Egg Politics in Madhya Pradesh

Politicising food continues in India. Shivraj Singh Chauhan of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruled in Madhya Pradesh (MP) from 2005 to 2018. During the time he had refused to give egg to the school children. The policy was influenced by the fact that Mr. Chauhan believed in vegetarianism. This was driven by his personal religious belief. 

In 2019, the Congress led government came to power. And during this brief period, the children were given eggs. The Minister had said that the government was just following the advice of the doctors who had said that egss are good for the children. 

In 2020, after a year of being out of power, Shivraj Singh Chauhan's party was able to topple the Congress led government and returned to power. This allows him to reverse the Congress led government's decision to give eggs to the kids. Now it's back to no eggs for the school children. The government said that instead of eggs, milk would be given to the kids. 

When it was in power some years back, BJP had also tried to prevent beef consumption in Maharashtra. It had tried to do that by criminalising possession of beef. After all to consume, one has to possess first. So without really criminalising consumption, it tried to criminalise possession. But this was struck down by the Court as unconstitutional. This means that a person can bring in beef from other state and cook and consume it. In this case, since it involves legislation, the Court has struck it down. Unless the Constitution is amended, beef consumption can't be criminalised. 

However, when it comes to choices between eggs and milk, BJP has shown its preference for milk because of its religious belief. But a question emerges: is this a fair policy for a secular state?

To answer this, one must also take into consideration these questions: what is the benefit of milk vis-a-vis egg; and how does the cost factor weigh in? If the cost of milk and eggs are same plus the utility factor from medical perspective remains the same, then of course there is no way one can raise meaningful objection. (If we assume that the milk won't be adulterated.) But if egg is more beneficial and cheaper, then it is questionable. However, given that this is not a criminal act, the government would get away with the policy even if it is less beneficial. 

But this also raises an important question: is it morally permissible for government in a secular state  to implement policies that are less efficient just because the policy is more in line with the religious ideology of those in power? 

Dog Meat Ban in Nagaland

On 3rd July, the Nagaland state cabinet decided to impose a ban on "commercial import and trading of dogs and dog market and also the sale of dog meat, both cooked and uncooked". The ban does not include consumption of dog meat in the state if the meat is bought from other states or if it's given by a neighour. Basically, the ban is about trading and selling of dog and dog meat. 

Few years back, when Devendra Fadnavis was the Chief Minister of the state, Maharashtra government also imposed similar ban on beef. Fadnavis went beyond and even banned possession, and thereby consumption, of beef. After all unless one could possess, one could not consume it. But the Court struck it down saying to ban possession (and consumption) is to violate the Constitution. At present, if someone wants to consume beef, one has to bring in from another state. 

In Article 48 of the Constitution, the Directive Principe of state policy has a clause that says that the state shall take "steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle." Since the Hindutva brigade cannot appeal to their religious or dharmic sentiment to seek protection for cows, they seek to implement cow protection through appealing to this Directive Principle. Since the saffron/Hindutva brigade has reverence for cow for so long, the Directive Principle itself was framed this way in order to accommodate the sentiment.

At the same time, matter concerning food is also about life. And state itself exists to protect life. Article 21 of the Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty...." Now to deprive someone from eating certain item as food which traditionally has been considered as food is to infringe on his right to life. Therefore, the Court could not allow the state to infringe on citizens' right to life. The fine balance, therefore, is to ban trading of beef yet not ban consumption of it. 

Given that the RSS/BJP folks have reverence for cow, one can understand why they tried hard to find reason within the Constitutional limit to ban or minimise beef consumption, and thereby protect and preserve cows. But why would Neiphiu Rio and the Cabinet wish to ban trading of dog meat, and thereby limit dog meat consumption? After all if none could sell, consumption is going to come down. Is it because of their love for dog, like the love of RSS/BJP for cow? Not quite. There is this line that says that dog meat consumption is bringing bad name to Nagaland. So basically, it is to stop defaming of the state that dog meat trading is banned; it is to uplift the name of the state that dog meat trading is banned. This is not entirely unreasonable because dogs are considered to be our best friends. However, to ban trading of an item that is traditionally considered as food item does not sound very plausible. A mature democratic society should not ban a food item particularly one that most of its citizens have been relishing for ages. Moreover, being a state located in the eastern region, which is cold, people need fat in their dietary habit. This has been obtained mainly through consumption of meat be it beef, dog, chicken or pork. The state may urge people to shed meat consumption and go for coconut oil, sunflower oil etc. But the way to do this is not by threatening citizens with imprisonment through a legislation or an ordinance, but through other means. If Rio thinks that dog meat consumption is not a civic virtue or it's not a habit of a civilized community, then for the state to ban it is also not the way a (liberal) democratic society should behave. By imposing a ban on dog meat trading, Rio took one step ahead and one step backward. 

In an age where states have been curtailing citizens' liberty inch by inch, I wish that Nagaland government had sought to bring glory to its name through other measures! 

Why Must Beef Eaters Go to Pakistan?

The other day BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said that those Indian who wanted to continue eating beef should go to Pakistan. Here is the newspaper link. BJP's intention to get slaughtering of cow banned in not secret. But imposing ban on cow slaughtering is to impose ban on the consumption of beef. This does not come as a surprise because leaders from BJP and its right wing fundamentalist mentor RSS have repeated made similar statements. 

What comes as a surprise is that the statement is coming from Minister of State for Minority Affairs. The ministry is supposed to be looking after the rights and the interest of the religious minorities. And when certain people in the ruling party want to impose its religious agenda, the ministry is supposed to argue back and caution such people that imposition of such religious agenda goes against the secular nature of the state and thus subverts the liberty of the religious minorities. Instead of being faithful to the task the ministry is supposed to be doing, what the Minister does is a compromise of the purpose of its ministry. This is sad state of affair. 

Yes, the senior minister Arun Jaitley has expressed disapproval of the comment. But mere disapproval of the comment is not enough in this regard. Had it come from the minister of other department, that is understandable. But given that this is coming from the Minister of Minority Affair, removing him from this ministry would be the more fitting response from the PM. 

Why Beef Ban?

The BJP government in Maharashtra has banned beef consumption. Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh says that his government intends to legislate ban on cow slaughter all over the nation... so that no one in India can eat beef. This cow slaughter ban has been a consistent demand of the saffron brigade for years. And now with BJP government in power in Centre as well as different states, the wishes of the saffron brigade will ever come true! Question is: Is it alright for the government to dictate to the citizens what they can eat and what they cannot eat? 

India is not a theocratic state; it is a secular state. It respects people of all religious persuasions. Given this affirmation, to impose the religious belief on one particular community upon another is not right. Religious chauvinism goes against the ethos of the Constitution of India. To privately believe that one's religion is as good as another religion or even better is fine; but for the government to insist and then impose that one religion or its practice is better than others is definitely wrong. And in imposing beef ban, BJP is doing what is wrong.

But what about imposing a ban by the government on alcohol -- making a state a dry state? Imposing a ban on alcohol is different from imposing a ban on beef eating. The reason for alcohol ban is because of the social cost that alcohol elicits. For example, drunken driving, wife beating, liver damage etc are some of the effects of alcohol consumption in many societies. Certain religion may say that alcohol consumption should be avoided. But when the government imposes a ban on alcohol, it is not because religion A says such and such against alcohol; it is because of the kind of damage that alcohol brings about to a society for which alcohol consumption is banned. Beef eating does not cause such kind of social damage. Of course, excessive eating of beef can cause health problem. But too much of mutton or pork too can cause health problem. Too much of all kinds of things can cause problem for that matter. But the BJP government imposing a ban on beef eating is just because it wishes to impose its religious belief upon all the citizens. This is nothing but damaging the secular fabric of India, working against the Constitutional ethos of the state. Those who believe in religious freedom must protest against such policy of BJP.