NEWS ANALYSIS - Superstition and informed choice

 

By Kartik Lokhande 

At the start of the month of September -- ahead of Paryushan Parva of Jains, Ganeshotsav of Hindus, and Bakr-Id of Muslims -- there erupted a controvery over so-called meat ban in Maharashtra. 

Soon, the ‘impartial’ media went furious with the tales of states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Haryana, and even the court in Jammu and Kashmir ‘dictating’ the eating habits of people. Sadly, the ‘secular’ media highlighted the issue placing religious identity politics at the core of the debate. This same media forgot what it championed at other times -- the cause of animal rights.  

Animal rights always takes a backseat in media debate whenever the media finds more attractive packaging opportunity in the form of attaching political and religious significance to any development in the country. Another element is making an informed choice about one’s food habits, instead of laying emphasis on superstitious beliefs about religion. And, choice and superstition both go beyond the narrow confines of being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian. Its about compassion for all harmless and useful animals.  

This time, all the brouhaha started off with a routine notification issued by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) about meat ban for four days during ‘Paryushan Parva’ of Jains. Since 1964, Maharashtra and BMC have been enforcing meat ban during this period. During the rule of Congress-led Governments, the number of days of meat ban were increased gradually from one day in 1964 to four days in 2004. This time, Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation also imposed prohibition on sale of meat for eight days, and this stirred the political atmosphere with Shiv Sena, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, Congress and Nationalist Congress Party opening up front against the order. In the process, these parties targeted the ruling coalition leader Bharatiya Janata Party. 

Political parties switching the sides they took when they were either ruling or in opposition, was not a phenomenon restricted to Maharashtra alone. Gujarat had enforced the meat ban during ‘Paryushan Parva’ first in 1960 during Congress rule, and since then other Governments in the State followed it. In Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, the case was no different. In Haryana, following the hue and cry, the Government clarified that it had not imposed ban but only asked the slaughter-houses to remain shut during ‘Paryushan Parva’. In Jammu and Kashmir, the court asked the State Police to enforce beef ban under an old law -- Ranbir Penal Code. Despite being a court order, and that too, about enforcement of already existing legal provision, the media cried hoarse that this might push Jammu and Kashmir further into a spiral of violence.  

At the heart of all this, arguments and counter-arguments, was only one thing -- politics. So carried away is the media dominating the national scene in places like Delhi, Mumbai, and other metros in the country that it forgets any cause beyond the narrow confines of religion and politics. In fact, it is this media that has been at the core of making religion a tool of identity politics. As a result, those steering these media houses from behind the curtains use the power of media slyly to create rifts in society on religious or other faultlines. And, they build their arguments or counter-arguments keeping this in their mind.   

The same ‘metropolitan media’ champions the cause of animal rights, talks against cruelty to animals. However, in the recent high-pitched debate over meat/beef ban, instead of highlighting the point of animal rights, the media and those using media to further their agendas spoke of only one thing -- how can State dictate what should one eat? Neither such media nor the anti-ban activists wrote or spoke about the animals’ right to life. Just because the animals cannot speak, should they be killed? This, otherwise routine question was not asked in the entire debate.  

Sadly, even the animal rights activists also chose to keep mum. In some remote corners of the vast country, even if some animal rights activist spoke about it, his/her voice got drowned in the flood of words on television screens and in print. Interestingly, even the foreign media that usually favours animal rights organisations -- which protest against any Indian Government -- did not speak of animal rights this time. Probably, these elements must be thinking that sacrificing animals was condonable if it was for consumption of the human beings living in metro cities. For, food habits of people living in metro cities were above animal rights.  

One must be thinking that I am a vegetarian. In strict sense of the term, I am not a vegetarian. For, I support the opinion that being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian should be a matter of one’s choice. This also means that the choice should not be linked to religion or politics. However, in the instant case, the so-called ban on meat/beef has been linked to religion, politics, and politics of religious identity.  

Talking of religious identity and animal rights, there cannot be any justification for killing or sacrificing an animal for a religious reason. This applies to all the religions. There have been many social reformers across the country who spoke against animal sacrifice, as part of religious practice to please the God of any ilk. The reformers opposed this by asking the basic question -- If God, by whatever name He is known, is a compassionate entity for all living beings; how can He be pleased with killing of animals? Sadly, those believing in sacrifice for religious cause vilified the reformers as ‘anti-religion’ in different era. Today, when religion has become a powerful tool of identity politics, it is very difficult for even a common man to talk about compassion for animals.  

It is very sad that human beings are politicians, activists, businessmen, bureaucrats, law enforcers, and everything -- except human beings who can think compassionately about animals. Thinking compassionately about animals does not mean that one should be a vegetarian. It just means that instead of superstitious beliefs linked to religion, one should think about making informed choice about vegetarian or non-vegetarian food. 

(20-09-15)