Most butchers and meat sellers in Uttar Pradesh are Muslims, and a large number of those who are engaged in associated activities are Dalits. (File Photo)
Historically, bans on certain food items, prohibition on the sale of liquor, or censorship of so-called “undesirable” print or electronic material has hardly ever shown constructive, encouraging or positive results. There is ample empirical evidence from around the world, as well as from within the country, to support this. What almost always ensues, as a result of such efforts on the part of the state and the implementing authorities, is that what is sought to be curbed simply goes underground. The banned and restricted items circulate more vigorously than would have occurred in the normal course. So what purpose would be served by the ban on the sale of meat and the restriction on the sale of liquor in Ayodhya during the nine-day Navratri festival imposed by the Uttar Pradesh government, ostensibly to “ensure a peaceful atmosphere during the festive season”?
Restricted sale of liquor, by limiting the number of hours of sale, is a joke at best. When people know there is going to be a restriction, they buy liquor in advance. Most do not imbibe liquor the moment they buy it. Also, the restriction is on sale, not on drinking! And the argument that the ban and restriction will go towards “maintaining law and order” and “cleanliness” is yet another joke.
Also, it is difficult to fathom how the “safety and convenience of devotees will be prioritised” by the ban on sale of meat and restriction on the availability of liquor. Playing to the gallery, it seems, is not limited just to the realms of sports.
Liquor, even when prohibited, invariably finds its way in — as has been empirically proved in the case of “dry” Gujarat and Bihar. The neighbouring states being “wet” prove to be conduits through bootlegging. So also in the case of the supply of any banned food items. Here, banning and restricting something in one place while the neighbouring districts are “open” will only lead to clandestine activities.
The controversy over the availability of meat recently surfaced in the Supreme Court canteens too. Of the six canteens that serve the Court, the one on the ground floor was the only one not to serve non-vegetarian food for two days, that is, on October 3 and 4, but the other five had no such restriction. While a section of lawyers objected to the change in menu, the matter was resolved and issues of law and order or cleanliness or allied aspects were not raised. “Safety and convenience” or the “peaceful atmosphere” have not been affected, vitiated or breached in the premises of the six SC canteens. So, if the country’s apex judicial body and the practitioners there have no compunctions in eating meat during the festive period, pray, why should others be denied without any rational or logical reasons? Why are fears raised and unduly invoked elsewhere, such as in the state of Uttar Pradesh?
What one eats and drinks is a personal choice. People in a free and democratic country choose what they would like to, or prefer to, consume or imbibe. There should be no force or compulsion on that count. Nobody, under normal circumstances, forces any food or drink down the throat of another. Incidentally, contrary to the widespread belief about the prevalence of vegetarianism, India is predominantly a meat-eating nation — as per NHFS-5 data an overwhelming 83.2 per cent of men and 71.8 per cent of women are non-vegetarians.
Most butchers and meat sellers in Uttar Pradesh are Muslims, and a large number of those who are engaged in associated activities are Dalits. Measures that affect the ability of minority communities to carry out their economic activities for a certain period are unjust. In fact, derailing the economic pursuits of even some sections of society has a negative impact on the overall economy. If one thinks about it, any such attempt could surely be construed as anti-national.
Such bans and restrictions are not even in the arena of moral policing, as there is no universal morality benchmark regarding the consumption of meat and liquor. At best, such standards could exist only within the restricted realm of individual sections or communities in a multicultural society. A lone pulpiteer cannot set the standards and norms of behaviour for all the different segments of an entire society. Deepening divides in an already polarised situation, through exclusion and discrimination, is not in the interests of the nation.
The writer, a social anthropologist, is visiting professor, Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), Hyderabad, and at the International Institute of Migration and Development (IIMAD), Thiruvananthapuram
