A transition towards recognising nonhuman animals as equal and as beings with rights has many social, economic and religious connotations. As such, their suffering must be recognised with reforms that are incremental, imaginative, innovative and inclusive, write Sanchita and Dr Chaitanya Talreja.
—
RECENTLY, Zomato made headlines due to its announcement of a ‘pure veg fleet’ for its food delivery, which involved segregating delivery executives on the ground with green uniforms and bags.
The food delivery giant received backlash on social media which caused it to reverse its decision of having a separate green uniform and bag for this fleet, while still continuing the ‘pure veg’ fleet’ in the usual red uniform.
On the surface, the decision to have a ‘pure veg’ fleet seems innocuous and a mere exclusive service fulfilling the ‘dietary preferences’ of customers. But, the public debate on the topic is reflective of how political this issue is in India.
This debate resurfaces whenever such incidents make an appearance in our social spaces. For instance, last year, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay came into the spotlight when some of its students created separate sections for vegetarians in the dining area, a move later made official by the institute itself.
Vegetarianism in India
Many people believe that India is predominantly a vegetarian country, but in reality, the majority of the people in the country are not vegetarians. While it cannot be denied that many people across communities become vegetarian and vegan to abstain from animal exploitation, vegetarianism in India is often not related to concerns of animal welfare or the environment.
On the surface, the decision to have a ‘pure veg’ fleet seems innocuous and a mere exclusive service fulfilling the ‘dietary preferences’ of customers.
One may have noticed that those adhering to vegetarianism on certain days do so religiously, refraining even from any physical contact with meat or egg products. It is also common to come across friends and families who prohibit meat and egg consumption within their households or on certain days but impose no such restrictions on their consumption outside their homes.
In 2021, a survey by Pew Research Center found that about 42 percent of Indians abstain from consuming meat or certain types of meat on certain days.
Although products like honey and ‘desi ghee’ are derived from animals, they are considered ‘pure vegetarian’ in Hindu tradition. However, if the consumption of animal flesh is deemed ‘impure’, then what stance should one maintain on other animal products, such as leather and milk from buffaloes, cows, goats and camels?
Also read: From policy to practice: Evaluating India’s approach to exotic wildlife trade under CITES
In this context, it would not be incorrect to assert that such practices of abstaining from meat consumption do not stem from ethical concerns towards animals or the environment.
Food politics in India
In India, exclusionary ideas of Hindu vegetarianism dominate food politics, intrinsically linked with caste and religious identity. Hindu vegetarianism, a politically dominant form of vegetarianism, often romanticises pure vegetarians while ostracising and perpetrating violence against some groups that consume meat products, especially beef.
This is followed by resistance from marginalised caste communities and Muslims, who assert their right to consume meat without shame or fear.
Incidents such as that of IIT Bombay highlight how Hindu vegetarianism contributes to the social exclusion of Dalits and Muslims, who are not culturally associated with vegetarianism.
However, it is important to note that meat consumption is also prevalent among ‘upper-caste’ Hindus, but it is not stigmatised as impure as it is for marginalised castes and Muslims.
There have also been several instances of violence against Muslims and Dalits, especially under the guise of violent cow protection— as cows are considered ‘holy’ in the Hindu tradition and labelled as ‘gaumata’ (mother cow).
Many people believe that India is predominantly a vegetarian country, but in reality, the majority of the people in the country are not vegetarians.
Despite their status as a ‘holy animal’, cows do not enjoy a life of freedom, as the entire process of dairy production involves exploitation and abuse of the animal. In her book, Mother Cow, Mother India, author Yamini Narayanan highlights how the multispecies politics of dairy unfolds in India, a country known for protecting and revering cows, yet ironically, also the largest producer of milk in the world. Narayanan draws our attention to the plight of animals in the dairy industry, a reality that contradicts the image of India as a cow-friendly nation.
Cartoon by PenPencilDrawIn debates surrounding ‘pure vegetarianism’ or ‘cow protectionism’, and resistance to these ideas, the group that gets weaponised yet ignored is nonhuman animals. Amid human politics, the lives of animals get trivialised to mere ‘dietary preferences’ for some and a means of resistance for others.
This popular discourse renders animals as morally irrelevant ‘commodities’— as if they do not matter as individuals but merely consumables. In her book, Narayanan quotes Dawn William, the managing director of the Blue Cross of India in Chennai, who remarked, “People don’t hesitate to have opinions about animals without seeing what they actually go through.”
It cannot be denied that our ignorance of the interests of animals as beings subjects them to lives of extreme drudgery and, as a society, there are compelling reasons to reconsider our approach towards animals as groups of beings— both morally and environmentally.
Therefore, in line with our evolving social justice framework, it is important to redefine this discourse through the lens of animal rights.
Animal rights and marginalised communities
While the practice of pure vegetarianism ostracises people from certain caste and religious backgrounds, their resulting resistance, demonstrated through increased meat consumption, ultimately harms the animals.
In his article, “Exploring Possibilities for Critical Alliances between Animal Rights and Bahujan Politics”, author Krishnanunni Hari discusses this form of resistance, asserting, “Resisting power need not come from exercising power over those who are weaker to us.”
This resistance also creates a notion that people from these vulnerable communities cannot contribute to the cause of animal rights and that the only means of opposing pure vegetarianism is by consuming meat.
The reality is that people from marginalised communities can not only advocate for animal rights but taking a stance for animal rights also serves as resistance to pure vegetarianism, as it exposes the underlying hypocrisies of pure vegetarianism, which are detrimental to both humans and animals.
Also read: From hugs to rights: The Chipko Movement’s legacy in forest conservation and governance
Author Hari further writes, “[To] respond to Hindutva intrusion into private eating practices (exemplified by the beef ban), through the amplification of meat-eating, is to be trapped in the debate as defined by the oppressor.”
Discussing the impacts of such resistance, Sajid Khan, a vegan animal rights advocate from Uttar Pradesh, opines, “If we think critically, we find that we are letting people from the DBA (Dalit, Bahujan and Adivasi) and Muslim communities live a miserable life.” He believes this because people working in slaughterhouses often come from backward sections of society and are compelled to work in such places for low wages.
In India, exclusionary ideas of Hindu vegetarianism dominate food politics, intrinsically linked with caste and religious identity.
“In the long run, they will be the ones who will get affected by this idea and practice of resistance if their social, economic, and educational status does not improve,” says Sajid.
Sajid maintains that the plight of slaughterhouse workers should not be excluded from the animal rights movement because the systematic oppression of animals and humans is linked.
“We cannot consider sexism, casteism and racism as totally different issues from exploiting reproductive parts of cows, forcing them to produce milk for our greed, separating her calves from their mother, and then killing them for meat and leather,” Sajid argues.
Ankur Gedam, a Dalit vegan and animal rights advocate from Maharashtra, draws a parallel between the mistreatment of non-humans and the vulnerable caste communities in India.
He highlights the stereotype of both groups being considered dirty, uncivilised and unworthy of making their own decisions. He observes, “This [perception] is deeply entrenched in our society to the extent that oppressed communities themselves perpetuate it. They have their own hierarchies of superiority and inferiority, and ultimately, collectively, we humans oppress non-human beings, mirroring the treatment we received from our oppressors.”
Ankur observes that the rights of animals are perpetually sidelined. He argues that even without the existence of cow protectionism and casteist vegetarianism, people like him would still find it challenging to bring about the recognition of non-human animals as persons, given the omnipresence of speciesism.
“Look at the rest of the world, speciesism is a global phenomenon. I think speciesism has become a feature of human society,” he states.
Sajid finds it challenging to advocate animal rights in his community without being looked down upon, as many Muslims consider the consumption of animal products, especially meat, as an integral part of one’s Muslim identity.
Also read: Caste and cuisine— societal implications of Zomato’s Pure Veg Fleet
Sajid explains that breaking this norm by adopting vegetarianism or veganism invites taunts such as: “Musalman ke ghar mein Pandit paida ho gaya” (a Brahmin took birth in the house of a Muslim) from older family members.
In the context of IIT Bombay’s food-based segregation between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, Sajid notes how he has never encountered any vegetarian who is disgusted or repulsed by dairy-consuming individuals, despite the dairy industry being as cruel as killing animals for meat, if not more so.
“Even if I assume that people who refuse to eat at places that serve meat, do so because of the compassion they have for animals, then why do not they do the same with other animal products like honey and dairy products?” questions Sajid.
As a Muslim, Sajid grew up in an environment where meat consumption was the norm, hence he has always been unbothered with notions of purity and impurity in inter-dining scenarios. He also believes that segregating people on the basis of their food preferences is not right.
Despite their status as a ‘holy animal’, cows do not enjoy a life of freedom, as the entire process of dairy production involves exploitation and abuse of the animal.
As vegans, both Sajid and Ankur have no issue eating at the same table where animal products are served alongside plant-based foods. Additionally, Ankur believes that even if one chooses to sit at a different table out of genuine concern for animals, it accomplishes nothing.
“It may even make them [meat eaters] feel ashamed since ‘non-vegetarian food’ is socio-politically charged, and shame only works to push people away. The upper caste Hindu dominated society already does it,” Ankur highlights.
The way forward
The current debates around food politics fail to acknowledge the consequences of using animals as tools of oppression and resistance. It is evident that our society revolves around divisions of caste and religion, often resulting in discrimination and oppression based on one’s social identity.
The dimensions of caste and religion also wield significant influence in our politics, perpetuating disparities in social power, despite our constitutional principles being founded on the ideals of equality in this regard. The dynamics of food politics in India manifest this asymmetry in socio-political power, as underscored by the discussions presented here.
Also read: Explained: The unending beef between law and justice on the issue of cow slaughter in India
Although food politics itself displays discrimination towards the marginalised groups in India, the discourse on this issue only addresses the unfairness of such practices towards human beings.
In this sense, this discourse is not only anthropocentric but also reduces non-human beings to tools for addressing such unfairness. As Yamini Narayanan aptly notes in her book Mother Cow, Mother India: “It would seem as though animals, other than human beings, have no stake in their own lives, and ‘cow politics’ can be debated only in terms of bovine bodies as landscapes for intra-humanist oppressions.”
As highlighted above, the assumption that marginalised people can only resist by harming animals, and that the idea of fairness necessitates animals being harmed, is misleading. This is where we need to seriously rethink the discourse, as it asserts human dominance over other animals as a means to equality of rights among humans, although the source of this inequality itself is rooted in the exploitation of animals.
In no way does it prioritise their interests and welfare over those of marginalised humans. Either way, animals continue to be the victims of human choices, both societal and individual.
Whether it is food rights, food and nutrition security, or economic development, our discourses require course correction and progress on all these fronts does not have to entail the perpetual use and abuse of animals.
It is important to note that meat consumption is also prevalent among ‘upper-caste’ Hindus, but it is not stigmatised as impure as it is for marginalised castes and Muslims.
Similarly, cultural diversity among humankind does not have to rely on the different ways in which different cultures use and abuse animals. Cultural identity and diversity can be celebrated without harming animals, once people acknowledge the consequences of their actions for non-human lives.
That animals suffer due to the design of our socio-economic systems is undeniable. The question we need to ask ourselves is why should we continue to ignore the harms we inflict on animals advertently or inadvertently?
Our current dominant approach to issues involving the use of animals, whether for food or any other activity ranging from clinical research to construction labour, fundamentally fails to acknowledge that we inflict harm on non-human creatures— or, even if it does, it is built on the underlying assumption that such harm is necessary and justified.
Also read: The debilitating saga of mob lynching
The current discourse needs to address this question for animal suffering holds moral relevance and significance, and animals are inherently valuable as subjects of life and instrumentally important in our approach to addressing larger problems of environmental damage and climate change.
Addressing our socio-economic problems without considering animals as a commodified means to that end, starting from the point of view of their inherent value, will only make our approach more fair and progressive.
We must explore incremental steps towards recognising the right to bodily agency of animals and re-examine ways to coexist with non-human life forms. That it will involve practical challenges must not be an excuse to let our discourse justify harming animals as necessary. Only through this acknowledgment in our discourse can we find new frameworks to reframe and solve our socio-economic and environmental problems— through social reform, law and policy.
We acknowledge that implementing such reforms will be complex and challenging, requiring us to address the need for rehabilitating people who depend on animals for their livelihoods, as they will be affected by the transition to a system that eliminates animal usage. Therefore, such a transition must be incremental, imaginative, innovative and inclusive.
Author Hari further writes, “[To] respond to Hindutva intrusion into private eating practices (exemplified by the beef ban), through the amplification of meat-eating, is to be trapped in the debate as defined by the oppressor.”
In this context, the following quote from lawyer Alok Hisarwala Gupta in response to upholding the practise of Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu is important. It lays down the underlying approach to guide us forward as we identify and tackle the errors of omission and commission in our current discourse with respect to helping animals free themselves from human oppression:
“We need to revive this secular movement of animal rights (rooted in our Constitution), which works on transforming society where marginalised communities are our allies and partners. We need to work on the ground, engage with cultural arguments at its core, and work towards strategies that are rooted in communities and not constant calls for criminalisation of people who use/exploit animals.”
They have previously written for us.
