Why it is absurd to make laws on food

A disclaimer first: I eat meat, and love it. Here are the facts too: it is bad for the environment, and perhaps my health as well. That leaves me a bit confused over how I may view my food choice. There are some who have of late taken to vehemently protesting about others’ choices.

Advertisement

Various state governments in India have recently attempted to address some of these issues through law, tweaking of rules or simply appeals. They must have some gut for digesting the huge pile of beliefs revolving around food, and hoping to resolve the debate by an order on paper.

The most furious debates and arguments arise, of course, out of religion. A look at mainstream faiths’ customs throws up more variety than there is of animals on earth.

Hindus are the biggest religious entity in India. But with all the differences among them, do they have a unified culture on meat? The foremost, of course, is the uncomfortable history of eating beef. Mention of that may raise hackles today, because now almost no practising Hindu eats beef. Many Hindus in Nepal would eat buffalo, but most in India won’t; they are not clear on why. The view on pork is ambivalent too. Certain South Indian Brahmins would eat fish.

While Sikhs mostly observe the Hindu custom regarding beef, there is no injunction against eating meat of other animals. But whether Hindu or Sikh, if you don’t eat meat, you are more virtuous.

Muslims have it equally complicated. There are strictures against pork, and directives on how meat will be slaughtered to ensure it is ‘halal’. But then Islam allows for exceptions too in dire cases of necessity. Aquatic animals are generally free of these laws. If anyone finds that confusing, a reference to the clergy would be the safest bet.

For Christians, most meat is fine, but some have restrictions about not eating animals offered to deities or idols, just as in Islam. There are mild instructions on slaughter, too, though a buyer of meat in an urban shop would hardly know how it was done.

Jews perhaps have it the most complex. Animals that have cloven hooves and chew cud are ‘kosher’. So, cows, sheep, goats and deer are fine, but pigs, camels and hares are not. There can be no mixture of meat and milk; there is now even a debate if microwaving food is okay.

Jains, of course, don’t eat meat; but they don’t even eat all vegetables. Yet it is the vegans — and they are not just ‘a cult in the US’ — who take the cake. No meat, dairy, honey, fur or skin for them. No animal produce. But probably their sentiments are not to be bothered about yet.

If you can still make sense of ‘preventing offence to religious sensitivities’, try going into the religious sects worldwide.

The other yardstick we may apply to decide on our food choice is science, which currently debates the issue under two heads: environment and health.

All science shows eating meat is bad for the environment. It takes up way too much resources — land and water — and produces far more greenhouse gases than needed to feed vegetarians. India is hugely blamed for its hordes of methane-producing cattle. Some experts say compared to foods like potato, wheat and rice, beef requires 160 times more land per calorie, and produces 11 times more greenhouse gases. Any disputes on that we may leave to the scientists.

What all of us do care about is health. There, too, the larger consensus is that keeping away from meat would do us good. But that is assuming you are getting all the food you want. For many in India, that is not valid. To a hungry child, calories are more important, not whether they are healthy, halal, kosher, or pious. There is a thought that it is a criminal waste of resources to let unproductive meat on hooves die of age than be eaten.

All sense apart, some of us admittedly just love the taste of meat, who cares about the health columns! That is evolutionary history in us. All animals, including humans, have an instinctive craving for refined foods — carbohydrates, sugar, fat, and proteins (meat), because that is what builds and powers our bodies. But with commercial farms and factories producing all this, we may be feeding ourselves to death. That requires a debate, an informed debate. Can laws step in?

A mix of all this — religion, evolution, science, morals — would perhaps add up to culture, where we may find salvation. But one look at cultures across the globe would leave you wondering what you just ate. There are meats beyond domestic animals; exotic or endangered species that would have conservationists up in arms; some people eating dogs; or raw fish. A meat-eating Indian’s stomach would turn at the sight of a rare-done steak at an American restaurant.

Only our lawmakers may have the courage to settle ‘hurt sensitivities’ in these cases. The point is: different cultures do not see things the same way. It is not just red and green. Now a look at attempts by means of legislation to help people live with each other more harmoniously. Essentially, these arise from the belief that there is hurt to be experienced from what a neighbour has on his dinner table, even if the neighbour is not sure about his own dinner.

Maharashtra for long had an anti-cow slaughter law, which was neither here nor there. Ox could be slaughtered; so beef was eaten. Perhaps it had some economic logic. But some of the world’s more intensely cattle-based communities, such as the Maasai tribe of Africa, have use for everything from milk and meat to the blood of cattle. 

In Ayodhya, meat of all kinds is banned year-round, but is lifted for three days for Eid. Which means it is okay to let sensitivities be hurt on some days and not on other days. Or is it about whose day is more pious? 

Certain states wanted a ban on slaughter for a few days of Jain festivity. Protesters against this ban slaughtered chicken outside venues of Jain celebrations, which was hardly a demonstration of tolerance that the ban intended to promote. In Haryana, the government first banned meat for those few days, and then repealed the order, saying it was only an appeal against slaughter.

Beef is banned in many states, which has led to such confusion that there have even been protests against the killing of buffaloes, as at a major meat factory in Punjab.

Jammu and Kashmir was oblivious to the beef debate. But a sudden reminder from court on an existing anti-beef law has led to people in Kashmir slaughtering cows in defiance even when the Valley didn’t have a culture of beef.

The line between law and coercion is fine, and no one likes the latter. Scaling up and down of various bans in response to public reaction makes it more of a shouting match. The louder the voice, the more you will be heard. That is also called majoritarianism.

If anyone is confused, that was not the intention. But is that the purpose of trying to legislate on what goes into my stomach? Ask the legislators for a byte.

kuljitbains@tribunemail.com