The
obsession of RSS and BJP in controlling what citizens are allowed to
cook in the kitchen continues to play it out. The latest notice is
this regard is the order that says cattle can only be purchased for
agricultural activities, and not for slaughter (for food). The order
is applicable throughout the country.
In 2015
the BJP led Maharashtra government imposed a ban on possession and
consumption of beef, going beyond the usual criminalisation of cow
slaughter. This would mean even if someone had purchased from a
neighbouring state and had brought the meat in, this would invite a
criminal case against the buyer. The BJP led Haryana government also
followed suit in implementing complete ban of beef. Thankfully, the
High Court struck down the Maharashtra's government order saying it
cannot control citizen's food habit as it violates citizens' rights.
Since its
electoral victory in 2014, Modi's government has been exploring ways
to protect cows. The rationale for honouring cow is that it gives
milk, and therefore it has to be honoured as “our” mother. Past
experience has shown that a direct ban on beef consumption would be
struck down by the Court. Therefore, this time it devised a subtle
way to protect the cow by allowing cattle to be purchased only for
agricultural activities. How many millions of rupees will the
government spend in setting up such an infrastructure that will
facilitate such selling and buying requires serious examination
specially when there are 35 farmers in the country who commit suicide
each day. However, let this inquiry be reserved for another day.
One of
the side effects of making laws to protect cows is the harmful effect
it engenders on human lives. Every now and then in the name of cow,
people are being slaughtered. Since these humans are slaughtered in
the name of cow, the government that makes laws to protect cows
failed to prosecute the criminals as if prosecuting these criminals
will impede their agenda. Corruption, usually understood, is taking
money to hijack justice. In this case, however, cow is the token used
to hijack justice for those murdered. Whether it is money or cow,
anyone hijacking justice is a party to corruption.
But there
is also another dimension that makes the whole agenda undemocratic.
Is controlling citizen's food habit a democratic exercise? Defenders
of cows argue that beef consumption hurt their sentiment, and
therefore beef consumption needs to be banned. The irony in this
argument is that these people do not seem to care for the sentiments
of those whose relatives have been murdered in the name of cow. But
to respond to the question, one may need to raise a counter-question:
How much of my liberty will you curb to restrain me from hurting your
sentiment?
Food
habit is about basic aspects of our lives. Food consumption is a very
essential aspect of our animality just as breathing air is. This
liberty is thus the most important liberty of all liberties. This is
the reason why in the name of sentiment, curbing this aspect of
liberty is wrong. This is the kind of liberty that engenders
entitlement, or rather fundamental rights. Imposing ban on food
choices by the state in the name of honouring someone's sentiment is
to place democratic value upside down. Since democratic states are
built on the pillar of liberty, undermining liberty is to undermine
democracy; and undermining democracy is dangerous.
In a
state like India that is composed of diverse ethnicities, religions
and historical narratives, to impose a homogeneous cultural pattern
from the top is to invite resentment and destructive forces to
emerge. If cow is an endangered species, like tiger is, then its
preservation is a moral obligation and the state has reason to ban
beef consumption. But in the absence of such a reason, curbing
someone's food choices in order to nurture someone's sentiment does
not sit well with how democratic state should make laws.
