STRICTLY NON VEGETARIAN

Strictly Vegetarian” – how often do we find these words used in the context of the popular perception of Indian cultural tradition? Not only the food we eat, but also the restaurants we eat in, indeed the whole gamut of our professedly non-violent ethos, all this and more is encapsulated in the term. Going beyond this, often the buildings and localities we live in are described thus. We have entire towns, albeit places of pilgrimage, falling into this category. Even jokes which are rough and ready, or otherwise evocative, are labelled “non-vegetarian” in Indian English. All in all, “strictly vegetarian” becomes the predominant embodiment of an identifiably “Indian” lifestyle.

It was in this context that a recent newspaper article caught my attention. In this, the author notes that while Uttar Pradesh has come up with a catalogue of some 208 dishes from its 75 districts under its “One District One Cuisine” scheme, not one of these is non-vegetarian! There is no mention whatsoever of any meat-based Biryani, Korma, or Nihari preparations or indeed its famous kebab creations, Tunde, Galawati, Majlisi, Boti, Shami, Kakori and Gilafi, to name a few, all so much a part of UP’s cultural and culinary mosaic.

Thus, while non-vegetarian foodies have no problem in holding UP’s vegetarian delicacies dear, vegetarians are perhaps not expected to return the compliment as they have eschewed the option itself and so have never experienced it!

The author goes on to say that a minister of the State, on this position being brought to notice, gave some hope of the list being “changed any time based on local recommendations and public demand”. While this may offer some solace, the question of how and why the total omission happened in the first instance remains unanswered.

What are the established facts? The Baseline Survey for the Sample Registration System conducted by the RGI (Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India) pegs the nonvegetarian population at over 70 percent of the total, whereas a Pew Research Study reports 39 percent of Indians identifying themselves as strictly vegetarian. Some studies further emphasise that meat-eating in India tends to be significantly underreported because of the social stigma surrounding this food habit. Be as that may, what is clear is that a substantive majority of the Indian population is nonvegetarian. Thus, whatever else may be the justification, any push towards vegetarianism does not have the blessing of any kind of democratic or even majoritarian principles, as is often made out.

Social stigma and underreporting may not be the only factors at play here. According to a wellknown author posting on Facebook, one percent of the 20 percent vegetarians in the country possess 80 percent of India’s wealth. The suggestion that this economically powerful minority sets the social mores and controls the narrative may be difficult to prove, but the anecdotal evidence of Malabar Hill and Marine Drive, two of the richest and most exclusive localities of Mumbai, turning devoid of non-vegetarian eateries, becomes hard to ignore.

Again, in another metropolis, Kolkata, it is not uncommon to hear that no sooner than meat eaters move out of a building society, the place turns strictly vegetarian with unspoken entry barriers for non-vegetarians slipping quietly into place.

The economic dimensions of the issue are also anything but innocuous. While it is estimated that roughly 30 percent of the world’s land not covered with ice is used to grow food for poultry and livestock, not all of this, as we know, goes towards meat production. Once we accept animal products such as milk, wool and eggs as part of a healthy, sustainable rural product mix, we have to face the reality that maintenance of the animals involved in their post-production years is expensive. Subsidising this is a big ask, both for communities and governments, bringing into focus, yet again, the need for a humane yet pragmatic meat and leather policy. While the practice of scientific culling may be abhorrent to some, we must ask ourselves whether releasing old animals to fend for themselves and most often perish in painful circumstances represents a desirable or even acceptable alternative, given that building and maintaining the requisite capacity in animal shelters over time becomes a utopian aspiration.

Coming to the microeconomics of the small and marginal Indian farmer, as well as landless rural labour, livestock and poultry are most often an important source of economic security and insurance against agricultural failure. That is why available land is used for crops, trees, poultry and livestock in individually optimised combinations. In this scenario, the production of eggs, milk, wool, meat and leather, apart from residuals like farmyard manure, becomes critical and integral to the very survival of the rural poor. Consequently, banning or curtailing any of these activities or demonetising them in any way becomes tantamount to stealing livelihoods from the poor. Nonvegetarianism in the populace thus becomes an integral link in this market economy, not least because the meat consumed is an important source of protein for what has already been established as the majority of the people.

Finally, in a secular democratic constitutional Republic of India, where the food culture varies widely within communities, regions and religions, the imposition of vegetarianism by what is unquestionably a minority can only bring discord and strife. Already, we see the fear of such imposition becoming a subject of electoral politics. Such a policy not only limits individual choice, so dear to each of us, but also sows the seeds of yet another divide amongst us, which we can ill afford. Non-Vegetarianism, by its very nature, is the more inclusive food habit as it does not exclude the consumption of all manner of vegetable products and only adds to the choices available. For this reason, if nothing else, wisdom would appear to lie in being strictly non-limiting in our food habits, and in that sense, and in that sense alone, being ‘strictly nonvegetarian’.

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE AUTHOR ARE PERSONAL

Anirban Mukhopadhaya, Retd. IAS officer