For several years, Mumbai has had an annual four-day meat ban during the Jain festival, Paryushan. A recent call to stop meat sales for an increased period of eight days, supported by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led state government, has caused outrage among the public and the party's own ally in the state, the Shiv Sena. Following a Bombay High Court verdict, the prohibition has been brought down to two days. However, local bodies of other states including Rajasthan and Haryana have joined in, asking slaughter houses to close down. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president and chief executive of Centre for Policy Research, talks to Ranjita Ganesan about the political and cultural dynamics of the issue
The sale of meat has been banned for two days during the period of the Jain festival, Paryushan. Is this constitutional or are we seeing a case of cultural tyranny?
Let's be clear about one thing. This (ban) did not originate with the BJP government. The Congress has also done it. And, there are older historical precedents to this. We know that Akbar had banned meat for several months in a year. Of course it is unconstitutional to impose it. Some demands like not having slaughterhouses within 50 metres of a place of worship are valid and within the realms of permissibility. But a ban violates individual liberty, it violates equal rights and so forth. And, in this particular context, it is an assertion of power.
More From This Section
There is no easy answer to that question. That depends on the context and what are the other things that you do. You could imagine a situation where a government was fair and treating everybody equally, (such a rule) would still be wrong but it would not have too many ramifications. But in the context of social conflict and greater anxiety, these things would matter more.
Such bans could have an impact on livelihood. Should the state be taking that into account or compensating for losses?
Of course it should. Why should somebody's private business have to suffer? That is certainly unconstitutional. Why should somebody have to pay for somebody else's beliefs? That is essentially what it amounts to.
The meat ban during Paryushan had been there for several years but the new demand was to increase the number of days, and ban not just abattoirs but also the sale of meat during this period. Is it more about religious sentiments or a political show of strength?
It is also a fact that the media notices when BJP does something like this. We often let the Congress off the hook for its sins.
There was a beef ban enforced in Maharashtra earlier this year. Has that stoked the outrage for this ban too?
To be fair, many Congress-ruled states have also enforced beef bans in the past. I am not defending BJP but historical records are a proof of that.
Beyond ban on sales, there are cases of people not renting out homes to those who cook or eat meat, and not allowing non-vegetarian establishments to come up in their neighbourhood. Is there a kind of systemic intolerance?
That is a much more complicated debate. If it is a purely private property, an individual home, and if an owner does not want meat cooked in the kitchen, then that is his principle. Mostly what raises suspicion is that it is never consistently enforced. It is not that a society is certifying it. The whole question of housing discrimination is different. There is a different set of constitutional and moral issues there. You have to make a lot of fine distinctions - under what conditions, what kind of property, et cetera.
In a diverse country, the government must try to maintain a balance. Could the demand for a meat ban have been handled better?
I don't like the word balance because you could do one wrong and do another wrong and that is also a form of balance. Of course it could have been handled better. This is silly and unconstitutional. There is no legal or political argument to support this kind of measure.
