The Big Ban Theory

Luckily, fantasies cannot be criminalised. Salivating for that scrumptious piece of tender meat is still legal. But, in India today, the local administrative machinery has the power to slap dietary restrictions that fit in with the layout of a majoritarian state on the pretext of honouring religious sentiments. The end result is predictable — further hardening of attitudes, societal polarisation with one community’s favourite food being held up as an-athema to another, and endless sparring between spokespersons of various political parties.

This week that familiar brand of food and identity politics is back to centrestage with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) banning animal slaughter and sale of meat on September 10, 13, 17 and 18 in Mumbai, the Maximum City. The dates fall within Paryushan, the eight-day Jain festival of fasting and forgiveness. The BMC’s decision follows that of the Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation in nearby Thane district, except that in Mira Bhayander the ban is for all eight days.

It is this kind of pandering to one community that leads to culinary and other sort of posturing by others. In 2012, Osmania University in Hyderabad hit the headlines when some right-wing students clashed with the dalit and minority students. The latter were celebrating what they called the first-ever “Beef Festival” on the campus. They claimed they were expressing their cultural identity and constitutional right. The dalit youth wanted beef on the campus hostel menu.

BJP spokespersons have been hopping from one television studio to another explaining that the current ban has been imposed “to protect the religious sentiments of the Jain community” at the request of the community, that it is not a new decision and has nothing to do with politics. Just a few months ago, these same BJP spokespersons were gunning for the Congress for its apparent “pseudo-secularism” and “pandering to minorities”.

Curiously, the ban covers mutton and chicken, and beef is in any case banned, but the argument about Jain sensitivities do not extend to fish and eggs. Apparently the BJP does not want to irritate the very first residents of Mumbai — the Koli fisher people. Arguably, the ban is not new. It has been operational since the 1960s when the BMC passed a resolution directing a two-day ban on sale of meat to honour the sentiments of the powerful and influential Jain community in Mumbai.

The Congress Party, which now opposes the ban, was equally complicit in facilitating government interference in a citizen’s private sphere. In 2004, the Congress and Sharad Pawar’s National Congress Party government also passed another resolution endorsing the two-day ban on meat sales, while adding two more days to it.

Ever since, every September, Mumbai has had to put up with a four-day ban on sale of meat — two days due to the earlier 1964 BMC resolution and two days because of the subsequent Mahara-shtra state Assembly’s 2004 resolution. There is also a 2008 Supreme Court ruling by Justice Markandey Katju and Justice H.K. Sema on the subject. The apex court does not ban slaughter or sale of meat during Paryushan, but it grants municipalities the power to decide to do so.

The court’s ruling links to the situation in Gujarat. Since many years, municipalities across Gujarat have ordered the closure of abattoirs during this period, despite complaints from butchers about financial losses. The ban is not new. But since it comes barely six months after Maharashtra’s controversial ban on the sale of beef — anyone found selling beef or in possession of it can be imprisoned for five years and fined Rs 10,000 — many see a pattern. The decision is viewed by meat-eating individuals as an infringement of their rights and there is growing unease that the state is creeping into what has been traditionally viewed as a private sphere.

Then there is the example of Madhya Pradesh — chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, a strict vegetarian, shot down a proposal to include eggs in Anganwadi meals on a pilot basis in the tribal areas of Alirajpur, Mandla and Hoshangabad districts, though malnutrition is a serious concern there. Many have pointed out that it is one thing for the Jain (or any other community) to appeal to others to voluntarily refrain from certain types of food during their fasting period, but it is quite another for the state to dictate what people can or cannot eat.

Legitimate questions have also arisen about the logical outcome of such fiats where one community is allowed to dictate the personal choices of others. One television panellist asked what would happen if Muslims were to demand that others compulsorily refrain from sex and alcohol during the Muslim holy month of Ramzan. And what is the assurance that tomorrow someone would not demand a ban on onion and garlic as well since they too offend some sensibilities.

It is not just about individual rights. There is an economic angle, too. What happens to those dependent on the meat business? The argument about numbers — that in some places some communities are numerically significant and therefore their writ should run — is not only flawed but dangerous. In a democracy, every citizen has equal rights. A community can follow its own religious or socio-cultural mores, but it has no right to insist or get the government to insist that those who don’t agree — be they from the community or outside — also have to follow such norms.

The beef and now the meat ban has stirred the whirlpool of identity politics. It is not just ordinary citizens of Mumbai and elsewhere in the country who are furious about religious tolerance and compassion being seen only through the lens of vegetarian triumphalism. Regional parties, including the BJP’s political allies, are also angry. The Shiv Sena and the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) are livid because they see the ban as an attack on the eating habits of Marathis. Sena leader Sanjay Raut has publicly labelled the move as “religious terrorism”. Mr Raut argues that respecting minorities such as Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and Jains does not mean taking orders from them on what to eat.

Can we afford a social, cultural battle over what we can eat and what we cannot? Won’t such ill-advised bans harden identity politics at a time when there are much graver issues at stake in Maharashtra and elsewhere? The BJP won with an overwhelming mandate. Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised “minimum government, maximum governance’’. The BJP needs to think deep and hard before being party to any move that can widen social divisions. Saying others did it too does not wash.

The writer focuses on development issues in India and emerging economies. She can be reached at patralekha.chatterjee@gmail.com