in the name of ‘purity’ and ‘authenticity.’ Then it begins to purge things from our everyday existence. Hence, it will purge things in the name of whatever it deems not fitting within its own defined narrative of authentic tradition. It may include replacement of objects and rituals with new ones; removal of people and communities among other things, often violently. Precisely because it is a political project, it projects its ‘universal’ definition of pure Hindutva onto local, smaller traditions.

Kanwar yatra, till the 1980s mainly a religious journey undertaken by sadhus and religious leaders to seek blessings from Lord Shiva, has increasingly become a political tool for mobilisation of Hindu youth, institutionalising an aggressive form of political Hindutva. This journey accelerated in recent years with the state governments (often ruled by the BJP) driven towards rebranding the entire state as icons of Hindutva. Older pilgrimages are being given a makeover; new sites are being invented and minorities religious sites including mosques and mazars are being demolished.

The state governments of both Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh (the latter recently inaugurated its Ram temple with great fanfare) are doing this with missionary zeal (pun intended). Once this logic takes over, it doesn’t stop - sometimes despite the occasional setback like the recent election debacle in the UP.

In a controversial move, the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand have mandated that dhaba owners and other vendors display the proprietors’ names, ostensibly to clarify their religious identities during the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage. It is critical to note that the route of this yatra goes through some predominantly Muslim areas that have been providing great hospitality and service to the pilgrims over decades. The directive, which implicitly seeks to identify Muslim proprietors, has sparked predictable backlash and raises serious concerns about religious discrimination and social harmony in India.

The policy has been criticised even by some allies of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, such as the Janata Dal-United. They argue that the measure amounts to state-sanctioned religious profiling, which not only targets Muslims but also exacerbates communal tensions. Critics assert that this policy is reminiscent of fascist tactics used historically to isolate and persecute minorities, drawing parallels to the economic boycotts against Jews in Nazi Germany.

Reports indicate that Muslim workers in these states are already facing layoffs from Hindu-owned businesses, suggesting an economic boycott reminiscent of strategies employed by totalitarian regimes. Such actions not only violate the secular ethos enshrined in the Indian constitution but also threaten the economic well-being of a significant portion of the population.

Reports indicate that Muslim workers in these states are already facing layoffs from Hindu-owned businesses, suggesting an economic boycott reminiscent of strategies employed by totalitarian regimes. Such actions not only violate the secular ethos enshrined in the Indian constitution but also threaten the economic well-being of a significant portion of the population.

The Supreme Court of India, responding to public interest litigations, has acknowledged and issued a stay order on this policy, calling it a form of religious discrimination. The court has pointed out that it violates Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Indian constitution that guarantee equality before the law; prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion; and protect the freedom of religion. This legal scrutiny underscores the policy’s incompatibility with constitutional principles of secularism and equality.

Since its return to power, the current regime has been accused of signalling a business-as-usual approach, despite a reduced majority in the legislature. Observers note that attacks against Muslims and other minorities have increased, indicating a troubling trend towards greater polarisation and communal division. This climate of intolerance not only undermines the social fabric of the nation but also threatens its stability.

As the state becomes increasingly fragile under these divisive policies, there is a noticeable shift in public opinion. The opposition appears to be gaining ground, yet it has been criticised for not being more vocal in defending minority rights. This hesitation may be due to political calculations, but it underscores the urgent need for a stronger, more principled stand against policies that undermine India’s secular and democratic values.

The directive to display proprietors’ names based on religious identity is another criminal step towards institutionalising discrimination. It is essential for civil society, political leaders and the judiciary to resist such measures and uphold the principles of equality and secularism that are foundational to India’s democracy. The growing polarisation not only damages the social cohesion of the country but also poses a risk to its democratic integrity and stability.

As mentioned in the beginning, this Hindutva urge to purify oneself in the name of some mythical, invented purity never stops and will not be satisfied with devouring Muslims, Dalits and other marginalised communities; it will end up looking for enemies within one’s own household. That is a catastrophe waiting in the wings unless we, as a secular and democratic country, put our collective might to stop its rolling juggernaut.

The writer has been in the development sector for more than a decade. He currently works with an international non-governmental organisation based in Delhi. He may be reached at avinashcold@gmail.com