Misdirected and Cynical: Outrage Over the Meat Ban

One must question both the strident devout and the judiciary.

• The outrage has turned into an opportunistic slugfest and a farce.
• Respect for religious sentiments shouldn’t be imposed.
• The judiciary has helped Jain majoritarianism.
• The resolution was rolled out by BMC in 1964 and passed in 2004 by a Congress govt.

Whenever any controversy, or yet another occasion for public outrage arises, or is manufactured, what passes for debate is rarely anything other than twaddle, heavily laden with misplaced criticism, misdirected anger, and of course, large doses of cynicism and skullduggery of those in the wrong. And of course, there are those wisecracks like “ban-wagon” and #bantheban. In such cases, what is lost, or deliberately buried in the melee, are the facts – the hard facts, the so-called inconvenient ones.

So is the case with different BJP-ruled state governments’ prohibition on animal slaughter and sale of meat for the nine days of Paryushan, a ritual which the Jains hold sacred. It has become a political slugfest, with the “secular” Congress and NCP (Nationalist Congress Party) hurling the usual accusations at the BJP, conveniently trying to conceal the fact that in 1964, in what was then Bombay, it was the Congress-run BMC (Bombay Municipal Corporation) which had passed a resolution demanding a two-day prohibition. Or the fact that in 2004, it was a Cong- NCP coalition which actually passed the resolution.

Then there are public intellectuals and commentators who have been penning Op-eds, castigating the governments for their illiberal stances and assaults against secularism, and contenting that bans are “silly”, or that they are reflective of an overarching government’s fragile grip on “new India”. And of course, not to be missed are those waxing eloquent on the virtues of religious tolerance, “communal harmony”, and the purifying merits of vegetarianism.

Not Unconstitutional

It is a flawed, but widely-held perception, that any such “ban” on meat is unconstitutional and violates the sacrosanct principle of secularism. Yesterday, the Bombay High Court heard and passed an Order in a writ petition which invoked the same grounds. There was no judicial reasoning in the ruling, because the Maharashtra government probably wilted under the pressure of public outrage and reduced the number of days from eight to 2, and the court seems to have been satisfied.

But the truth is- even if they had wanted, the judges’ hands would have been tied because of a binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in 2008. Justice Markandey Katju, who authored the ruling, recently explained why he upheld the constitutional validity of a similar prohibition issued by the Ahmedabad municipal authority and Gujarat government.

Two reasons stand out – one, that since the prohibition was for only nine days, it wouldn’t be a hardship for butchers (most of whom are predominantly Muslim) to forego their income out of respect for the religious sentiments of Jains and out of respect for the plurality and diversity of India. Two, even Emperor Akbar, during his reign, had issued a similar order.

This is a very convenient and cynical use of Muslims. No wonder, many supporters of the present prohibition have been gleefully reiterating the same argument.

The Real Actors

Are the politicians of Haryana, Rajasthan and Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation, owe allegiance to certain political and religious affiliations, the only ones who should be blamed?

No, because they wouldn’t have been able to advance their intolerant agenda, almost verging on religious bigotry, without the help of the judiciary. Their sustained clamour, grounded in a belief in manipulative uses of financial and political clout would have ended in a whimper without benevolent judicial sanction.

Although beef isn’t incidental to the present case, it is instructive to read Shraddha Chigateri’s paper on the judicial discourse surrounding prohibitions on cow slaughter. The judicial logic in upholding their constitutionality has been ostensibly grounded in economic logic (example- compensate butchers, or, loss of livelihood is a small price to pay for the virtue of “secular” respect for another religion). However, she asserts, there has been an underlying pretension as if religious factors have not determined the outcome of those cases.

The granting of legal backing to essentially majoritarian demands leads to the creation of a “chimera”, and “is at the expense of the even-handed recognition of all religious sensibilities, and strikes at the heart of Indian secularism,” she states.

Unless these questions are raised, we would only be careening from one contorted outrage to the next.