Segregationist politics seems to be seeping down to the grassroots in Uttarakhand, resulting in easily triggered incidents of street violence. The social environment seems to have become so inflammatory that even ordinary differences of opinion escalate rapidly to physical assaults. The Angel Chakma case and the recent attack upon a Kashmiri shawl vendor are examples of this. Uttarakhand has for long prided itself in being a more sophisticated society but certain factors are creating a dissonance in its ethos. As a pilgrimage and tourism destination, its people have been quite used to dealing with visitors in a professional and courteous manner. However, they are often having to respond to a new breed of visitors who are not only naturally rowdy but also disrespectful towards others. This has led to group aggregation on the basis of identity and an increasingly pre-programmed response. This happens, for instance, with identification of Haryana and Delhi number plates with trouble-makers.
This situation is aggravated with the environment created by the politics of limiting state citizenship on the basis of domicile, as well as targeting what are described as ‘population, love and land jihad’. While illegal occupation of government, forest and private lands needs to be strictly acted against, to be obviously delighted at the pain inflicted on ‘others’ is this very identity politics. Chief Minister Dhami has expressed surprise that he has been given the highest rank in some ‘hate-speech’ survey, but he must introspect over how such politics is impacting the social consciousness of Uttarakhandis.
It is not a surprise that this mindset is spreading to a point where temple managements are not only asking for the exclusion of ‘non-Hindus’ from the state’s famous shrines, the areas in their proximity, even the ghats on the sacred rivers. Are they not aware that many ‘non-Hindus’ come to this region in their quest for spiritual advancement, leading eventually to their acceptance of many Sanatan beliefs? Would they dare to deny an APJ Abdul Kalam or a Bismillah Khan entry into the shrines? Do they not know that Hinduism recognises all as ‘jeevatmas’, even to the extent of worshipping animals, trees and stones?
Is it not natural that this culture of discrimination will also extend swiftly to exclusion on the basis of caste? One does not have to be openly espousing hate. Merely creating conditions for this and providing patronage to discriminatory action also serves the purpose. A quick change in direction is required for Sanatan’s sake.
