Resistance to bullying can come in unexpected ways. This is especially important when the social fabric is being assaulted by the forces of religious polarisation. In Uttarakhand, Deepak Kumar, the owner of a gym from the majority community, stood up against Bajrang Dal members who were harassing a minority community trader. The vigilantes were apparently insisting that the trader change the name of his shop. The trader alleged that the alternative they offered was his conversion to the majority religion. The gym owner not only faced the harassers but also identified himself as “Mohammad Deepak”, thereby fusing his own religious identity with that of the minority community. This, he said, was his way of conveying secular values and the idea of India. What emerged through his — nowadays rare — explanation was the image of a plural, secular democracy projected by the Constitution and
once part of social and cultural education. The gym owner’s declaration, that beyond belonging to any religion, he was a human being seems extraordinary in today’s context. His resistance lay in both his act and his declaration.

He did receive some support on social media, and Rahul Gandhi called him the “hero of India”. Yet the police registered a case against him on the complaint that he had used foul language and caused disorder. It is this inversion of values and the administration’s quick use of the law against the refusal to be bullied by right-wing forces that make people’s resistance both difficult and urgent. Meanwhile, in Calcutta, the people of the city came out in support of a waiter from the minority community who was arrested on a complaint that he had served beef to a high-caste majority community member after being ordered mutton. The restaurant apologised profusely for the unintentional error but did not budge from its position of support to their employee either. This turned out to be a remarkable instance of the impact of popular resistance crystallising around a cause — in this case, around resistance to communalisation. That more people are visiting the restaurant now is an indication of how easily popular support can spread.

Both incidents show that even unorganised resistance to divisiveness and potential violence is possible if the belief in secular, democratic values is deep enough. The restaurant in Calcutta, for example, did not forget to declare that it was founded on respect for all, irrespective of caste, creed, religion or gender. An individual in Uttarakhand and a city in West Bengal asserted an identity that has refused to be fragmented yet, and insisted on holding on to a social fabric threatened with fragility. These cannot be said to be major incidents, but the importance they have acquired is a comment on the troubled environment of a society riddled with hostility and suspicion. That the importance is disproportionate emphasises the need for people’s resistance and the support for it even in everyday matters.