On the Banning of Meat in Delhi

By Radhakanta Barik

Dear Editor,

Delhi is the capital city of India, home to people from every region and country. Its food culture is multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic, but some patterns can be observed by looking at the hostels of universities and public institutions where food is served. In JNU hostels in the 1970s, dinner usually included meat, while lunch was vegetarian. A small number of people ate only vegetarian food, but they admitted that although they followed vegetarianism at home, outside they ate non-veg—specifically meat (since fish was not served in the JNU hostels). This shows how food became standardized with the rise of industrialization and urbanization. It also explains how standard meals came to be offered in hostels where students from across the country came to study. For example, meat curry in Eastern India is cooked with potato, whereas in other parts of India it is cooked without it.

The 2011 census shows that about 80 percent of people in Delhi are non-vegetarians, while only 20 percent are vegetarian. Yet the present government has banned meat shops during the month of Sravan. Meat shops are legally licensed and expected to provide meat and fish every day. This ban has affected their occupational right under Article 19, as affirmed by Supreme Court judgments.

PM Modi speaks of vegetarianism in Sravan, but the BJP MPs met in the Central Hall before the Monsoon Session began on 21 July, where meat was served. This shows that one rule applies to them, while ordinary non-vegetarians are denied access to meat. This is shocking. Prime Minister Modi’s concern about what Indian people eat could be positive, but about 40 percent of people cannot afford vegetables, which cost more than a hundred rupees per kilo. He claimed that during Sravan people eat non-veg, which is actually untrue. When fish jump onto the roads due to floodwaters, people pick them up and eat them. According to him, they should not eat them but let the fish die and be exported. Meat is cheaper than bhindi or lauki, which he suggests people should eat. During Sravan, when most rural households have no money because they are engaged in agricultural operations, he should instead supply vegetables, milk, and curd to every family.

Chief Justice Mathur of Allahabad High Court has said that banning meat shops in Delhi is illegal and violates the constitutional right to equality: it “reflects mischief (rather) than administrative exigency.” What is happening in Delhi now is precisely this—banning meat shops is a mischievous design of the BJP-controlled Delhi Municipality.

Meat-eating is an integral part of Hinduism. According to Prof. Nrisingha Prasad Bhaduri, the Valmiki Ramayana describes how, when Ram, Lakshman, and Sita went to the forest, Ram requested his younger brother to get some good-quality deer, leading to the discovery of fifty varieties of deer in the jungle. Ram enjoyed the flesh of the deer and shared it with his family members. If this is true, how can Hindutva forces ban meat shops and meat-eating during Sravan? This is an absurd theatrical posture of the present government.

In Hinduism there is no way to escape the consequences of crimes committed in past lives, and those who claim that mukti can be achieved simply by doing puja during Sravan are spreading false propaganda. Furthermore, of the five Pandavas, all lived honestly, yet only Yudhisthir reached Swarga, not the other four. Festivals like Kurwaris during Sravan should be understood as cultural celebrations rather than compulsory acts of purification.

In Odisha, many deities are offered meat, and fish is a regular prasad. At the Kakatpur shrine, thousands of goats were traditionally sacrificed during its festival, a practice only recently banned by the government. Meat and fish are also offered in other Hindu festivals. On the Chadkhai festival, fish is offered in Odisha, while goat meat is offered during the Raja festival as food for the earth in its menstrual stage.

We should celebrate our pluralistic traditions in practicing Hinduism, which is a healthy practice. Indian democracy strengthens pluralism and upholds the rights of individuals and communities to practice Hinduism in their own ways. It is wrong to impose a single standard of Hinduism and food habits that harms the people of India.

Individual experience is central to each tradition. A sociologist writing on the Kanwar yatra recalled his own aunt’s experience: “Once an elderly aunt in her 60s returned from Kanwar yatra. She looked weak. Her feet were swollen and bruised because of continuous walking. The whole family and neighbourhood came to tend to her feet and seek her blessings. It was believed that the blessings she had earned in the pilgrimage would pass on to those who served her.” (Santosh Singh, "Walking with Faith", Indian Express, 24 July 2025). She had the right to go on the Kanwar yatra, to experience religious pilgrimage, and felt happy about her journey. Her relatives sought blessings from her after her hard walk. But today, many young people go on pilgrimage for fun and get involved in illegal activities. The sociologist observes: “any visual of Kanwariyas brandishing sticks and swords and indulging in violence goes against all that religious pilgrimages have traditionally stood for.” These yatras have created law and order problems, and attacks on other religious communities, encouraged by certain political groups, create the impression that India’s pluralistic traditions are being eroded. The banning of meat in Delhi similarly goes against the Indian Constitution and secular democracy.

--- Radhakanta Barik