Iraq

Communalism

US Imperialism

Globalisation

WSF In India

Humanrights

Economy

Kashmir

Palestine

Environment

Gujarat Pogrom

Gender/Feminism

Dalit/Adivasi

Arts/Culture

Archives

 

Contact Us

 

Compulsory Vegetarianism Goes
Against Integration

BY V Gangadhar

1 May, 2003

The Shiv Sena's direct action to solve social problems in Mumbai
cannot always be commended. But one cannot question such direct action following the recent move when groups of Sena leaders visited builders of housing societies who had refused flats to non-vegetarians and made them see reason.

One does not know if this trend will continue in cosmopolitan Mumbai forcing Sena leaders into action once more. Of course, the Sena is often accused of adopting coercive tactics and perhaps that was why the builders on this occasion quickly complied with their demands. The issue received fairly comprehensive media coverage but the political parties shied away from taking sides.

The Sena, of course, was an exception. This was because the move towards compulsory vegetarianism was seen as yet another step against the local Maharashtrians. The concerned builders were mostly Gujaratis and Jains and the Sena was concerned that any move to ban meat and fish eaters would adversely affect the local population accustomed to nonvegetarian food. Can Maharashtrians be denied accommodation in their own city just because of their food habits?

The Sena, under the leadership of Uddhav Thackeray is now once again actively pursuing policies favouring local people. The party has issued a call to ban further influx into the city, not only from across the border, but also from the cowbelt. People have been asked not to patronise hawkers from outside the state. The Sena, in effect, had gone back to its policy of the 1960s favouring the sons of the soil theory. Its opposition to compulsory vegetarianism stems from this line of thinking. But the issue has broader significance.

There is no doubt that at least in India where animal slaughter was
often carried out illegally in unhealthy surroundings, the quality of
meat was questionable to say the least. It would be safer to stick to a vegetarian diet. Elsewhere in the world, even in traditional meat eating countries, there is a move to go easy on fat and red meat and consume more chicken and fish. In a poor nation like India where there are fewer options, particularly among the poor, the meat eaters normally eat anything they get. Yet, no sensible nation would go for compulsory vegetarianism as advocated by a section of Mumbai's builders.

A ban on meat eating would certainly violate constitutional rights of individual citizens and no government would think of such a ban. But in many parts of different cities such a ban did exist in subtler forms. This only led to discrimination of an already divided society. Despite the socalled march towards the 21st century and spread of education, Indians are now becoming more and more clannish, both within the country and outside. So Gujarati brahmins wanted to live in their own areas, Sindhis had their own housing colonies, Tamil Ayyangars inquired about areas where their community was in a majority and Christian housing societies sprouted up everywhere. Muslims, not wanted anywhere, had to fend for themselves. Is it the national integration we are looking for?

The situation is turning from bad to worse. When I lived in Ahmedabad for 19 years from 1958 to 1977, there were any number of mixed localities. Muslims did not find it difficult to find accommodation in Hindu areas. But as communal tension rose and riots broke out often, this unity disappeared. Today, Ahmedabad as well as the other Gujarat cities are almost divided on a communal basis. Affluent, educated Muslims, holding important jobs are unable to get flats in decent mixed localities and forced to live in poor, dirty Muslim areas. And with men like Narendra Modi in power, the situation can only worsen. The poison is spreading even in Mumbai where the spirit of secularism and cosmopolitanism is getting eroded day by day.

This is one of the greatest tragedies of modern India. With its diverse culture, India offered a wonderful opportunity for different castes and communities to live together, enjoy the spice of life and learn from one another. But such an opportunity was not being made use of.

In this context, I envy Mrs Sheila Dixit, not because she is the
Chief Minister of Delhi and close to Sonia Gandhi. Look at her
household. Her mother was from a Sikh family of Kapurthala, her
father was from Delhi. Her late husband was from Uttar Pradesh. Her son has married a lovely girl from Kerala while her son-in-law was a Muslim young man.

In fact, her home is a mini-India and that is why Mrs Dixit is so
lucky. Contrast this case with a Matunga Iyer who had never stepped out of the Mumbai suburb except to return to his `native place'every two years or so and spend an entire lifetime among other South Indians, without even bothering to enjoy the flavour of wonderful Mumbai. The same was the case with the Ghatkopar Gujarati, the Chembur Parsi or the Deshpandes of Dadar. Such clannishness appears to be in our blood and is further bolstered by housing societies which restricted the entry of `outsiders'and introduced all kinds of petty bans like the one on meat eating. What is applicable within India, regretfully, applies outside the country too.

While credit should be given to the remarkable progress and achievements of Indians abroad, very few of them, despite travelling far and wide had learnt to think and act as citizens of the world. They are yet to learn true liberalism which is part of western culture. So in Chicago, the Gujaratis flocked together celebrating `navratri' with pomp and noise while the Punjabis of Leicester or Birmingham created newer ghettos and continued with all kinds of traditions.

No, Indians abroad, should never give up their precious Indian
culture but there should be better appreciation and absorption of the positive aspects of western life like civic sense, discipline and
rule of law. Boys and girls should learn to be independent, lead
their own lives and not wait for their parents to arrange their
weddings from other boys and girls from home.

I fail to understand the false glory attributed to Indian culture as propagated by blockbuster films like `Dilwale dulhaniya le jayenge'. What is the Indian culture shown in this film? The stern, domineering father arranging the marriage of his Londonborn daughter with a boy from back home who she had never met in her life! The young man from London with whom she falls in love, is beaten almost to death by practitioners of Indian culture.Of course, love triumphs in the end, but at what cost? That this film made millions abroad spoke volumes of our distorted value of Indian culture and ever growing clannishness. Over the years, we always seem to copy the worst from western culture without even understanding what it was all about. The youth of US, resentful of their country's involvement in Vietnam, took to the hippie culture during the 1960's, but for the affluent Indians, this culture was nothing but free love and nudity on the beaches of Goa.

How many affluent Indian boys who pranced about on the beaches were ready to leave home and work their way through college as it was done in the US? There are enough divisions within India without people being influenced from outside. And the divisions are broadening. Politics in this country thrived on such divisions. So UP Chief Minister Mayawati fed a huge cake to her dalit followers on her birthday to create a make believe that by eating cake, they had progressed to an upper strata of society. With men like Narendra Modi in power, the Hindu-Muslim divide will grow. Everyone, including Mumbai's builders and office bearers of housing societies, are contributing to this divide by becoming petty tyrants and more intolerant.. These divisions can only help groups and individuals who want to take advantage of such disunity.