Is Banning Dog Meat Simply Another Form of Food Fascism?
Under pressure from PFA, the Nagaland state government enacted a ban on the consumption of dog meat. In their haste, have they disregarded their duty to protect the cultural, religious and social practices of indigenous tribes? Talilula explores the role of dog meat in Naga culture, and the latent hypocrisy of the ban.
Currently trending on different social media platforms are photographs and videos of dogs, by Naga pet owners, with hashtags like #Nagaslovedogs, #Nagasforanimals and #PFAmustapologise. This is to demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion, Nagas are also capable of nurturing animals. A group of animal lovers in Nagaland have started a petition campaign on Change.org demanding an apology from PFA (People for Animals) for reinforcing pejorative stereotypes about the Nagas, in their campaign against the consumption and trading of dog meat in Nagaland. As part of the campaign, which began on June 30, 2020, PFA — a powerful animal welfare organisation in India, chaired by Maneka Gandhi — stated that ‘all the dogs are now being brought in from outside the state, as Nagaland has eaten all its dogs,’ and also claimed ‘dog restaurants’ exist within the state. In response, several Nagas sent messages to Kanika Dewan, Director of Partnership & Strategy (PFA), and also left comments on PFA’s social media handles asking them to retract and apologise for factually incorrect claims. The PFA has thus far not responded to any of the messages, nor apologised, or retracted their statements. The petition highlights PFA’s lack of response and accountability for these incendiary statements. While the PFA campaign was successful in that a dog meat ban was legally enforced by the state government on July 3, 2020, their statements sparked a series of vicious slurs and racial attacks on Nagas, across various social media platforms. One of these perpetrators, a Mumbai-based animal rights activist, Hema Choudhary, allegedly threatened to “boycott Nagaland,” and “cut their necks,” among other things, on her social media account. FIRs have been filed in response by the Nagaland Congress’ Minority Department, and several Naga individuals as well.
The hashtags listed above are just some of the responses that have emerged from Naga citizens to counter the racial abuse and outrage incited by PFA’s sweeping hyperbole. The ban has elicited mixed responses; certain Nagas support the move, while a majority oppose the ban entirely. Some have pointed out that conversations on animal cruelty in Nagaland are outright hypocritical, when the AFPSA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) enacts gross human rights violations within the state. One of these comments come from anthropologist Dolly Kikon who tweeted, “How about focusing on ending the suffering of all sentient beings, including humans? Remember AFPSA? A draconian law legitimising the murder of Naga people since 1958? Care to speak up?” The opinions emerging from Nagaland are as diverse as the state and its citizens, but what is unanimously agreed upon is that PFA’s approach on the issue is simply a smear campaign cosplaying as animal activism.
Culture-shaming Nagas for consuming dog meat is hardly new; it is an issue that recurs every season. Journalist Akangchila Longchar recalls that almost a decade ago, on her first day of journalism class in Bangalore, a professor by way of introduction said, “Oh you’re from Nagaland. I heard you people tie up a dog, and overfeed it for a week; then kill the dog and eat its stomach.” This was Akangchila’s first time in the city, and also the first time she was privy to such specific details of dog-killing back home. There is a long history, in mainstream narratives, of misrepresenting Nagas and their culture, which this current issue has reignited. Liangamang Robert, a PhD scholar at NIT Nagaland describes this as a classic example of cultural hegemony. “A dominant culture tries to subjugate the minority by demeaning their food habits and cultural practices. Since the days of British rule, our cultural practices have been labelled as heathen, backward, barbaric and uncivilised. The ban is a move in the right direction, but the manner in which it was carried out is a repetition of this vicious cycle.”
Granted, there should be legal provisions for protecting animals we consider pets, (and wildlife as well), but is it justifiable to criminalise a culture for their food choices on the pretext of subjective morality?
Why should some individuals, who are clearly ignorant of the cultural and ontological contexts behind Naga food, decide what we put on our plate just because they have political clout? Is it fair to penalise Nagas and put them behind bars for consuming something that has been part of their ancestral heritage for generations? Articulations of disgust on eating dog meat, under the guise of ‘culture,’ becomes hypocritical and biased when we consider that, on the one hand, indigenous Naga cuisine has garnered much acclaim, with both local and international tourists flocking to the state to taste the ‘different’ and ‘exotic’ Naga culture and its delicacies. In fact, over the last decade, restaurants and eateries serving Naga cuisine have mushroomed in metros, indicating the growing popularity of Naga cuisine in mainland India. However, eating dog meat is now singled out to demean Nagas, for the very same traits that popularised their cuisine. Asen Jamir, a Masters student from Delhi says bitterly, “When the locusts came swarming to India, many mainland Indians on social media suggested they be sent to Nagaland, since we eat them. The same thing has been said about solving the menace of stray dogs in Delhi. And now suddenly, eating dog meat is called a barbaric act.”
It is already historically established that as a culture reliant on farming, hunting and foraging, Nagas are non-vegetarians by nature, and their diet includes a variety of animal meat, plants and herbs. Considered a culinary delicacy and attributed with medicinal properties, dog meat and its broth are a more potent version of the proverbial chicken soup, often served to those with waning health, and those recovering from illness. Along with frog meat, dog meat and its broth have been traditionally prescribed for those healing from surgery, and for women recovering from childbirth. Traditionally prepared with ingredients like local ginger and garlic, also known for their medicinal value, both frog and dog meat are believed to have properties that accelerate the process of healing wounds and incisions on the skin, as well as restoring strength and vigour.
The consumption of dog meat also has religious and social dimensions in Naga culture. Meat and other foods like rice grains, and fermented rice brew, are integral to all Naga rituals and ceremonies. Most rituals usually involve the sacrifice of at least one type of livestock — pigs, chickens, bulls or Mithun, among other things. This is usually followed by a feast where the entire community (or sometimes just a select few), are invited to partake. In traditional Naga ceremonies like the Feasts of Merit, which involves a series of animal sacrifices and communal feasting, hosting these feasts signify social and economic status; owning acres of land and hordes of livestock signify material prosperity.
While most deities in the Naga pantheon were propitiated with the ritual sacrifice of pigs or chicken, specific deities could only be appeased with the sacrifice of dogs. N. Lolen Longchar, an Ao Naga tradition-keeper in Dimapur, narrates that within the Ao Naga context, certain site-specific deities like the Alu tsungrem (field-site deity), and Ayongbang tsungrem (river deity), do not accept anything less than a dog sacrifice. According to him, if these powerful deities are not appeased, it threatens the peaceful cultivation, or hunting, in the area of its supernatural jurisdiction. After the ritual sacrifice, the propitiator and the ritual practitioners cook the rest of the dog meat, and share a feast together, signalling the completion of the ritual. Although the advent of Christianity has transmuted Naga culture and traditions, many of the social and cultural dimensions of meat still hold currency even today. The integral role that meat plays in the diet and traditions of Nagas can also be understood by its extensive usage and consumption, not just during ceremonies of birth, marriages, and funerals, but in everyday life as well.
However, dogs are not regarded merely as food or ritual offerings for Nagas; they are also "pets, companions, medicine, guards, spirit-sensors, thief-catchers and cat-chasers,” as Dolly Kikon points out. The complex relationship between humans and dogs in Naga culture can be explored through the prism of folklore — myths, proverbs, beliefs and traditions. Ao Naga proverbs and folktales are replete with narratives of dogs in a myriad of avatars; lazy, loyal, mischievous, intelligent and wily, while also attributing them with powerful souls. In Ao Naga tradition, when a hunting dog dies, the owner buries the dog behind the house with three leaves of rice and three leaves of meat by its head, for use in the next world. If these offerings are omitted, it is believed the owner will never have a good hunt again. The Sema Nagas have a custom of killing the favourite dog when its master passes away. The dog’s soul is believed to guard its master on the way to the land of the dead, and offer protection from malevolent spirits and beasts. The Angami Nagas too, have a similar custom of burying dogs with a cloth, and if anyone kills a hunting dog, that person has to leave the village for five days and the village has to observe a genna (a period of abstinence and austerity) on the day of his departure as well as his return. J.H. Hutton records that in 1916, a genna of this kind was observed in Jotsoma. While maintaining that Nagas have always made clear distinctions between dogs kept as pets and livestock, Huthuka Sumi, who runs a YouTube channel called Muk Baja, questions the validity of the ban itself: “Article 371A (that protects the religious and social practices of the Nagas) clearly extends to dietary choices, since since culture and tradition cannot be separated from food. To suggest that diet is of no importance would be tantamount to wilful ignorance where beef is a burning issue.”
What has the ban achieved, besides muzzling the dietary choices of Nagas, and rehashing old wounds of racial profiling? How will it be implemented in the state? Will it inspire kindness towards our furry friends, and perhaps fellow humans too? Or will it spawn a nexus of underground trade in dog meat, similar to alcohol bootlegging that resulted from the Liquor Prohibition Act of 1989? According to Veroli Zhimomi from The Morung Express, the only thing the ban has successfully achieved is demonising a people for their dietary habits. “Dog meat has been banned, at least on paper. But does that address the real issue of animal cruelty?” With no announcements clarifying how exactly the ban is going to be enforced, the state government has also drawn its share of criticism for hastily succumbing to pressure from the PFA, and not taking cognisance of underlying issues.
With this goal accomplished, the PFA has conveniently switched to airplane mode, and their silence speaks volumes. The brouhaha resulting from the dog meat ban has only digressed into another episode where voices of indigenous cultures like the Nagas, and the rest of northeast India, are misrepresented and suppressed in mainstream discourses. However, the social media posts, the petitions, the tweets, the many independent voices, and the FIRs filed, signify that Nagas are also are speaking out, countering the existing narrative to unravel the bias and misconceptions that have been built over decades. Now that the Nagas are reclaiming the narrative, will those in power listen?
Talilula is a writer and a researcher on folklore from Nagaland.
ALSO ON THE GOYA JOURNAL
