Meaty Issue – How Can The Right Of A Goat Or A Chicken Be Lesser Than That Of A Dog?

Catch a dog, kill it, roast it and eat it, and what you have is a Northeast delicacy, a north Indian friend once remarked jovially yet bluntly. I did not take that as an offence because I forgave his ignorance. What that friend and many others in the country do not know is that food from the Northeast is much more than just the imagined dog meat. Little do they know that food from Northeast boasts exotic delicacies that are not a part of mainstream fare. But that ignorance does not permit one the legitimacy nor can the right to ridicule and conclude that whatever people in the Northeast eat be called “weird, strange”, or “unacceptable”. It is a shame that many in mainland India have never really tried to know or, understand that the region loosely termed as ‘Northeast” is actually made up of eight states and each state is so unique and distinct in its own way.

The recent uproar over a ban on dog meat in Nagaland—which followed a similar order in Mizoram—is, to my mind, just one of the many examples of misconception and misunderstanding. The ban must be seen and examined strategically through the eyes of animal rights activists, who hailed it as a victory and a turning point and, through the eyes of Nagas, whose cultural practice is questioned by this very decision. But what needs to be cleared first is that, not all Nagas eat dog meat. And for those who do, it is their prerogative and a personal choice. Naturally, some sections of Naga society frowned upon the decision, calling it an infringement on their personal space and belief.

First, let us uphold animal rights which are a set of belief that animals too have the right to be free of oppression, confinement, use and abuse by humans. By this token and doctrine, it simply means that all animals regardless of whether it is a dog or a lion,  human beings must not carry out any experiment on them; no breeding or riding them during marriages and, playing that fancy game of polo, among many others. In fact, restaurants wouldn’t be serving tandoori chicken. Since time immemorial, animals served as models in biological research in genetics and in drug testing. All that, in the light of this argument, is frightfully wrong and puts us in the wrong. And I shudder to think of the plight of the poor guinea pigs that are used in endless medical researches time and again as if it is their sole purpose of existence.

But to stretch it to that level may not entirely serve human purpose. For, animals in many ways, are there for the benefit of mankind. And there will always be a contradiction on why do animals that are typically used and seen as food by the majority, like chicken, fish, mutton have lesser rights as compared to dogs.

So, in essence, the animal rights activists are right in that context if their concern is purely on the ground that animals (dogs) must be treated with love and care. But that uproar must be extended for every animal that is abused—be it chicken, duck, etc.

On the other hand, there is a deep cultural context when we address food and food habits. They are shaped by many factors ,as sociologist Deborah Lupton rightly wrote: “Food consumption habits are not simply tied to biological needs but serve to mark boundaries between social classes, geographic regions, nations, cultures, genders, life-cycle stages, religions and occupations, to distinguish rituals, traditions, festivals, seasons and times of day.”

Indeed, there are deep cultural context when it comes to animals and the Northeast. People in the region practiced subsistence economy that barely fed their hungry bellies. Making it worse, they relied on shifting cultivation that yield enough not to starve. They were hunters, fishermen and gatherers—all rolled into one, and looked upon their environment for shelter and food. The rough terrain; harsh climatic conditions; impenetrable thick jungles went on to influence and define their diet and dietary habits. Pulses, something as basic to the rest of India, came to the region much later all because access was an issue. Cut to today, their food habits and choice cannot be put on a scanner and judged upon in isolation. “When we talk about food, we are, then, in the midst of a rich and complex mosaic of languages, grammars, narratives, discourses, and traditions, all of which are tightly intermeshed. In this binding, they overlap and even contradict each other,” as Angel F. Mendez Montoya explained in Theology of  Food.

Dog is an indispensable animal for the primitive people of the world and not just for the different communities of Northeast, playing multiple roles in their lives. Not just as the faithful friend who accompanied them on their hunting trips or forages for food. They also depended on the animal it for sustenance, strange as it may sound to many. For instance, if you look at Manipur, among some communities, the dog was used for exorcism to cure illness and even madness. The blood of dog was supposed to have curative effect, as found in folktales. Dogs were used as an offering to the spirits to cure all types of illnesses among the Chin Kuki Zomi people.  Offering dog’s blood to the spirits for appeasement to cure madness was also a traditional practice. Some primitive rituals include wearing of dog’s tail and teeth as amulets as it was considered protection or shield against the dark forces of the spirits. And its meat is considered potent and immunity building even to this day.  It is no exception in Nagaland, where the life of Nagas has always been intertwined with dogs. Dogs are omnipresent in their life. In fact, a dog was responsible for the Nagas’ eternal loss of script. Legend has it that the handwritten script that was painstakingly written on an animal skin was carried away by a hungry dog. To this day, Nagas rely on Roman script and their tradition and knowledge perpetuated down the generations orally.

It is therefore, with a different context when we say that dog meat has been part of Naga cuisine for a long time. The intake of the meat is not entirely for indulgence like, say, a pork, beef or chicken. It was always with a belief that it would stimulate them and give them the much-needed physical power and vigour to climb mountains and walk on foot for miles and miles into the jungle to gather food. Clearly beyond the physiological function, there are unexplained cultural meanings and discourses surrounding the intake of dog meat. Food habits are always products of the socio-cultural and economic environment. And that holds true for the Nagas or many other communities in the Northeast.

If the ban on sale of dog meat, “both cooked and uncooked” is with an intention to put an end this cultural practice, the abrupt act does not seem like a long-term and a bankable solution. In fact, it does not also reflect a long-term policy that would steadfastly guide the Nagas as they long evolved from a head-hunting tradition to yet another milestone of shunning something their forefathers did and questions their identities. If the intention was so, then what needed to be brought upon is a more structured policy to introduce smooth behavioural change and awareness building. And a thoughtfully studied process wherein authorities partners with stakeholders like the church leaders, youth leaders of the society and yield a more positive result. As a friend rightly pointed out, this change must be gradual and has to come from within and, mere changing laws may serve little purpose. Of course, the reverse impact may only push up prices and illegal trade.

Again, as far as the customary practice is concerned, it has to strike a fine balance with the doctrine that is put forth by animal rights activists. And the freedom of what one wants to eat must also strike an equally fine balance with public policy. The larger and more worrying issue is, just because what one community eats does not fall into the sensibility of certain section of the society, or say, the majority, it may be absurd and rather too insensitive to ban what is truly one’s question of identity. And how can the right of a goat or a chicken be lesser than that of a dog? That’s a tough question many need to ponder upon.