Bihar's Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Kumar Sinha sparked a row when, while banning the open sale of meat near religious places and schools, he said such visibility hurt the “purity of our sentiments” and could foster “violent tendencies” among children. He insisted the government was not against anyone’s right to eat what they chose; yet the order casts ordinary dietary practice as a moral and social threat.
The political backdrop made the statement more charged. In Bihar, food habits of leaders such as Lalu Prasad, Tejashwi Yadav and Rahul Gandhi have in recent times been amplified into campaign controversies. The BJP has accused them of eating meat during ‘auspicious’ days to allege disrespect to Hindu sentiments. With Holi coming up and elections due in several states including West Bengal next door, the timing of Sinha’s remarks has led the opposition to question his intentions.
If this is about sending a majoritarian cultural signal, it is on a weak ground because, within Hinduism, Shakta traditions and numerous sub-groups have included meat in their diets for long. Data also exposes the rhetoric. The National Family Health Survey 2019-21 showed that just 16.6 percent of Indian men and 29.4 percent of women aged 15-49 had never consumed meat. Yet, ‘non-vegetarian’ is a social label used with an arguably pejorative slant in many contexts.
The episode fits a wider pattern. Across India, food culture has been increasingly politicised—from school mid-day meals to food served in hostels or on trains. What’s lost in this noise is the individual’s right to choose. Vegetarianism works well for those who practise it. But a shift from animal-based food can worsen poverty and malnutrition among communities used to it as an affordable source of protein. When these foods are left out of government schemes, it sends the message that their habits are inferior or avoidable.
The Constitution protects personal freedom, including the right to choose what one eats. Governments should ensure hygiene and follow the law without turning food into a tool of moral policing. Social harmony cannot grow by limiting diversity—but only by accepting others’ choices. A confident society does not feel threatened by its constituents’ food choices.