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
July 19,2020

New Delhi, Jul 19: Three of the 10 most valued companies added a total of Rs 98,622.89 crore to their market valuation last week, led by stellar gains in IT major Infosys.

Seven companies from the coveted list witnessed a decline in their market valuation last week, but their cumulative loss of Rs 37,701.1 crore was less than the total gain made by three firms -- Reliance Industries Limited, Hindustan Unilever Limited and Infosys.

The market capitalisation of Infosys zoomed Rs 52,046.87 crore to Rs 3,85,027.58 crore. Shares of Infosys had rallied over 9 per cent on Thursday after the company posted a stronger-than-expected 12.4 per cent rise in the first quarter consolidated net profit.

Hindustan Unilever Limited added Rs 25,751.07 crore in its market valuation which stood at Rs 5,48,232.26 crore at close on Friday. Reliance Industries' m-cap jumped Rs 20,824.95 crore to Rs 12,11,682.08 crore.

In contrast, HDFC's valuation plunged Rs 13,920.21 crore to Rs 3,13,269.70 crore and that of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) declined Rs 7,617.34 crore to Rs 8,26,031.21 crore.

The valuation of ICICI Bank tumbled Rs 4,205.71 crore to Rs 2,29,156.24 crore and that of Kotak Mahindra Bank by Rs 4,175.28 crore to Rs 2,62,864.37 crore.

Bharti Airtel's m-cap dipped Rs 4,009.83 crore to Rs 3,09,521.05 crore and HDFC Bank's by Rs 3,403.97 crore to Rs 6,03,463.97 crore.

The valuation of ITC declined by Rs 368.76 crore to Rs 2,38,469.29 crore.

In the ranking of top-10 firms, RIL was at the number one rank followed by TCS, HDFC Bank, HUL, Infosys, HDFC, Bharti Airtel, Kotak Mahindra Bank, ITC and ICICI Bank.

During the last week, the 30-share BSE index advanced 425.81 points or 1.16 per cent.

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 19,2020

Denser places, assumed by many to be more conducive to the spread of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, are not linked to higher infection rates, say researchers.

The study, led by Johns Hopkins University, published in the Journal of the American Planning Association, also found that dense areas were associated with lower COVID-19 death rates.

"These findings suggest that urban planners should continue to practice and advocate for compact places rather than sprawling ones, due to the myriad well-established benefits of the former, including health benefits," says study lead author Shima Hamidi from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US.

For their analysis, the researchers examined SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and COVID-19 death rates in 913 metropolitan counties in the US.

When other factors such as race and education were taken into account, the authors found that county density was not significantly associated with county infection rate.

The findings also showed that denser counties, as compared to more sprawling ones, tended to have lower death rates--possibly because they enjoyed a higher level of development including better health care systems.

On the other hand, the research found that higher coronavirus infection and COVID-19 mortality rates in counties are more related to the larger context of metropolitan size in which counties are located.

Large metropolitan areas with a higher number of counties tightly linked together through economic, social, and commuting relationships are the most vulnerable to the pandemic outbreaks.

According to the researchers, recent polls suggest that many US citizens now consider an exodus from big cities likely, possibly due to the belief that more density equals more infection risk.

Some government officials have posited that urban density is linked to the transmissibility of the virus.

"The fact that density is unrelated to confirmed virus infection rates and inversely related to confirmed COVID-19 death rates is important, unexpected, and profound," said Hamidi.

"It counters a narrative that, absent data and analysis, would challenge the foundation of modern cities and could lead to a population shift from urban centres to suburban and exurban areas," Hamidi added.

The analysis found that after controlling for factors such as metropolitan size, education, race, and age, doubling the activity density was associated with an 11.3 per cent lower death rate.

The authors said that this is possibly due to faster and more widespread adoption of social distancing practices and better quality of health care in areas of denser population.

The researchers concluded that a higher county population, a higher proportion of people age 60 and up, a lower proportion of college-educated people, and a higher proportion of African Americans were all associated with a greater infection rate and mortality rate.

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.