WHEN COMMUNAL POLITICS POISONS TRADITION: A WARNING FROM UDUPI

 Udupi today stands at a troubling crossroads. A town revered for its spiritual heritage and admired for its social harmony is being dragged into avoidable communal discord by the irresponsible politics of its own elected representative. BJP MLA Yashpal Suvarna’s latest intervention around the Paryaya celebrations is not an isolated remark but part of a familiar pattern—one that thrives on polarisation and survives on manufactured grievance.

The Paryaya of the Udupi Krishna Temple is not merely a religious rotation of pontiffs. Over centuries, it has evolved into a civic-cultural event that binds the town together, much like Mysuru Dasara. Its success has always depended on public cooperation across communities. Among the most visible and symbolic of these traditions is the participation of local Muslims, who offer hore kānike—vegetables, fruits, and grains—not as a political statement but as an expression of shared belonging. This practice has endured regimes, rulers, and ideologies.

It is against this backdrop that Suvarna’s claim—that Muslims have been denied participation this time—becomes deeply problematic. Whether made recklessly or with intent, such a statement injects suspicion into a space that has historically functioned on trust. It suggests exclusion and provokes outrage. In doing so, it disturbs not only communal harmony but also the moral credibility of public institutions associated with the Paryaya.

As a people’s representative, Suvarna’s foremost duty is to preserve peace and social cohesion, not to score ideological points. His repeated resort to communal rhetoric has earned him censure from civil society before, and rightly so. The tragedy is that such politics harm everyone: Hindus whose festivals risk becoming battlegrounds, Muslims whose goodwill is questioned without cause, and a town whose reputation for harmony is slowly eroded.

Equally concerning is the silence of those who should speak. The Udupi Krishna Temple and the Ashta Mutts, especially the Paryaya Swami of Puttige Mutt, owe the public a clear clarification. Did the MLA speak with their approval? Does the temple endorse any form of exclusion? In matters of faith intersecting with public life, silence is not neutrality—it is interpretation. And interpretation, in a charged climate, quickly becomes judgment.

The Congress-led state government, which professes secularism, cannot remain a mute spectator either. Democratic governance demands intervention when elected representatives inflame communal tensions.

Civil society must take note. What is at stake is not one MLA’s remark but the slow normalisation of divisive politics in spaces that once belonged to everyone. Udupi deserves better than to have its sacred traditions reduced to political weapons. If harmony is to survive, provocation must be named for what it is—and firmly rejected.