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.