Kanwar yatra, an annual pilgrimage in north India that concluded earlier this week, evoked more fervour over food than passion for piety this year. Most kanwariyas went about their rituals peacefully. But a minority of them exhibited aggressive behaviour, imposing majoritarian choices on food.
State administrations faced criticism for giving preferential treatment to the pilgrims, with critics claiming they went to great lengths to enforce bans on non-vegetarian food. Things came to such a pass that the Supreme Court was involved in balancing sentiments even on the last day of the yatra.
The court’s observation about transparency in food choices finds resonance far beyond the yatra. It emphasised the comfort zone of the consumer-devotee, stating that if a non-vegetarian eatery switches to vegetarian only during the yatra for better business, there should be a way to inform consumers that it had previously served non-vegetarian fare. The court underlined the importance of telling the devotees about the past practices of such eateries.
The eateries view their actions as strategic and lucrative opportunities to generate more revenue in the yatra season, appeal to devotees, or circumvent administrative restrictions.
The question is whether the practice flirts with consumer deception. In a pluralistic society such as ours, where ‘pure vegetarian’ restaurants make special mention of dishes without onions or garlic, food is a deeply cultural and religious matter.
The court’s backing of the public disclosure of eateries’ past practices enhances consumer autonomy—not only for devotees, but also for others with, say, allergies or other medical restrictions, and their right to informed decision-making.
Interestingly, it is common knowledge that restaurants in several cities stop serving non-vegetarian food during some festive seasons, reverting to their old menus thereafter.
However, only the small eateries along the kanwar yatra route seem to be the focus of attention. That leads us to the root cause behind the controversy—the sudden mushrooming of ideological battles over dietary choices that have politicised food in the country in general, with their tempo getting more shrill on religious occasions.
Religious and consumer freedoms must coexist and be accessible universally without discrimination. Full disclosure of restaurant practices is essential. But legal protection is equally important against stigmatising certain foods and their vendors in the name of religious sensitivity.