A dialogue on ‘the politics of food’

The Naga Scholars Association (NSA) organized its 4th webinar ‘Panel Discussion’ on the topic ‘POLITICS OF FOOD’ on the Ist of August, 2020. The panelists were Dr.Kiranmayi Bhushi, Dr.Jelle JP Wouters, Dr.Sambaiah Gundimeda, Dr.Eyingbeni Humtsoe Nienu and the chairperson Dr.Dolly Kikon. The webinar was attended by scholars and intellectuals from different parts of India and across the globe.

The first speaker Dr.Kiranmayi Bhushi, who has expertise on ‘food and culture’, opened the discussion by enriching the participants with her perspective on food and its politics. She explained  how food mediates  every aspects of the society, by narrating her experience of teaching and introducing the topic of food to her students, wherein students discovered various social structures that inform any discussion on food-such as, income, diet, nutrition, issues of caste and class.

Ethnographic engagement with students also helped understand how the nation’s cuisine is represented by series of absences, such as non-representation of food from the tribal belts of India. She highlighted the food politics by throwing some questions, how do we represent a particular region through its cuisine and does it have to be someone else representation?

Dr. Kiran argued that these representations often have stereotyped connotation. This stereotype essentializes the communities with racist names and labels. She further argued that unless the animal in question is on endangered species, the question of banning the meat of any animal is a highly contentious issue.

The 2^nd speaker was Dr. Jelle JP Wouters who shared his rich perspective on meat by specifically pointing out the dog meat ban in Nagaland in July 2020. Dr. Jelle as an anthropologist started his presentation by pointing at the elemental fact that humans are omnivorous, therefore, it requires both animals and plants for food and the convincing evidence is the teeth we have. It is also biological fact that human need proteins to survive.

Moreover, throughout human history meat functions as the main source for proteins for human. Hence, the vegans and animal activists may have to come up with convincing rationality to try and reverse this evolutionary trend as the alternatives they are on offer now is seen to require that every person in India is to be a middle class privilege.

Dr. Jelle’s next question is on what animals are legitimate and are not legitimate for source of proteins is not one of measured facts but of religion and cultural predictions. Consequently it’s hard to argue whether pigs, chicken, fish, buffalo, cows, dogs, cats or insects etc should or should not be eaten purely on biological ground. In this regard, people or activists calling for a nationwide ban on beef do not ground their arguments in terms of biology and nutrition. Thus, whether any animal is to be treated as a pet, for agricultural or pastoralist utility, object of worship or a potential dish is a question of culturally certified general will not be of universal judgment or advancement. 

Hence, to legally prescribe a community from eating a culturally validated dish amounts to demanding them to discard a part of their traditional identity. This leads to what is perhaps the most disturbing element of the ban of dog meat.  While the unprecedented pressure came from elsewhere, in the end the ban was legislated into existence by the Nagaland government. In doing so, the government entered into the Naga kitchen, which, together with the bedroom, is a sacred space where no government should dare to enter.

Dr. Jelle further stated that the ban of dog meat by government of Nagaland is to be seen or understood as making an apology to the nation for the age-old Naga food habits, an apology for the existence of taste buds that are not deemed ‘Properly Indian’. Dr.Jelle, further strongly opined that why there was no need for the Nagaland government to ban dog meat even as activists invoked India’s Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, because Article 371A gave the Nagas the right to preserve their social practice and customs. This also put a question on whether the government of Nagaland has truly understood the special power that is given in Article 371A. Moreover, as much as Nagas should have the freedom to eat what is locally and culturally validated, animal and vagan also activists have the freedom to protect this is in a non-violent manner.

The third speaker was Dr. Sambaiah Gundimeda, a political scientist. He opened his arguments by mentioning that the ban on commercialization and import of dog and sale of dog meat cannot be seen as an isolate event that took place in Nagaland but see from many different angles. He stated that this is a pure case of the larger Hindutva forces to Saffronise the Indian public sphere; Saffronisation is their larger agenda of the Hindutva forces and that agenda is homogenization of India’s multicultural – one nation one culture theory. Thus, the dog meat ban is a link to the larger politics of assimilating the Hindutva politics; to tear apart the multicultural fabric of the Indian Nation and destruction of the tradition and culture of India’s indigenous communities, subjugation of the Dalits and other marginalised lots, and also in making the Muslim and Christians communities to a second-class citizen of the nation.

Dr. Sambaiah further mentioned some of the Dalits experience by highlighting the case of setting up of beef stalls in some of the universities in India which was initiated by the Dalits and other the progressive students’ unions which has led to a heated debate among the academicians and in public domains. He brought out the politics of food culture in the university hostel mess where food menus was served as per the as per the upper caste choices.  Dr.Sambaiah mentioned that the larger saffronising politics of the Hindutva forces neither believe in democracy nor democratization. In response to one of the questions, he highlighted that the politics in the imposition of ‘taste’ into the multi-fabric by some people in power is something to be deeply concerned and watchful. He further stated that the success in banning of dog meat in Nagaland is just the beginning of Hindutva’s larger agendas. Hence, the Nagas should be watchful and stay alert.  

The 4^th speaker was Dr. Eyingbeni Humtsoe-Nienu. In the preliminary presentation, she argued against the ban of the commercialization of dog and its meat by the Nagaland Government on July 3, 2020. Based on her empirical survey, she mentioned that 57% of the 248 people who participated in the survey were dog meat eaters. Thus she started by acknowledging that the topic ‘Politics of Food’ was very relevant for discussion. She admitted that it was the prerogative of the government to formulate regulations to protect the interest of its citizens, but it should be grounded on local factors, not influenced by external bodies like FIAPO and PFA. She further emphasized that there could possibly be no food legislation in the world that was so comprehensive that it covered all species and all type of food in the nation. Hence to cite FSSAI regulation 2011 by the Government as not permitting the slaughter of dog is unreasonable, she insisted.

Dr. Eyingbeni argued that food ban can be justified to an extent on four grounds: (1) If that food in question is a threat to the consumer’s health, (2) If the animal in question is an endangered species, (3) If it is religiously offensive to a group of people in a particular time and place, (4) If it is an issue concerned with wider public health and safety. She defended that the dog and its meat fell into none of those categories and that it merited no ban. She also highlighted that so far there was no dog farming in Nagaland for mass commercialization. She explained that Nagas reared dog along with other animals for meat so there is no meat hierarchy in the Nagas household. But she also reminded that there were Naga homes that kept dogs as pets; in such cases they die of old age or of natural causes and are buried.

Dr.Eyingbeni agreed that cruelty to anything, including plants and animals, is a moral and ethical concern and it must be addressed. But she also questioned how slaughtering anything for food can be moralised without obvious racial implications. She argued that in a Naga household, there is no hierarchy in food and food does not classify any person as high or low. She further stated that she sees the ban of dog meat in Nagaland as an instrument of cultural hegemony. She concluded by sharing her concern on what is happening across India, specifically for the ethnic minorities as food is now used as an instrument for cultural assimilation, which should be voiced out and never be allowed to happen at least in Nagaland.

Dr Dolly Kikon, chairperson of the webinar summarised the discussion by reflecting on the theme of rights in the twenty-first century. In the light of the dog meat debate in India, she cautioned the racist and hostile language of animal rights organizations and activists in India towards indigenous communities. In that context, she urged the audience to ponder upon the contestations between animal rights advocates and indigenous people in India.

Drawing from the examples of colonization, racism, and militarization in settler countries like the United States and Australia, Dr. Kikon noted how the history of environmental rights as grounded in race and class should force us to reflect on political life of taste, food, and the increasing conflicts and over food cultures in India. In addition, she called upon indigenous communities to reflect on their responsibilities as consumers while keeping the history of militarization and structural violence. Here, what is our relation to the forest? What is our relation to other beings? What is the meaning of prayers and sacrifice (in the context of eating meat)? How did our ancestors forage and hunt and think about sustainability and balance? Instead of being embarrassed about what we eat, Dr. Kikon notes, we should reflect on the history of our food, and how can we practice accountability.

Extract of the press statement issued by Dr. Zuchamo Yanthan, President and Dr. Lungthuiyang Riamei, General Secretary of the Naga Scholars Association.