Posters in Siliguri asking residents to buy biryani, meat and Puja items only from Hindu traders have turned a festival-season appeal into a wider question about who is allowed to participate in a city’s informal economy. The messages, put up before Durga Puja by Hindu Jagran Manch, do not announce a municipal rule or a formal market policy. But they seek to influence where people spend money, which vendors are trusted and who can operate around one of Bengal’s largest public festivals.
That makes the episode more than another argument over food habits. It places identity at the centre of ordinary urban transactions: a meal ordered from a shop, flowers bought for a ritual, a payment made through a QR code and a stall positioned near a Puja pandal. These are small acts of commerce, but together they form the everyday economy that sustains festivals and the neighbourhoods around them.
The Indian Express reported that hundreds of posters appeared in north Bengal’s Siliguri, carrying messages such as “No one is stopping you from eating Biryani, but eat it from a Hindu shop” and “buy meat from a Hindu shop”. Another message asked people to check the seller’s name before paying by QR code. Other posters called on Hindus of all castes to unite and urged the creation of a society without addiction or drugs.
Hindu Jagran Manch leaders claimed responsibility for the posters. Prasanta Sarkar, a leader of the organisation, told The Indian Express that the group was not against any community and wanted Hindu traders to benefit from the festival economy. Nilanjan Panda, another Manch leader from Sonarpur in south Bengal, said the group had also appealed to some Puja committees to permit only Hindu shop and stall owners near pandals.
The distinction between an appeal and an enforceable rule is central. The reported posters have no stated legal authority, and the article does not report any municipal notification, police order or court direction restricting the identity of food sellers or Puja vendors. Their influence, therefore, depends on social pressure, the response of local organisers and the willingness of customers and traders to act on the messages.
That informal enforcement question is important in cities. A market does not operate only through written regulations. Vendors depend on access to busy locations, customer confidence, local associations and relationships with landlords, organisers and enforcement agencies. During a major festival, temporary stalls and food outlets can become particularly dependent on permissions and informal arrangements around public spaces. A message that identifies some traders as legitimate and others as unsuitable can affect business even without becoming a formal rule.
The economic scale of Durga Puja is acknowledged by the Manch itself. Sarkar argued that a large economy surrounds the festival and asked why Hindu traders should not benefit from it. The argument frames the issue as a question of economic participation. Yet the proposed solution, as described in the report, is not an open competition for customers or a scheme based on small-business support. It is a call to direct trade according to the religious identity of the seller.
That shift matters because urban livelihoods are usually organised through occupation, location, pricing, supply chains and customer demand. A food seller’s access to a market can involve wholesalers, transport workers, cooks, delivery workers, stall operators and payment-service providers. The report does not establish the religious identity of the traders affected by the posters, how many businesses were targeted or whether any vendor was denied a licence or physical access. It does show, however, an attempt to make identity a visible condition of purchase and participation.
The call to check a seller’s name before making a digital payment also brings a routine urban technology into the dispute. QR payments are normally designed to reduce friction between buyer and seller. In this context, the poster’s message seeks to turn the payment moment into an identity check. The supplied report does not say whether customers followed the appeal or whether businesses reported losses. But the wording illustrates how digital commerce can be used not only to widen access to markets, but also to sort participants according to social categories.
The question becomes sharper around Puja committees and pandals. These spaces are often temporary, locally organised and embedded in residential areas. The report says Manch leaders appealed to some committees in south Bengal to allow only Hindu shop and stall owners near pandals. It does not say that the committees accepted the request, nor does it identify any committee that implemented such a restriction. That limitation must remain clear. The reported proposal is evidence of an effort to influence local commercial access, not proof of a general policy across Bengal.
Opposition leaders described the posters as an attempt to exclude Muslims economically. Md Salim, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) state secretary and former MP, called the move “economic ostracism” and said it was part of a planned effort to push away a community. Trinamool Congress representative Krishanu Mitra said police should act against those responsible and described the campaign as dangerous. These are political responses and should be read as such; the report does not provide an independent police assessment or a legal finding supporting either description.
The response from the Bharatiya Janata Party was not a direct endorsement. Arun Mondol, the BJP’s Siliguri district president, told The Indian Express that he had not seen the posters and could not comment on them. His response leaves the position of the local party organisation unclear. The report identifies Hindu Jagran Manch as a Hindu nationalist organisation affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the BJP’s ideological parent, but affiliation alone does not establish that the party authorised the posters.
The episode also follows a sequence of public disputes over food and religious observance during Durga Puja. The report says the Vishwa Hindu Parishad issued guidelines in August asking that non-vegetarian food not be taken inside mandaps or sold outside them. After an uproar, the VHP clarified that there was no ban on non-vegetarian food and said it did not issue fatwas. The article also links the debate to remarks by Dhirendra Krishna Shashtri, the head priest of Madhya Pradesh’s Bageshwar Dham, who urged people to avoid non-vegetarian food and alcohol during the festival.
Those earlier interventions focused on what people should eat. The Siliguri posters extend the dispute to whom people should buy from. That is a significant change in the urban question. Food practice is a matter of personal choice unless regulated through lawful public-health or safety rules. Vendor identity, by contrast, affects access to income and the functioning of local markets. Once a festival economy is organised around who owns a shop or stall, the issue moves from private observance into public commerce.
The report also records an internal corrective within the BJP’s public response to the food debate. State BJP chief Samik Bhattacharya said that what Bengalis eat should not be determined by a religious figure or political party, and referred to the region’s established consumption of fish and meat. That statement addressed dietary choice rather than the Siliguri posters directly. It nevertheless demonstrates that the political response to festival-related food messaging has not been uniform.
For local administration, the immediate institutional questions are narrower and more concrete. Who put up the posters, where were they placed, and under what permissions? Did any municipal or police authority receive complaints? Were traders threatened, denied space or prevented from operating? Did Puja committees adopt or reject the appeal? The supplied report does not answer these questions. Their answers would determine whether the episode remains a political campaign using public imagery or develops into a matter involving public order, commercial access or unlawful intimidation.
The same questions apply to the economic impact. No figures are provided on the number of affected traders, the value of festival sales or any change in customer behaviour. There is no evidence in the report that Muslim-owned businesses lost contracts or that Hindu-owned businesses gained them. The claim that Hindu traders should benefit is therefore an organising argument made by the Manch, not an established outcome.
What is established is that a city’s festival economy has become a site of contest over belonging. The posters connect food, ritual purchases, digital payments and public-space vending to a religious identity test. Political opponents have condemned the effort, a local BJP leader has declined to comment without seeing the posters, and the organisation behind the messages has defended them as support for Hindu traders rather than hostility towards another community.
The next stage will depend on institutional action and local responses. Whether the posters are removed, whether police or civic authorities investigate complaints, and whether Puja committees permit or reject identity-based vendor restrictions will show how far such appeals can shape access to urban commerce. Until those facts are established, the evidence supports a narrower conclusion: in Siliguri, the politics of Durga Puja has moved from debates over food to a contested attempt to influence who gets to sell it.
