Palitana has become the first city in India to impose a complete ban on the sale and consumption of meat, even though it is home to meat-eating communities, writes Harsh Bodwal.
—
IN recent developments, the city of Palitana in Gujarat has become a focal point of attention due to the imposition of a complete ban on the sale and consumption of meat.
This significant development was preceded by a protest involving 200 Jain monks advocating for the principle of ahimsa, or non-violence. This protest is not unprecedented; a similar campaign occurred in 2014 when 200 monks undertook a fast unto death, demanding that Palitana be declared a "hinsa mukt" (violence-free) city.
This earlier movement involved a series of negotiations with local administrators, police officers, politicians and fasting monks, culminating in the cessation of the fast on June 25, 2014, in the presence of a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of Parliament and a minister of State.
Palitana is of considerable significance to the Jain community— home to the revered Shatrunjaya Hill. This hill, a crucial pilgrimage site, houses numerous temples and shrines and holds deep spiritual and cultural importance for Jains.
“This significant development was preceded by a protest involving 200 Jain monks advocating for the principle of ahimsa, or non-violence.
During the 2014 movement, the Jain community sought a broader ban that extended beyond the existing administrative notification, which covered a main road leading to the holy hill and a 250-meter area on either side.
They advocated for a comprehensive prohibition on the sale and consumption of non-vegetarian food, eggs and slaughtering activities throughout Palitana, not just within the initially designated limited area.
Also read: Rethinking the 'pure-veg' discourse through the lens of animal rights and marginalised communities
The recent actions by authorities, of banning the consumption and sale of non-vegetarian food items, including eggs, make Palitana the first city in the world to completely outlaw non-vegetarian food, including meat and eggs.
The recent ban has profound repercussions on the livelihoods of approximately 250 local butcher shop owners. This measure has disrupted their primary source of income, raising significant concerns regarding the economic stability and social well-being of these individuals and their families.
Palitana is home to a significant Muslim population, constituting around 20–25 percent of its residents. In a secular democracy like India, it is imperative that all groups are allowed to adhere to their dietary habits and customary practices without external imposition. The right to follow or abstain from certain practices should be determined by the group itself unless it can be demonstrably shown that such practices infringe upon the rights of others.
In 2014, Razaq Ismail Saiyad, the president of a Muslim association in Palitana, articulated his community's concerns, stating, "If we don't offer sacrifice, we will not remain Muslims." While this highlights the significance of meat consumption within the community, the core issue extends beyond religious practices to encompass personal liberty. The discourse should focus on the right to personal choice and the freedom to adhere to or deviate from dietary customs without coercion.
By banning the sale and consumption of non-vegetarian food, the legislation appears to marginalise a specific group, encroaching upon their right to maintain their traditional lifestyles and dietary preferences. It is essential to recognise that dietary practices, whether integral to a religion or not, should not be subject to external enforcement, as such measures would contravene fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, including Articles 14, 19, 21, and 25.
The systematic prohibition of practices such as meat consumption can be perceived as an effort to exclude and marginalise specific societal segments from their customary existence, livelihoods and traditions.
“The systematic prohibition of practices such as meat consumption can be perceived as an effort to exclude and marginalise specific societal segments from their customary existence, livelihoods and traditions.
This trend is not isolated. Similar concerns have emerged regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, and recent directives by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments, which mandate that food and beverage establishments along routes frequented by Kanwariyas display the operator's identity. These measures appear to foster divisions among citizens, cultivating an environment of exclusion and discrimination.
The ban has elicited various responses from officials, including a notably indifferent statement from Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel. Patel supported the legislation, suggesting that it aims to mitigate traffic congestion caused by the clustering of meat shops in busy areas.
It is edifying to note that in certain cases the government prefers local business over traffic and in certain other cases it prefers traffic over local business.
For example, the State draws plans to ensure that the congestion caused by the Kanwar Yatra is managed by the administration rather than stopping the Kanwariyas from causing the congestion.
On the other hand, the State destroyed local homes and businesses to construct new roads leading to the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, but it swings into action to prevent Muslims from offering Friday prayers on roads because they cause congestion and, the argument goes, losses to the local business during that hour.
However, the State is willing to ignore the traffic congestion and losses to local businesses caused by the wedding of a super-rich son of a business Mogul.
This difference in the State's attitude shows how equality before the law is easily waylaid in the bylanes of power.
The intervention of the modern State in the private lives of individuals has reached unprecedented levels, with the State now exerting control over personal dietary choices— matters that traditionally fall within the realm of individual autonomy.
This overreach is emblematic of a broader trend where the State intrudes into personal decisions, including those related to diet, which have traditionally been regarded as private matters.
A 2017 Allahabad High Court ruling underscores the importance of individual rights in relation to food choices. The court ruled that the right to food is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
“The court ruled that the right to food is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Importantly, the court asserted that this right encompasses the freedom to access food of one's choice, including non-vegetarian options for those who prefer them.
This ruling highlights that personal dietary preferences are protected under constitutional rights and should not be subjected to undue restrictions by State authorities.