In yet another stride in the direction of greater polarisation in India, the city of Palitana in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, has decreed that meat cannot be sold there. This decision was preceded by protests by Jain monks, who had managed to shut down 250 butcher shops. City authorities, clearly in collusion with powerful religious and other influences, have instituted a un-Constitutional ban.
The ban deprives those who choose to consume meat from being able to access it, except illegally, and has deprived hundreds of people of their livelihoods and put them at risk of incurring punishment as per the law. Other cities in Gujarat already have restrictions regulating the sale of meat and meat products, although Palitana is the first to take out an outright ban.
Headlines announcing this have taken a chest-thumping spin, calling Palitana the “world’s first city” to make such a move, and using the misnomer “non-veg”, a word that only exists because of Indian English, and which privileges within the language itself those who have a vegetarian diet. Promoting vegetarianism in India almost never truly has to do with animal rights; it has to do with caste and religion, and of depriving human beings of our rights.
If it wasn’t, India wouldn’t be one of the top leather exporters in the world (while also enacting cow slaughter laws and permitting vigilante mobs to murder Muslims on the suspicion that they have beef in their fridges). This is why most progressive people, even those who practice vegetarianism as a personal choice, understand that its imposition is wrong and do not advise it or demand for it.
There is another deep hypocrisy, one that is noted in individuals rather than as a systemic feature: and that hypocrisy is in Indians who say that preferring to eat only at strictly vegetarian restaurants or even having a vegetarian-only food delivery fleet (as Zomato announced recently) is a choice, while preferring to eat only at Halal restaurants or otherwise consuming meat, seafood and eggs are not choices but offensive.
Of course, Palitana’s decision is not only about Muslims, but about the vast majority of the Indian population — including probably you (and most certainly me). Most Indians are not vegetarian — statistics show that only somewhere between 24% and 38% are. Even if the vast majority were, that would still not render such a draconian move permissible.
A phrase many reasonable people use, which is believed to be from a 1958 film called The Wind Cannot Read, among other attributions, is along the lines of: “Your religion prohibits you. It does not prohibit me.” This is a simple enough concept in principle, of offering respect for another’s choices, especially if one wishes to be respected for one’s own.
But it’s impossible to apply if one’s attachment to any such choice has less to do with faith and more to do with controlling others.
The real food issues in India pertain to farmers’ rights, climate change, inflation and food security for the underprivileged. These are matters of serious concern, with the first three affecting us all and the last relevant to those who actually practice compassion, rather than merely preach.