Editor’s note: This article is in response to “Being vegan and anti-caste: Why we need to hear from marginalised communities” authored by Rheea Rodrigues Mukherjee, published in The News Minute on September 19, 2022.
An article published recently in The News Minute titled “Being vegan and anti-caste: Why we need to hear from marginalised communities” brings in the discourse on ‘speciesism’ which the author claims is not taken as seriously as racism, Islamophobia and caste discrimination, because humans assume that they are intrinsically superior to and have the right to control and discriminate against other sentient beings. Sentient means being able to experience feelings.
The author, as most vegan activists do, talks about the deplorable living and dying conditions of animals that are commonly consumed by humans. She also says that being from a vulnerable or marginalised community (specifically Dalit and Muslim) should not be a reason not to talk about, endorse or practice veganism. Here are some things for vegan activists to think about.
While it is fair for animal rights activists to demand more accountability for animal welfare, the fact remains that even those domesticated animals that are not consumed for meat also live and die in deplorable conditions. Since cattle slaughter bans have been passed in several states of India, farmers have been struggling economically and with the burden of managing sick, unproductive and stray cattle. The use of barbed wires by farmers to prevent these cattle from entering their fields has become commonplace.
Gaushalas which are meant to be safe havens for retired cattle are often ill-equipped and come with their own set of animal rights violations. Sick and aged animals, often unable to move, lie in their own excreta and often in excruciating pain, while those managing gaushalas constantly complain about being underfunded. The sentient feelings of old and unproductive cattle – abandoned in several states that have passed stringent cattle slaughter bans – have to be factored into the sentient-being discourse and cannot conveniently be pushed under the grass. Going vegan doesn’t address the issue faced by these sentient beings.
Similarly, animal rescue groups can share horror stories of people who abuse their dogs and cats regularly. Anyone who genuinely loves cats and dogs would protest against animal owners who spend hours a day at work, leaving their pets only in the company of other sentient beings such as lizards and cockroaches. One would also have to insist that vegetarians or vegans not be allowed to have pets if they are going to deny meat to these carnivores. Inflicting veganism on a carnivore would itself amount to a sentient-being rights violation.
For vegans concerned about animal rights, apparently the only animals that they acknowledge as sentient beings are those eaten by humans. If their concern extended to all animals, then most of their plant-based solutions (almonds, cashew, whole-grain, tofu, etc.) would fall by the wayside and they would not be able to eat either animal or plant-based food. While some animals are killed or sacrificed for food, many others are killed by the processes that provide plant-based foods. Large cultivated farm tracts of soya, groundnut, corn, peas, almond, cashew or even coffee, are not exactly animal-friendly. Fields for monocrop are constantly killing and maiming thousands of small animals.
Why are animals not allowed to co-exist freely in these cultivated lands to take a nibble of a fruit here or a vegetable there, or uproot sweet potatoes as part of their sentient needs? Why use pesticide sprays and insect repellents to protect plant-based foods from ‘pests’? Why is the life of a worm or a butterfly, a caterpillar, a snake, a rat or a cockroach less valuable than that of a goat or chicken? The look of fear of a rodent trapped in a rat trap or of a cockroach desperately running around before it is stomped to death cannot be relegated to a less important status. Diseases transmitted from these sentient beings should be accepted as our way of living in harmony with other species. The disappearance of sparrows is connected with the explosion of digital technology, apart from other things. Finally, given humans unlimited ability to inflict violence and torture, shouldn’t the ultimate solution be to keep humans away from any form of animal domestication – mainly because we believe in showcasing the worst as a snapshot of the majority.
The article quotes from interviews conducted by vegan activists of butchers in Indore. The butchers spoken to apparently stated that they did not want their children to do ‘this work.’ The authors and researchers, of course, interpret this to mean that, deep down, all butchers in Indore (and the rest of the country) want to become vegans. Simplistic self-selected, anecdotal narratives are being offered by plant-based food activists as a way of pushing the agenda. Projecting Dalits or Muslims, who are known meat consumers as spokespersons against meat is now the new mantra. Adding a Christian, tribal or North East name or representation from the LGBTQI community would also lend legitimacy to the vegan discourse.
Using the pain that butchers, Muslims and Dalits supposedly feel when slaughtering animals, and extrapolating this pain to push for country-wide veganism is duplicitous and manipulative to say the least. Quoting Dalit and Muslim butchers and traders as not wanting their children to take up the same trade as their parents, and offering veganism as the solution shows a pre-determined agenda more than anything else. There are several trades that Dalits and Muslims would not want their children to take up. In an aspiring society, most parents in India would not want their children to take up their own professions. Even doctors are heard, especially when regulations are brought in, saying that they don’t want their children to take up this thankless job as a medical professional. So, does that mean the doctor profession should be done away with?
For every butcher who says that he was saddened by looking into the eyes of the animal he slaughtered, there would be thousands who think nothing about it, or as the Muslims do, go ahead with the killing after uttering a prayer. The halal method, which is currently being targeted by the current right-wing government, has guidelines of respectfully killing an animal for consumption. Interestingly in this method, a desirable practice is to offer water to the animal before slaughter, to avoid slaughtering when the animal is hungry, hiding the knife from the animal and avoiding unnecessary suffering. Why is this respectful way of killing an animal for food not being pushed by animal rights activists?
Indigenous communities believe in inter-connectedness which calls for a moral responsibility to care for, live in harmony with and respect the natural world using only that much of the animal for food as required to sustain their families and communities. In this interconnected existence, the animals are consumed as food, but the human body is also part of the ecological system when it gets absorbed into the soil, plants and into animals. Being humble and learning from these ways would serve animal and human interests equally. Listening to farmers and those working with dairy or meat on what are ethical ways of co-existing and co-dependence is a much less arrogant approach rather than defining for them what love of animals is or is not.
Instead of using anecdotes of vegan Dalits and Muslims to promote veganism, it would be best to trust movements like the Food Sovereignty Alliance which comprises Adivasi, Dalit, pastoralist and peasant communities and which came up collectively with the Pellipadugu Declaration on Food Sovereignty. As with indigenous communities across the world, this movement has also been concerned about the threats to their food sovereignty and ways of life; the commodification of their biodiversity, knowledge and cultures; and the large-scale global market exploitative agenda. Vegan activists in India who are often disconnected from the lives of a vast majority of Indians, could do well to listen and learn before making sweeping recommendations. Appealing as it may sound, veganism is not a magic wand for world problems.
Although one or two Dalit activists may be vociferous proponents of veganism, they are not spokespersons for the Dalit community. Following the hasty passage of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was submitted by the Dalitha Sangharsha Samithi (Bheemavaadha) in the Karnataka High Court. It contended that the Act violated the fundamental rights of the members of Dalit Communities and the minority communities in particular under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. “The Act is in violation of the right to food inasmuch as an intrinsic part of this right is the right to nutritious food. It must be remembered that there is a definite caste/class dimension to beef eating, as it provides a relatively cheaper source of nutrition,” the petition stated.
Along similar lines, the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission under the Chairmanship of Dr CS Dwarakanath submitted a special report on The Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010, claiming that it curtailed the right to food, employment and work of Backward Classes.
In Karnataka, more than 86% of the households that report ownership of livestock are small and marginal farmers who use livestock for ploughing, sowing, weeding, for manure, transportation and milk. Without these animals, there would be an almost complete shutdown of major farming activities. Extending the sentient being philosophy, these livestock should neither be used for consumption as meat, for dairy or for agricultural activities. So then, mechanical farming – which cannot occur on small tracts of land as owned currently by small farmers – will become the primary solution. There would be a need to acquire (by hook or by crook) the lands of small farmers and mechanise the farming.
It should be clear to the vegans that farmers will not buy or own cattle if they cannot sell them at prices that allow them to buy younger and more productive cattle. When farmers stop using certain breeds or species, then the population of this breed or species comes down. Therefore, vegan concerns about sentient beings being consumed as food can itself reduce the survival of the breed or species.
If the world turned vegan, there would not be enough home cooked, organic plant-based foods for everyone. So, while elite vegans would put up Instagram posts of all the delicious plant-based meat lookalikes that they are concocting in their kitchens, the poor will necessarily be given ultra-processed, packaged foods like Maggi. Plant-based alternative to beef offered by Beyond Meat financed by Bill Gates contains water, pea protein, canola oil, coconut oil, rice protein, natural flavours, dried yeast, cocoa butter, methylcellulose, potato starch, salt, potassium chloride, beet juice colour, apple extract, pomegranate concentrate, sunflower lecithin, vinegar, lemon juice concentrate, vitamins and minerals. Can one honestly say that this is the best food that humans should be aspiring to?
No chemical, additive or supplement offers a comparable nutrient-dense alternative to animal source foods (ASF) so the vegan propaganda comes at great cost to human health and nutrition. The unsaid, underlying presumption in the vegan speciesism argument is that it is okay if the health and nutrition of some members of the human species suffer in the process of ensuring equality to all species. In the Indian context, men and women from oppressor caste groups would be the fittest, because of their access to power, diversity of foods and finances. Any ill-health arising as collateral damage from cheap, packaged and processed foods that will be pushed on the poor, will be seen as a necessary price to be paid by ‘the other’ in the interest of doing away with speciesism.
If researchers and writers had cared enough to ask poor Dalit or Muslim working mothers which nutrient-dense foods can be cooked easily and are enjoyed most by their children, they will certainly mention meat such as dry fish, organ meat and beef. The effort to erase these perspectives by projecting Dalit/Muslim vegans as spokespersons for entire communities leaves much to be desired.
It would appear that the solution to every so-called ethical or moral dilemma seems to be further dependence on the corporates. Is it possible that corporates are driving this plant-based narrative?
The Eat Lancet Commission, driven by billionaires, has set out ‘scientific targets’ to ‘increase consumption of plant-based foods and substantially reduce consumption of ASF’ and lauds India for being a ‘good example to show the world’ about plant-based foods. Vegan activists in India whether showcasing voices of Dalit, Adivasi or other marginalised communities end up on the same side of the table with the billionaires deciding what food is best for the world.
However, even the Eat Lancet Commission is unable to deny that plant-based foods are nutritional inadequate for ‘vulnerable groups,’ and they exclude children between 0-2 years from their plant-based recommendations. In practical terms, does this mean that children should be given ASF till the age of two and then denied these? In a home, will the two-year-old and those older than two be given different foods? Do children of school age not require nutrient-dense foods? What about adolescents, pregnant women, postpartum women and those breastfeeding their babies? What about elderly people who often are at risk of fractures, non-communicable and other metabolic diseases? What about young men and women who fall in between these age groups? Do they not need essential nutrients to lead a healthy life?
The report also goes on to say that because of menstrual loss, adolescent girls are at risk of iron deficiency and goes on to recommend ‘less expensive’ and ‘without adverse consequences of high red meat intake’ multivitamin or multimineral preparations, ignoring the benefits of red meat in the prevention and management of anaemia. It is simplistic to assume that a complex physiological process of haemoglobin formation which performs the crucial role of carrying oxygen to the organs can be ensured by replacing one mineral (iron). However, haemoglobin formation requires a variety of nutrients which come in their best form from ASF, specifically organ meats. ASF in maternal diets are important for optimal foetal growth especially in the third trimester, and vegan diets require supplements of Vitamin B12. So what can be obtained from food has now shifted to being obtained from a bottle.
Nutrient-dense foods of animal sources will be replaced by chemicals manufactured in laboratories and transported by air or ship, thus directly aggravating the climate crisis. Multinationals which express concerns about climate change push for corporate dependent fortification shipping pre-mixes from Western countries to India over an indefinite period of time, while in the meantime, completely destroying food sovereignty in the country.
Caring for animals seems to automatically mean caring less for humans. Ultimately, the difficult question that vegans need to answer is, “How can animal welfare co-exist with human welfare?” The solutions that are currently being offered are extreme and poorly thought of, while ignoring or pushing under the carpet the ‘collateral damage’ caused by the solutions themselves. Morality (or lack of it) of a society cannot be addressed by extremism.
Dr Sylvia Karpagam is a public health doctor and researcher working on Right to Health and Nutrition, especially of marginalised and vulnerable communities. Views expressed here are the author’s own.