Is cattle slaughter ban 'food fascism'?

[email protected] (Soutik Biswas, International New York Times)
June 14, 2017

A lawmaker from Kerala has announced that he is returning to eating meat, fish and eggs after practising vegetarianism for nearly two decades.

dhns

There's nothing unusual about a lapsed vegetarian but V T Balram said his decision was prompted by the Central 'Hindu nationalist' BJP government's attempt to seize the people's right to eat what they wanted.

“I have been living without eating meat, fish or eggs since 1998. But now the time has come to break it and uphold the right politics of food assertively,” Balram said, while posting a video of him eating beef with friends and fellow party workers.

The BJP believes that cows should be protected, because they are considered holy by India's majority Hindu population. Some 18 states have already banned slaughter of cattle.

But millions of Indians, including Dalits, Muslims and Christians, consume beef. And it's another matter, say many, that there's no outrage against the routine selling of male calves by Hindu farmers and pastoralists to middlemen for slaughter as the animals are of little use — bullocks have been phased out by tractors in much of rural India, and villagers need to rear only the occasional bull.

Ironically, the cow has become a polarising animal. Two years ago, a mob attacked a man and killed him over “rumours” that his family ate beef. Vigilante cow protection groups, operating with impunity, have killed people for transporting cattle.

More recently, the chief of BJP's powerful ideological fountainhead Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has called for a countrywide ban on the slaughter of cows. And this week, a senior judge said the cow should be declared a national animal and people who slaughter cows should be sentenced to life in prison.

Many say this is all contributing to effectively killing India's thriving buffalo meat trade. Earlier this week, several states opposed the central government's decision to ban the sale of cattle for slaughter at livestock markets. The government said the order was aimed at preventing uncontrolled and unregulated animal trade.

But the ban, say many, could end up hurting some Rs 25,000 crore in annual beef exports and lakhs of jobs. There are about 19 crore cattle in India, and tens of crores “go out of the system” — die or need to be slaughtered — every year. How will poor farmers sell their animals?

So, as lawyer Gautam Bhatia says, the new rules are “perceived as imposing an indirect beef ban”. He believes the government will find it difficult to defend them if they are challenged in the court — one state court, responding to a petition that they violate the right of a person to chose what he eats, has already put the ban on hold.

The badly-drafted rules, Bhatia says, are “an opportunity for citizens and courts to think once again whether the prescription of food choices is consistent with a Constitution that promises economic and social liberty to all”.

'Dietary profiling'

Critics have been calling the beef ban an example of “dietary profiling” and “food fascism.” Others say it smacks of cultural imperialism, and is a brazen attack on India's secularism and constitutional values. Don't laugh, but there could be a conspiracy to turn India vegetarian, screamed a recent headline.

Many believe that the BJP, under Narendra Modi, appears to be completely out of depth with India's widely diverse food practices which have always been distinguished by religion, region, caste, class, age and gender.

Indians now eat more meat, including beef — cow and buffalo meat — than ever. Consumption of beef grew up 14% in cities, and 35% in villages, according to government data analysed by IndiaSpend, a non-profit data journalism initiative.

Beef is the preferred meat in north-eastern states like Nagaland and Meghalaya. According to National Sample Survey data, 42% Indians describe themselves as vegetarians who don't eat eggs, fish or meat; another baseline government survey showed 71% of Indians over the age of 15 are non-vegetarian.

Governments have tried to impose food bans and choices around the world, mostly using health and environment concerns and hygiene concerns.

Imposing food choices

In the US, for example, groups have rallied against subsidised vegetables, outlawing large sodas, promotion of organic food and taxing fat. Bangkok is banning street food to clean up streets and enforce hygiene standards.

India has done the same in the past. Crops like BT brinjal have been stalled by the government and industrially manufactured food like Maggi noodles banned temporarily amid claims they contained dangerously high levels of lead. Scarcity has also led to bans — a ban of milk sweets in the 1970s in Delhi was justified because milk used to be in short supply.

“To the extent that this ban on cattle slaughter justifies itself by speaking of 'unfit and infected cattle', it seems to invoke public health, but then stops short by not banning the sale of goats, sheep and chicken as well,” sociologist Amita Baviskar told me.

“In fact, the public health argument leads logically to a move towards better regulation like stricter checking of animals for disease, more hygienic slaughter and storage of meat rather than a flat-out ban.”

Clearly, the ban appears to be working already. “Selling red meat, even goat meat, in a BJP-ruled state is now injurious to one's health. Who would want to risk the wrath of the vigilantes?” says Dr Baviskar.

As it is, she says, meat-eating habits of Indians have been changing rapidly in the last couple of decades and the chicken, once regarded as a “dirty bird,” is now the most popular meat.

“I see a greater polarisation taking place between red states (meat-eating) and white states (chicken eating). Within the white states, meat-eaters will have to skulk about, looking over their shoulder as they bite into a beef kebab.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 10,2020

US dictionary Merriam-Webster will update the meaning of the word "racism" after being contacted by a Missouri black woman, who claimed the current definition fell short of including the systematic oppression of people of colour, according to media reports.

"A revision to the entry for racism is now being drafted to be added to the dictionary soon, and we are also planning to revise the entries of other words that are related to racism or have racial connotations," according to a statement of the 189-year-old dictionary shared by Kennedy Mitchum, a recent graduate of Drake University in Iowa, on her Facebook.

Mitchum, 22, emailed the dictionary last month, following the death of African American George Floyd in the custody of four Minneapolis police officers, Xinhua news agency reported.

"I kept having to tell them that definition is not representative of what is actually happening in the world," Mitchum told CNN. "The way that racism occurs in real life is not just prejudice, it's the systemic racism that is happening for a lot of black Americans."

Merriam-Webster's first definition of racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

"It's not just disliking someone because of their race," Mitchum wrote in a Facebook post on Friday. "This current fight we are in is evidence of that, lives are at stake because of the systems of oppression that go hand-in-hand with racism."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 8,2020

Consumer watchdog Which? has claimed that more than one billion Android phones and tablets are vulnerable to hackers as they no longer supported by security updates.

According to the research report, the most at-risk phones are any that run Android 4 or older and those smartphones running Android 7.0 which can not be updated are also at risk.

Based on data from Google analysed by Which?, two in five android device users around the world are no longer receiving the important updates. Currently, those devices are unlikely to have issues, but the lack of security leaves them open to attack.

"It is very concerning that expensive Android devices have such a short shelf life before they lose security support, leaving millions of users at risk of serious consequences if they fall victim to hackers," Kate Bevan editor Which? said in a statement.

"Google and phone manufacturers need to be upfront about security updates with clear information about how long they will last and what customers should do when they run out. The government must also push ahead with planned legislation to ensure manufacturers are far more transparent about security updates for smart devices and their impact on consumers," Kate added.

Android phone released around 2012 or earlier, including popular models like the Samsung Galaxy S3 and Sony Xperia S, are particularly at risk to hackers.

Which? has made suggestions to Android users on what to consider if they have an older phone that may be at risk.

Any Android device which is more than two years old, check whether it can be updated to a newer version of the operating system. If it is on an earlier version than Android 7.0 Nougat, try to update via Settings> System>Advanced System update.

In case a user is not able tto update the phone, the device could be at risk of being hacked if it is running a version of Android 4 or lower.

A user also need to be careful about downloading apps outside the Google Play store and should also install a mobile anti-virus via an app.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 23,2020

Google has indexed invite links to private WhatsApp group chats, meaning anyone can join various private chat groups (including several porn-sharing groups) with a simple search.

According to a report in Motherboard, invitations to WhatsApp group chats were being indexed by Google.

The team found private groups using specific Google searches and even joined a group intended for NGOs accredited by the UN and had access to all the participants and their phone numbers.

Journalist Jordan Wildon said on Twitter that he discovered that WhatsApp's "Invite to Group Link" feature lets Google index groups, making them available across the internet since the links are being shared outside of WhatsApp's secure private messaging service.

"Your WhatsApp groups may not be as secure as you think they are," Wildon tweeted on Friday, adding that using particular Google searches, people can discover links to the chats.

According to app reverse-engineer Jane Wong, Google has around 470,000 results for a simple search of "chat.whatsapp.com", part of the URL that makes up invites to WhatsApp groups.

WhatsApp spokesperson Alison Bonny said: "Like all content that is shared in searchable public channels, invite links that are posted publicly on the internet can be found by other WhatsApp users."

"The links that users wish to share privately with people they know and trust should not be posted on a publicly accessible website," Bonny told The Verge.

Danny Sullivan, Google's public search liaison, tweeted: "Search engines like Google & others list pages from the open web. That's what's happening here. It's no different than any case where a site allows URLs to be publicly listed. We do offer tools allowing sites to block content being listed in our results."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.