MUMBAI: It would be an interesting place where religions were kept strictly personal and not allowed to spill over onto our streets; where public expression of faith was prohibited and religious practices were confined to homes and places of worship.

India is not such a place. Here, equality towards religions does not mean equal strictness but equal laxity to all. We do not discourage taking to the streets; in fact we announce holidays to facilitate it.

All public manifestations of faith result in inconveniences and infringement of personal rights, choices and liberties. If freedom of movement is not affected, right to peace and quiet is. This applies not just to the ‘others’ but even to members of that faith. Yet, local authorities, by executive or statutory fiat, routinely inconvenience us and infringe on our rights - presumably in public interest this being understood to be the interests and concerns of locals. How should this be measured?

One would imagine that in a democracy the majority would prevail but if that were true in India, Ayodhya would have seen a Ram temple long ago and Hindi would be compulsory all over the country. In policy and in practice, as a nation and as individuals, we bend over backwards to accommodate the minority. Thus, we do not thump the Constitution when local bodies block roads; divert routes and cordon off entire areas in a Kumbh Mela or during a Ganapati or Moharram procession. We do not rush to the Court when a marriage or a new year is rung in with ear-busting bands and heart-stopping crackers. We do not claim that neighbourhood temple bells or muezzin calls disturb our right to peace and … a nap. We do not argue in TV studios that to a lesser or greater extent, Visarjan is polluting, against public interest and ought to be banned.

We do not, in a spirit of accommodation; because we concede to every faith the right of public expression as traditionally come to be associated with it; and because we believe in live and let live. We do not, despite not subscribing to that faith or even to the concept of the festival that’s out on the streets.

This spirit appears to have broken down in the case of the meat ban during the sacred Jain festival of paryushan. Not that the ban is a first-time one. It’s been around for different durations for years.

Before I proceed further, a confession - I am not clear whether the ban is in Mira-Bhayandar only or throughout Mumbai; or whether it is for 2 / 4 / 8 days; or whether it applies to meat only or to poultry as well. That however is not moot. Even if we assume that it was at the local Jain community’s instance, the fact is that the local body put it to vote and then decided on the ban. If this is not reflective of public interest I wonder what is. Jains have not used any force.

Jains are not in the business of force. They do not convert nor do they proselytize. The multi-faceted nature of things is a sacred principle for them. Observance is not forced upon even their own; even during paryushan. There is no concept of ex-communication in the faith. Therefore, to suggest that they would want to, or in fact are, forcing their vegetarianism on others is implausible.

Firstly, Jains in the thousands observe comprehensive fasts for 60 / 30 / 8 days leading up to paryushan. If not fasting, their dietary restrictions go well, well beyond simple vegetarianism. They have not recommended this to anybody else. Secondly, they have not asked non-Jains, if they have asked at all, to turn vegetarian during the said number of days. If someone’s taste-buds, addictions, habits or just rebelliousness make meat a must, he will find a way to get it. He will stock up in advance; go to another suburb; find canned meat; order in from a resourceful restaurant; anything. Jains know this as well as do non-jains.

The other argument is even weaker. A ban affects the earnings of butchers and meat sellers. Who’ll compensate them, it is asked. Who compensates traders when there is a public holiday on Diwali, Eid or Navroze? Who compensates when there is a bandh? Who compensates when there’s a power outage or a monsoon-water drainage collapse and businesses are forced to shut? Surely, more meat will be sold before and after the ban period to make up? Are we to be reduced to this - where a Hindu will demand compensation for loss of business on Eid and a Muslim likewise on Diwali? And if it is really only about the money, I’m sure the Mira-Bhayandar Jains by themselves can write a cheque to their local body for onward disbursement.

The point being totally missed is that this is not about diet, vegetarianism or imposition of will. It is about violence. Slaughter is violent. Violence is bad. That is a given. All the year round, mute animals are lined up in legal and illegal abattoirs and slaughtered. They hear other animals’ cries and sense and smell death. They suffer this terror only because they are animals. What distinguishes a man-eater animal from an animal-eater man? The motive (hunger), method (kill) and result (satisfaction of hunger) are the same. Yet, one is hunted down and exterminated; the other given a certificate of bravery and virtue. It comes down to man’s exercise of superior power; his arrogance of being a superior being; his kill-but-won’t-be-killed philosophy.

Non-Jains are not being requested to fast. Their lives are not being placed in danger. There can be two views on whether a meat-diet is healthy; none on whether a meat-free one is. All that is being sought is that just for 2 - 8 days in the whole year, we as allegedly superior, compassionate, ethical beings bestow on animals the fearlessness as regards life that we enjoy the year round. Jains were not seeking anything for themselves; only for the living beings of other species.

Incidentally, Emperor Akbar banned slaughter for half the year in 1587. The Supreme Court in 2008 rejected the must-have-meat and the income-loss argument in the interest of tolerance amidst diversity.

It would have been nice, even divine, if we as humane beings had welcomed this chance to demonstrate our ethical superiority; if we had not taken it as an imposition but an opportunity. That has not happened. Whether child, spouse or parent; sibling, student or supervisor; no one likes being told what he must or cannot do. That is how the meat ban has been received. Resentment has built up over the ban as well as against Jains. Non-Jains who otherwise may be having meat only once or twice a week feel the urge to have it every one of the ban days. Not because they wanted to but because they have been told they cannot.

Hinsa in the Jain scheme of things is not restricted to humans; it extends to every living organism. It’s not restricted to physical violence; it extends to thought (bhav) violence. At the end of these 8 days, Jains ask all beings in the cosmos for forgiveness for any hurt or pain caused knowingly or unknowingly by words, actions, thoughts or deeds (michhami dukkadam). The purpose of the ban stands frustrated by the kind of outrage that it has provoked. The outrage, negativity, anger and resentment are all violence as understood by Jains. The idea was to eschew violence for a few days; the result has been to provoke it, albeit of a different kind.

Which is the greater violence to be avoided - the slaughter of x thousands of animals or the outrage of y lakhs of humans? Who’ll decide - the mute animals or the superior humans?

Whatever be the answer, michhami dukkadam is due from all Jains to all non-Jains for any outrage caused.

(Rajen Parikh is a Chartered Accountant based in Mumbai)

Latest News