Food is culture too, and freedom of culture is a fundamental right

Mumbai: Food taboos are an old reality in India. We’ve all heard stories of cranky people turning away prospective tenants if they eat fish or meat. Many of us have experienced the rejection at first hand. However, it’s one thing for a cranky individual to be biased and discriminatory, and quite another for the state to start supporting such bias and discrimination. This is what has been happening in recent months in several Indian states ruled by the BJP.

The banning of meat of bullocks and oxen by the Maharashtra and Haryana governments was the first recent intimation of the state pushing a food taboo. The story was sold as the banning of cow slaughter, in an attempt to gain Hindu support. Cow slaughter had already been banned in Haryana since 1955 and Maharashtra since 1976. The bullock and ox are not considered holy by Hindus. The legal justification for the ban is therefore being found in terms of preventing cruelty to animals.

People in this country eat many other animals too. Goats and chickens are eaten all over India. The Northeast of the country loves its pork and beef. At one time, in some places, dogs were also eaten. In Bihar, there is a community called the Musahars that used to eat rats, and still does. Former chief minister Jitan Ram Majhi is from that community.

Many such examples can be found. What it shows is that different communities have had different food habits down the centuries. Food is an aspect of culture. I don’t see why the state should side with the culture of one and a half communities in the country, by curtailing the liberties of all others.

Vegetarianism is a tradition in the Jain community. Hindu Brahmins in several parts of India are also traditionally vegetarians. However, not all Brahmins are vegetarians - Brahmins in Bengal and Kashmir were never vegetarians. All Brahmin communities in Maharashtra and Goa are not vegetarians. Outside the Brahmin caste, most Hindu communities were never vegetarian. Coastal communities have generally been eaters of fish, whether it is in Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu or Orissa. The fish is a part of rituals in Bengali weddings.

Sacrifice was also a part of worship at the Durga Puja. I have recollections of watching a buffalo being sacrificed at a Durga Puja organized by a Nepali community; perhaps it was the Gorkhas. Goats, of course, were sacrificed in long lines. The sacrificial meat was cooked and eaten as part of the festivities.

The point is that different communities have different traditions and cultures, and food habits are a part of those traditions and cultures. To impose a variety of minority Brahmin or Jain culture on the other Hindu communities, Dalits, Muslims, Christians, and tribals, is an affront to the vast majority of peoples in this land. It is also an infringement on the fundamental right of people to freedom of culture, and fails to treat all cultures equally. The government has a constitutional duty to protect the rich heritage of our composite culture.

“Sabka saath” is not possible if the government starts to insult the traditions of different Indian communities and to kick people in the stomach in the bargain.

The moral case for vegetarianism is a strong one (though questions of plant sentience can be asked), but the state is not making that argument.

It is perfectly fine if the government decides to advise people on the health effects of consuming meat. I wouldn’t mind if statutory health warnings of the sort that come on cigarette packs were posted outside meat shops and on packets of packaged meat.

However, it is not okay if the government randomly decides, based on prejudice, that some meats should not be eaten. If it’s really about prevention of cruelty to animals, then the slaughter of goats, pigs, buffaloes and chickens should also be banned. So should the killing of rats and dogs. The government itself arranges for the murder of plenty of rats, which are intelligent sentient beings. That should stop, if the principle of preventing cruelty is to be uniformly applied.

One common side-effect of vegetarian prejudice is the denial of housing to people who eat fish and meat. Northeastern people and Muslims have a particularly hard time finding houses, though Hindus face it too. A law against discrimination in housing is therefore necessary in this very diverse country.

Until that comes along, I have a suggestion to balance the scales of justice a little bit: Why can’t non vegetarians start treating vegetarians exactly as they themselves are treated? Cruelty to plants is pretty awful too, and the smell of tadka dal (spicy lentils) cooking leaves most people coughing and gasping for breath. Perhaps it’s time to start a petition for a law banning cooking tadka dal.