The Complete Story Behind the Ban

The decision to ban dog meat by the Nagaland government came days after incidents of the dogs being shot emerged in the state and after a photo of dogs tied in gunny bags went viral on social media. The image on social media caused a huge outcry as the Twitteratis claimed that the dogs were being taken to Nagaland for sale (illegally). Pritish Nandy, a journalist and a poet tweeted with attaching the above photo:

Local administrators of Nagaland had reportedly released a ‘shoot-at-sight’ order in May for dogs found roaming on the streets. The local animal rights activists said it was issued due to the fear that dogs might transmit the novel-coronavirus. As soon as Maneka Gandhi got to know about the order she wrote to the state Chief Minister, Rio, seeking his intervention to reverse the order. A couple of dog deaths were reported from villages in Nagaland in June, after which ThePrint reported a member of the Nagaland Animal Welfare Society (NAWS), an NGO saying that, “It is believed that dogs might spread the virus, also that few dogs have been loitering around the waste near quarantine centers, which can harm the locality/public in general, for which dogs were asked to be chained 24/7.”

The Hypocrisy of the Ban

The dog meat ban in Nagaland has raised a debate on the hypocritical nature of the ban. Prominent journalist Rohini Singh in response to Pritish Nandy’s tweet, tweeted “Am sorry but while I don’t eat dog meat but how is eating dog meat more immoral than eating fish or chicken or goat? Either you eat meat or you don’t. Why take our sense of morality and impose it on other people?”

While on the other hand the guardian reported  Animal rights advocacy group Humane Society International as saying, “This is a major turning point in ending the cruelty in India’s hidden dog meat trade.”

The people who oppose this ban are of the opinion that parameters must be equal for all, one can’t ban dog meat and allow the consumption of chicken or fish or any other non-veg food. Sarvej Talreja writes in his piece for Arre, “this ban is far more complex than a victory for animal rights advocates and dog lovers. It’s an indication of a particular kind of hypocrisy: a hypocrisy that holds only certain kinds of meat legitimate under the garb of “ethical” eating; a hypocrisy that seeks to impose a singular “palatable” version of eating habits on the rest of the country. Let’s call the ban for what it is – an erosion of the personal freedom of the Nagas and another highly publicised but wholly unnecessary action propagated by someone in a position of power over a minority.”

The decision to ban dog meat is itself controversial and calls for questioning. People in North East are upset by the way the decision was taken by the state government; there was absolutely no consultation with the Naga tribes, who are the consumers of dog meat.

According to Richard Kamai, “the ban sheds light on how it overlooked Article 371A of Nagaland which bestows Nagaland a special right to allow Naga tribes to practice and maintain their customary law and social practice.”

Daribha Lyndem writes in an essay titled “What You’re Really Asking When You Ask Me If I Eat Dog” about her Northeast roots, “In contrast to the eating habits of mainstream Indian society, no meal in the Northeast is complete without rice and meat. The Nagas, like many other Northeastern tribes, come from proud hunting cultures, while much of the heartland of India are pastoral agriculturalists. While many Naga communities have moved upward economically and don’t have to hunt to survive anymore, in rural and poor families, having a fresh game on your dinner table is still a matter of pride.” She also states that dog meat is eaten remotely in the Northeast but those who eat it do not consider the practice shameful.

This blatant and absolute use of power by the state government is an attempt to trap the Naga tribes and their culture to make them feel bad for what they are. Look around the mainstream societies, there is absolutely no space for indigenous food from the northeast. But people of these mainstream societies are now dictating the decisions related to northeasterners food choices. It’s nothing but an inadvertent attempt to make them feel bad for their food practices. This is a classic case of racism and cultural imperialism in the name of showing ‘love’ for animals. The sheer ignorance to not acknowledge and not accept the cultural differences is not new and has subjected thousands of northeasterners to racism.

The Hypocrisy Does Not End Here

An anthropologist Dolly Kikon in his opinion piece writes, that the rest of India has historically treated stray dogs as an urban menace, often embarking on elaborate campaigns to mass murder them. But, “thinking of dog meat as part of a food system, or linking it to larger issues of food culture or taste, does not cross the minds of many Indians, that is the reason why, although stray dogs are defined as pets and killed by state authorities every day, it is morally incomprehensible to label them as a food choice.”

Conclusion

The ban clearly reflects the hypocrisy of society. While eating chicken, mutton, lamb etc are considered normal, dog meat is considered immoral and unethical. People easily forget that “as much as “not eating dog meat” is a part of one’s culture, there are certain communities where dog meat is taken as a part of their food culture.”

Because of the prejudice and harmful stereotypes regarding northeasterners that they are uncivilized, the so-called ‘mainstream Indian society’ has not been able to accept them. By ignoring their culture, mainstream society tells them that not only the mainstream is better than them but also it shames them for being different.

The post DOG MEAT BAN IN NAGALAND SHOWS HYPOCRISY OF INDIAN SOCIETY appeared first on WISER WORLD.