“The State Government has decided to ban commercial import and trading of dogs and dog markets and also the sale of dog meat, both cooked and uncooked. Appreciate the wise decision taken by the State’s Cabinet @Manekagandhibjp @Neiphiu_Rio”
India is no stranger to conversations surrounding the ban of the consumption of meat of a particular animal. Just like the cow debate, the conversation is seeing a distinct divide between pro-dog meat consumers and the anti-dog meat opinions.
However, unlike the cow debate, the one on dog meat is more on civilisational logic than religion. The debate, at its core, is a tussle between the “right” to consume, and to stay away from dog meat. From conversations about values, animal cruelty, disgust, taboo, classification of what is food and what is not, the ban is definitely a polarising one.
To give you some context, dog meat is not central to diet in Nagaland. Contrary to popular opinion, a large number of Naga households do not consume it. Nonetheless, the tribal communities have been stereotyped as heavy consumers of dog meat, to an extent that it is used to as an excuse to incite violence and hate against them.
With the banning of the dog meat trade in Nagaland, while the pet lovers and animal rights activists may welcome the move, the critics of this decision are also citing the Nagaland Liquor Prohibition Act, 1989, and how it led to a booming black market for alcohol. A similar fate might be seen for dog meat trade in Nagaland.
It is worth noting that under Article 371(A) of the Indian Constitution, Nagaland enjoys exemptions from Indian laws with regard to religious or social practices of the Nagas. Hence, it also remains to be seen how a ban on any traditional practice like this would be implemented.
The ongoing global pandemic crisis has given the ban another context. During this time, the voices claiming meat to be a potential source of spreading the virus in India have grown louder.
In the case of dog meat ban, the argument for animal protectionism was also accompanied by the description of dogs as potentially ridden with diseases, and hence unfit for consumption. Therefore, while the ban is being justified with the logic of unsafe consumption, it is being celebrated as the end of an uncivilized consumption.
While a ban might be right on moral grounds, considering the cultural significance which dogs holds in the society, including the local communities by engaging in a dialogue would have been more desirable. Especially when that community already feels isolated from the rest of the country.
Written by - Snehil Kesarwani
Edited by - Chhavi Gupta
Social