Free Speech Debate

Thirteen languages. Ten principles. One conversation.

Log in | Register | Mailing list

Loading...
1We – all human beings – must be free and able to express ourselves, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers.»
2We defend the internet and all other forms of communication against illegitimate encroachments by both public and private powers.»
3We require and create open, diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.»
4We speak openly and with civility about all kinds of human difference.»
5We allow no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge.»
6We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.»
7We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.»
8We are all entitled to a private life but should accept such scrutiny as is in the public interest.»
9We should be able to counter slurs on our reputations without stifling legitimate debate.»
10We must be free to challenge all limits to freedom of expression and information justified on such grounds as national security, public order, morality and the protection of intellectual property.»

What’s missing?

Is there a vital area we have not addressed? A principle 11? An illuminating case study? Read other people's suggestions and add your own here. Or start the debate in your own language.

Home | Case studies | What’s your beef with my freedom to eat it?

What’s your beef with my freedom to eat it?

Bans on eating beef and pork are contested in India. Manav Bhuhshan discusses why this is an issue of caste discrimination and can be seen as a restriction on freedom of expression.

Cows in India
Several cows wander down a street in India (Photo by clarividus under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike licence).

The case

Hindus believe cows are holy and Muslims consider pork “haram” (forbidden). Both are staple foods for India’s lower caste Dalits who consider recent bans on beef in some states a result of caste prejudice and a restriction of their fundamental right to free expression. In April 2012 some students at Osmania University in Hyderabad started a campaign to allow beef to be served in their university canteen. Members of rightwing student groups met their initiative with stiff opposition and violence. Yet the Dalit campaign spread to Jawaharlal Nehru University, which has been a bastion of leftwing student politics for decades.

Both political opinion and court verdicts have taken an increasingly conservative view on the subject of cow and bovine slaughter in recent years. Mainstream political parties and even India’s supreme court have welcomed and upheld restrictions imposed by state governments. Along with caste and religion, the debate over cow slaughter has class dimensions. The renowned academic Praful Bidwai has argued: “the absence of beef will raise the food bill for the underprivileged”. The freedom to eat what you want is thus very sensitive, and its future appears more uncertain than ever before.

Author opinion

Eating habits and customs around the world have been restricted on the basis of religious doctrines, cruelty to animals, endangering species, etc. In many cases the lines drawn to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable foods are tenuous and arbitrary. In a multicultural society like India, allowing people to eat poultry and mutton (upper caste meats) while banning beef and pork (lower caste meats) is more than arbitrary. It is discriminatory on many different levels. The increasing tendency for states to ban cow slaughter in recent years flies in the face of caste- and identity-based politics, which have recently flourished in many states.

The only explanation for this apparent contradiction is that the Hindu right’s political rise at the national level has negated the rise of regional political parties that claim to represent lower castes. Although environmental and ethical concerns mean the right to eat what you want cannot be absolute, food practices are often a crucial way for people to express their social and cultural identities. A socially volatile country like India therefore needs a level playing field where each community’s right to choose what they eat is equally valued.

- Manav Bhushan
Print
Published on: October 8, 2012 | No Comments

Leave a comment in any language


Free Speech Debate is a research project of the Dahrendorf Programme for the Study of Freedom at St Antony's College in the University of Oxford. www.freespeechdebate.ox.ac.uk