My case for vegetarianism

After over 30 years of being an ardent non vegetarian, I took the plunge and left eating all forms of flesh and have not looked back over the last one year

The decision was not on impulse, but was one of the toughest for me as I am an avid foodie and my concept of good food always involved meat.

As far back as I remember, I would head out on a Sunday morning with my father to our favourite meat shop (we primarily ate goat meat) and buy our Sunday feast. It was never just a ritual. It was an elevated art form. Each time our own skills were tested and that was the fun. How do you identify good meat, how is it cut, which part is best and so on. Because it was more than just habit, because it was art, there was always the motivation to better your self. I looked forward to taste the fare and figure out how well my own job had been. Good and creative cooking is not easy. Selecting and cooking meat was always the highest form of culinary adventure to me. And I yet say that it is a fine art form, despite my own abstinence from it.

The first time I thought of giving up meat was when I was around 17. I went to a chicken shop and saw how an animal is butchered. Hanging carcasses was always different. Strangely, for all our fondness for meat, I had never seen an animal slaughtered before and I never even imagined that it could have such an impact on me. I gave up meat for a year.

I also gave thought to the argument that we serve our part of the food cycle by eating meat. Facts opposed this notion completely. Unlike other participants of the food cycle, humans can "farm" their choice of food. There is hence lesser need to hunt. Today we do not consume meat coming from an over supply of natural livestock. We are farming livestock, not to survive any harsh conditions when supply of vegetarian produce is impossible, but just out of our desire to consume meat. Animals are being genetically modified to reproduce faster, build more flesh and be more palatable. This really has nothing to do with the food cycle. It's just not true.

I also gave thought to the argument whether being vegetarian made one weaker or less healthy. I have met extremely healthy people at very old ages, both vegetarians as well non vegetarians. I do not believe one way or the other whether the choice of a vegetarian diet hurts longevity. Secondly, I also assessed mental health and agility. Not to say whether a vegetarian diet makes one any less intelligent. Our business community is dominated by vegetarian gujaratis and marwaris. They seem mentally fit to me. Thirdly, I looked at health from the indication of energy and stamina. Here too, I did not have much to conclude. If I wee a soldier or a body guard or a laborer, I may have benefitted by eating more meat. But my choice of profession did not put me through such strains, so the question I had was - is this a highly relevant factor for me? Truth is that it was not.

While the reasons for being vegetarian were being reinforced, over time, I was charmed again by the various skills applied to cook a masterpiece. And given the way my tastes were shaped since birth, it was not the same in vegetarian fare.I felt the misery of the animal but could not ignore my own desire to try the things I'm missing, even if it be at the cost of needless suffering of another. Over time, I stopped feeling for the animal's suffering. My desire to eat meat again had completely numbed any sensitivity I may have had and I no longer knew why I abstained. What followed was a tough moral battle with myself and I finally gave in deciding I would rather be a sinner (in my mind) than a hypocrite.

So this was my conditioning. To few this may seem wrong on a moral level, but the bigger moral sin is hypocrisy. Why pretend a feeling of compassion you do not possess? Prefer the lesser immorality. At the end of this part of journey, I was clear that my choice to eat meat, does not make it right. It just makes me less wrong.

From then on, I never had trouble with the idea of an animal being slaughtered and becoming my meal. Even when exposed to the gory details, my mind was reconciled that this is my choice. You may say I was learning that the suffering of another cannot be the sole reason for your own abstinence.

I did not delude myself with any righteousness of being a non vegetarian. On the contrary a far more practical consideration took over. I was young, just started to work and traveling places. The charm of seeing new people and sharing their cuisine overtook me. I had become completely agnostic to whether I ate snake or frog. If it is part of the experience of human cultures, I'll try it!

At this stage, I also read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and it was in it that I first realized that the economic output is severely reduced by meat consumption. The output of land that is used to generate grain that in turn is fed to an animal, so that it could in turn be consumed is substantial. That is why meat is always more expensive than grain. At that point I realized, that a higher demand for meat is putting pressure on cultivable land and leaving less per capita consumable food. I realized another reason why vegetarianism is better than being non vegetarian. But the desire still weakened me and I continued with my preference for meat.

But this too was a phase. I did decide that I am ready to take the next step. I left eating all forms of meat. I still consume eggs and milk. I know what it costs but don't mind, as yet.

Citizenship Amendment Act - A bad treatment for a good diagnosis

The CAA debate is not about whether persecuted minorities in neighboring countries who had to enter India illegally should get expedited citizenship and reduce their waiting period from 11 years to 5 years. There is widespread consensus on this point and from parties ranging from the Congress to the AIMIM. The major protest is to consider amendments that make the Act stronger to withstand the tests of constitutionality while also allaying the fears of majoritarianism. 

Let’s face it – the opposition benches in parliament usually do a dissatisfactory job in fulfilling their responsibilities. They often delay, confuse and unnecessarily come in the way of things that need to be done. So when a party has a majority to pass a bill in parliament, one cannot totally fault the ruling formation’s instinct to force its majority. But this appears to be one of those occasions when the opposition raised legitimate concerns that the government has ignored by brute force of its numbers. This has had an unfortunate outcome - What should have been debated in parliament has found its way to the streets. 

Does the Act justify incidents of violent protests? Not at all! The debate is not whether violent action and damage to public property can be permitted as part of opposing the CAA. It must not. The same firm resolve should be shown in handling this as the government had shown while handling the Karni Sena or the Jat or Patidar protests (Oops!). On a serious note, incidents of violating public order and harm to public property must be remedied with an equal force of law. The past stirs like the ones mentioned had shown that the law needed strengthening and to the BJP’s credit, they have taken the right steps in this direction. Just because law enforcement was weak in past protests, does not make a case for it to be weak against improper conduct in the CAA stirs.

But is the best way to maintain peace and order through Internet blackouts and the application of Section 144 (which effectively forbids a public gathering of more than four people and permits legal action including imprisonment to those interfering in its enforcement)? This is more of a law and order question with far more practical concerns that are beyond my immediate competence to clarify. It is reasonable to assume that there will be “negative elements” wanting to circulate inflammatory content to create violence and “foolish elements” that will want to resort to answer violence with violence. 

While the competent authorities may have perceived it as necessary in this case, it does raise an important concern for future - What can be a better way to tackle negative and foolish elements without hindering the basic rights of people to protest peacefully? The current approach does not give the correct message and can be used indiscriminately to tear down a basic democratic right classified as no less than a “basic freedom” under the constitution (Article 19), i.e. the right to assembly peaceably and without arms. We need to find a balance because misusing Section 144 as a lazy way to protect order is only a recipe for escalations and violent protests, especially if the underlying issue is an emotive one, as in this case.

With the basics settled that there is consensus across the political spectrum to accord accelerated citizenship to persecuted minorities and that violent protests are not to be endorsed, lets try to understand why exactly is there an opposition to the CAA? What are the legitimate contentions against CAA?

Contention One: Selection of Countries and religions within the Act

One argument has been that the bill only deals with the persecution faced by people of specific religions in three Islamic countries, namely Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and the government has not been able to explain a credible basis for this selection. 

Is this illegal? Some protestors have claimed that the Act is illegal. That is not true as lawmakers are indeed within their right to limit the selection of countries and broadly experts are of the view that the government is absolute in the clear on legality. 

A second statement that is often being made is that the Act is unconstitutional. Many people are quoting Article 14 as proof that it is unconstitutional. That is also not fully accurate. While interpreting the constitution, certain generalizations are permissible and referred to as “Reasonable classification”. BJP claims that the categorization by religion in CAA is within bounds of “Reasonable classification” but there have been contesting views on this claim. Legal luminaries like Harish Salve have felt that CAA in its current form may not have a constitutional challenge, where as other eminent jurists like Soli Sorabjee feel that this may be up for debate. The law is accordingly being challenged and only the Supreme Court is the competent authority to decide on its constitutionality.

Further more, some state governments have gone to the extent of saying they will not allow CAA to be implemented in their states. Is that constitutional? The answer is that it is definitely not constitutional. On this all jurists, including both Harish Salve and Soli Sorabjee are one voice that it is not the way forward. CAA must be contested in the courts, in the parliament and peacefully on streets. But not implementing this law by states is unconstitutional. 

So a more accurate position is that this Act can be contested on its constitutionality but is not prima facie unconstitutional. Its constitutionality will completely depend on how Supreme Court interprets “Reasonable Classification” while reading Article 14. In this specific instance, will the Supreme Court find religion to be a basis of reasonable classification and will this ruling be specific for this Act or can it serve as a precedent for future legislation? These are things we need to wait to find out. 

The third cause of opposition bears more weight. Some opponents to the act state that even if it is both legal and constitutional, does it still pass the tests of being a good law? That is where it starts becoming both contentious and very interesting. 

The government has been challenged on its selection of countries. The opposition feels that a good clarification is yet to be offered. But rather than explaining itself, the government is flexing its parliamentary majority without regard to addressing concerns that the opposition and now a lot of protestors consider completely legitimate. This is a majoritarian approach and not necessarily good democratic conduct. 

Normally, a government with majority that tables any legislation is within its right to differentiate between blind opposition and whether there are valid concerns that need to be addressed. Many times, especially in our parliament, the opposition just mindlessly opposes without reason. In a good democratic tradition, the opposition must base opposition on sound arguments and the ruling government is duty bound to explain itself to all and address legitimate concerns. It undoubtedly continues to retain the right to exercise its judgment when the bill is put to vote. Similarly, the opposition retains the right to take the issue to the people and mobilize public opinion on the matter. 

To know if CAA is a well-discussed law, we need to know a few things. Did the opposition present good arguments in the parliament? Did the ruling government address those concerns? Were democratic traditions really respected in this instance? Lets find out. 

India has eight neighbouring countries (I include Afghanistan, acknowledging all of Kashmir as part of India) but only three countries have been brought within its scope. Why?

If the idea was to consider neighboring countries with a record of persecuting minorities resulting in their illegally entering India due to geographic proximity, then why were China, Sri Lanka and Myanmar not included as well? All these countries share a boundary with India and have a record preceding 2014 of persecuting minorities. 

The government’s rebuttal to this question has been that these three specific Islamic countries have laws that place minorities at a disadvantage and hence this is basis of persecution. This has caused much further debate, both on accuracy as well as merits. 

Pakistan has a state religion and a poor record of protecting minority rights. One can completely understand the inclusion of Pakistan but one must also note that numerically, its worst record of persecution is towards Muslim minorities like the Shias and Ahmadiyas, both estimated to be over 7% of population each as contrasted to Hindus and others that represent less than 5%. I am not even touching the persecution by ethnicity, like those of Balochis. So why has our law not been consistently applied to them? 

On the other hand, Bangladesh does not have a state religion, so why is it included? The argument is that it still has a poor past record of persecution of minorities. But Myanmar too does not have a state religion and also has similar concerns as Bangladesh on persecution of minorities and an adjoining Indian border. Why has it been excluded? Let us consider Sri Lanka, that has a state religion of Buddhism and even though it grants secular status for all religions, it has had a history of persecution and illegal immigration to India as well. Why has it been excluded?

Furthermore, more questions were asked on why only persecution based on religion has been brought in scope? Has our neighborhood not also witnessed ethnic persecution? No clear and convincing explanation has come our way as yet.

Most interestingly is the selection of the year of 2014. Why has that year been selected? Why is it only a backward looking provision? What about those who may still be victims of persecution? No answers or explanations have been offered, or at least I have not been able to find them publicly. 

Next - Does all this make the law discriminatory? Let’s consider the treatments to persecuted minorities that had crossed over to India. If an Ahmadiya and a Christian in Lahore, a city that is a few kilometers from the Indian border were facing persecution, and both illegally crossed over to India before the cutoff period of 2014, then the Christian will be classified as a “Refugee” (sharanarthi) and can seek fast track Indian citizenship under CAA but the Ahmadiya will be treated as an “infiltrator” (ghuspaithiya) and will be considered stateless and possibly head to a detention camp or be handed back to Pakistan. If Pakistan refuses to take this person back, then what will happen to this person in the detention camp? Mind you, even if the Ahmadiya can prove that he was being persecuted, the law does not change the classification of him being an illegal immigrant and is most likely still only going to be sent back to the country of persecution. This is not settling well with many lawmakers and they find this to be discriminatory on the grounds of faith and in contradiction to the principles of the constitution. No satisfactory clarification to this argument is available so far. 

So there is a prima facie case that there is an inherent inference that illegal Muslim immigrants have only come to India for infiltration and not because of seeking refuge. Religion is potentially serving as the basis of classifying illegal immigrants between those fleeing persecution and those coming for other reasons. On this specific point, the BJP rebuttal on record in parliament is that religion is a reasonable basis for classification as Muslims are not persecuted in their home countries and more controversially, Amit Shah made the claim in parliament that there are “many” other Muslim countries (implying they need not be geographically connected) where these persecuted Muslims can seek “refuge” and hence do not need to “illegally immigrate” into India. 

This reference to “many” other countries that are not necessarily geographically close opens an even bigger can of worms as it contradicts the selection of these countries on the basis of geographic proximity and the nature of the law being past facing and not future looking. If the rebuttal is accepted on face value, then why should Christians and Buddhists be included in the act as they too have other countries to seek refuge in and don't have a need for illegal immigration to India? I do not mean to exclude them from the act in anyway but just present this argument as an example to highlight a point the opposition is trying to make. This has added to the confusion (and doubts) on what exactly was the basis of selecting the countries under the act and what exactly was the basis of excluding Muslims as a whole religious group under the act?

Ignoring territorial proximity poses other counter challenges as well. Why are we only looking at illegal migration? Is the idea to provide a life of dignity to those in need of refuge from persecution by giving them a path to Indian citizenship? In that case, should geographical proximity be the way to be looking at this matter at all? And should it only be past (i.e., pre-2014) centric?

We are not as yet signatories of the 1951 UN refugee convention that requires us to have a domestic refugee protection framework. It makes sense for us to consider a comprehensive refugee protection framework and look beyond these three countries and limited sets of religion. Also rather than using 2014 as a point of reference, look at a better worded and future ready provision. 

Why do I say so? The Indian diaspora is one of the most spread out in the world and growing. What if Hindus or persons of Indian origin (irrespective of faith and not included as per the Indian Citizenship Act definition) were to face persecution in other regions of the world like Africa (Uganda, Zimbabwe etc.) or in the Caribbean or elsewhere? They may not present an illegal immigration concern for India but should we not have a refugee policy with a path to citizenship just like we assume that other “many” Muslim countries should have their own policy to provide refuge to persecuted Muslims from the three countries referred in CAA? Where is our own consistency in thought and law making?

I have been unable to satisfy myself with the government’s explanations. Open questions remain on many counts and I was unable to find credible responses, at least in public domain. Like very often, public imagination is totally occupied on both sides with emotive messages feeding their biases and with very little factual assessment. Unfortunately, the government is also indulging in smoke and mirrors (identify people by clothes, colouring all protestors as Muslims, left leaning liberals and persons of tukde tukde gang as well as asking questions like does opposition want us to give all Pakistanis citizenship? – these are statements that take people away from the real issue). What is the need to make such statements if good arguments might exist to dispel protests?

To sum up – many opponents find the grounds of selection of only three countries and the decision to exclude Muslims to be ill thought and weak legislating caliber. To others, it is a willful selection of three Islamic countries to reinforce the Hindu Muslim divide and promote a diabolical plan to give India a precedent that can justify the elevation of Hinduism as the de-facto national religion in the future. Many fear that is already the case. Many opponents believe we welcome ourselves to a Hindu Pakistan that chooses to out-compete a theocratic Pakistan rather than the more enlightened democracies like US (So much for world power thinking!) 

Contention Two: The fear of statelessness for Indian Muslim Citizens and the Assam protests

There is another fear that has been propagated that when CAA is considered along with NRC, this act has the potential to disenfranchise Indian Muslims as well as challenge the ethnic fabric of the northeast regions that has so far been protected by other legislations. Accordingly, many believe that BJPs claim that this Act does not impact Indian citizens is not true. 

It is important to note that while the CAA is an Act, NRC is not an Act as yet. So at the moment, this is a fear and not a reality. But it is an important point to be addressed. 

The Assam NRC experience resulted in exclusion of nearly 1.9M persons, mostly not of Assamese ethnicity. It even excluded the names of family members of the 5^thpresident of India, Dr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed! There were reports that the criteria applied for NRC inclusion was arbitrary and the assessing officers applied much subjectivity. Guidelines need to be devised so that the experience in a national rollout is more transparent and credible. 

These 1.9M people included both Hindus and Muslims and were mainly of Bengali origin and hence were suspected of having relocated from Bangladesh. To the Assamese, there is a clear case for these people to leave Assam. Hence to the Assamese, giving citizenship status to a significant population of Bengali Hindus resident in Assam, contradicts with the prevailing legislations. This is why the Assamese and others in the North East are up in protest. They want to know if the people eligible to gain citizenship under CAA retain their rights to stay in Assam? If not, what is the plan for the people that may given Indian citizenship and still reside in Assam? Many feel the law has just not been thought through and there is more Tughlaq than Chanakya at display. 

Furthermore, from the Assam experience, there is still not enough clarity on what happens to persons determined to be stateless and without recourse to citizenship under CAA and the Indian Citizenship law? Will their passport and other national identity related documents and benefits be revoked? What are the systems for seeking recourse? There are widespread concerns on whether the people will be sent into detention centers and the fact that other Indian states have begun making detention centers is just adding to the state of fear and uncertainty.

Logically, it is unlikely that the combination of CAA-NRC will lead to mass disenfranchisement of Muslims in India but there is basis to believe that Bengali speaking Muslims or those that may be suspected to be from Pakistan or Afghanistan can decidedly face harassment unless strong and clear provisions to ensure their protection from harassment are part of both law and practice. But despite the calls of the opposition, this roadmap has not been discussed. The only way to allay these fears is to call out what the NRC proposes to do with those not included in the register. How laborious will it be and are persons in otherwise similar setting but with different religions receiving a different process for entitlement to citizenship status?

So these are two very credible areas that require further discussion and a need to create consensus. What has happened is that the ruling government by virtue of a majority in parliament, made it into law without feeling the need to credibly settle the debate on these concerns. That is why a discussion that should have been settled in parliament is overflowing onto the streets.

Most unfortunate is that high caliber statesmanship has given way to bravado and application of smoke and mirrors. This should be worrying for all. One can only remind the powers of the day of giants like Lal Bahadur Shastri or Atal Behari Vajpayee who had the humility and conviction to reach out to those that were opposed to them, press for a dialogue and seek out an amicable way forward. 

Even if the ruling government is absolutely convinced that it is correct, handling the confidence and trust of all people is the duty of the elected government. Prime Minister Modi himself added “Sabka Vishwas” as a guiding principle for the second term of his government. This is his moment of truth to test his commitment to it and for all Indians to make their opinion.