By -Chandril Ray Chaudhuri
Abstract
This article examines how the phrase “pure veg” in India goes beyond a simple choice of what to eat and rather serves as a symbol of historical ideas of caste, purity and pollution. Being vegetarian is a personal, ethical or religious choice but the language of “purity” has been used historically to justify social exclusion and discrimination. This article criticizes the intersection of cuisine, caste and constitutional equality, proposing appreciation of different cuisines without moral or social hierarchies.
Introduction
Just walk through any Indian city and you are likely to see signs proudly proclaiming “Pure Veg Restaurants”, “Pure Veg Housing” or “Pure Veg Families Preferred”. At first sight, these are harmless eating preferences, given that eating is a personal choice to the inexperienced eye. The problem is that “purity” is often used to exclude certain people, and it’s not just about food.
Ambedkar, in his book, Annihilation of Caste, discusses how casteism maintains its social power via exclusion of those that went against it or were demonised by it. “Pure Veg” culture, in that manner, seems to mimic the exclusivity and exclusionary practices, under the guise of morality and animal welfare.
The Historical Roots of Purity and Pollution
The term ‘pure veg‘ in India is situated within a social history that is irrevocably linked with caste. Millions have adopted vegetarian cuisine for purportedly ethical reasons such as that of – environmental health, religious and/or personal health considerations. However, deeming vegetarian food to be pure while meat to be impure has a long history rooted in the caste system, informed by the ancient concept of ritual pollution. This phenomenon continues to inform decisions on where one lives, works with, marries, and/or who their children go to school with.
The discourse around pollution and purity plays a vital role in caste ideology. Within the traditional order, both occupy a critical position. Traditional Brahmanical texts categorised roles, bodies and food in terms of ritual status and the ‘higher’ castes have traditionally tried to condemn food derived from killed animals and unclean occupations such as fishing, hunting, leather production, or sanitation. Thus, food transcends itself to become an element of social standing.
The Myth of India as a Vegetarian Nation
Importantly, India has never been a uniformly vegetarian civilisation. Not only do histories of India and numerous archeological sites trace the consumption of animal flesh across parts of India and communities for millennia, even several historically meat-eating Hindu communities today still observe dietary practices which restrict meat or fish based on geography, profession and local practice. Studies have repeatedly shown most Indians consume some type of meat-albeit differently across states and communities. Still, our society often presumes being vegetarian is the default.
This is not simply a matter of culture, but also about which narratives about India have been enabled by a complex series of political and institutional decisions about how memory is structured; whose histories are to be told and whose are to fade from the official account. The notion that India is overwhelmingly a vegetarian nation thus serves not only as a close proxy for the homogenising ambitions of upper-caste Brahmanical food norms and practices, but also provides space to frame these as representative of the culture of the entire country, erasing the food traditions of Dalit peoples, Adivasis, pastoral populations, coastal peoples and countless communities of people for whom meat has always been a significant part of their diet, whether of local variety or not. Indeed, in recent decades this discourse has increasingly merged with majoritarian political mobilisation, often ignoring that these so called ‘upper castes’ have historically been cited to consume not just meat, but beef as well.
The cattle slaughter regulations, the beef prohibition in a few states and other regions, the insistence that eggs cannot be a part of mid-day meals in schools, the deliberate visual displays of vegetarianism at state functions; all of these have the cumulative effect of cementing the idea of a“ vegetarian’, or rather, an ideal vegetarian identity of the Indian cuisine.
Such policies often transform a particular cultural practice into a normative national value. The consequence of such policy formation is to push other cultural food practices into a niche as ‘deviant’ or ‘special’. The myth of a vegetarian India continues, not because it is empirically verifiable historically but because it has become part of wider processes of cultural flattening and hegemonic standardisation.
“Pure Veg”
This is the point where the word “pure veg” begins to acquire its power. “Pure” means that which does not have its “impure” counterpart contaminating it. Though no restaurant will put the ‘impure food’ label to its menu, the distinction creates an implied moral hierarchy for food. Any establishment serving a vegetarian menu, could have just said ‘vegetarian cuisine’. By adding the adjective ‘pure’, vegetarian food is attributed to qualities like cleanliness, purity, and upper-class superiority, while food cooked with meat, fish or eggs is implied to be unclean.
This exclusion, however, is not confined to restaurant menus. Houses put out advertisements that they accommodate only pure vegetarians. A landlord declines to provide a house to tenants simply because he hears about them cooking meat. Hostels ban students because of their choice of food. Domestic helpers are told to eat separately or are not allowed into kitchens on the assumption about what they consume. In many instances, this exclusion is targeted towards Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, Christians and many other regions and groups with a traditionally meat-inclusive food habit.
These refusals are often justified on the grounds of ‘lifestyle choice’ rather than discrimination. It is reasonable for each person to decide whether to be a vegetarian and to exclusively reside with people who are also vegetarian. Yet, when the vegetarian lifestyle dictates exclusion of entire communities, the rationale no longer rests merely on personal choice. Food is used as a socially acceptable terminology to re-affirm old stereotypes without mentioning caste or religion.
Food, Politics, and Identity
The politics of meat, too, demonstrates these processes. Discussions about cows and the ‘ethics’ of consuming beef, whether in schools where kids would only be served eggs, or food carts down the street, often show that where and what one chooses to eat is about more than biology. Measures adopted in the name of tradition or purity tend to burden marginalised communities or the impoverished more heavily, since these are the exact same groups for whom meat and eggs remain crucial sources of both protein and inexpensive meals, with mid day meals being the most nutritious meals of the day for most.
Vegetarians are not the Problem
At the same time, one must not oversimplify and reduce being vegetarian itself to casteism. Millions of Indians are vegetarian for reasons of Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, or purely ethical (whether it be compassion for animals or concern for the environment) convictions. There is no reason why these choices should not command the same respect as those that allow the consumption of meat. The real issue is not being vegetarian but the attribution of ideas of purity that come with it. When one refuses to kill a cow for food, it should not be the social or moral status quo, that the person is, in any manner, more civilized or less contemptible than someone who does consume beef. It matters what terms we use because language is not value neutral and language has power. Describing a restaurant as ‘vegetarian’ simply identifies its menu. Describing it as ‘pure veg’ draws upon a vocabulary historically associated with ideas of ritual purity and pollution. Even when no overtly discriminatory ideology is involved, the term carries associations with connotations that marginalized communities still encounter in their daily lives.
India is a constitutional republic committed to the idea of equality of all citizens regardless of caste, creed or social status. For such a promise to be real we have to constantly question any practice that seems to normalize exclusion, even in seemingly innocent matters. Food is private, but it is also deeply public and so the freedom to choose a diet according to the dictates of one’s conscience must include the freedom not to be ostracised, judged or denied opportunities due to one’s dietary habits.
Conclusion
The so-called myth of “pure veg” isn’t really about the fact that vegetarian food exists. It is that “purity” can be stuck onto food and, by extension, onto the people who consume it. A society committed to equality should celebrate dietary diversity rather than rank it. Respecting being vegetarian should never require treating other foods or the communities associated with them as impure. Until that distinction is recognised, the language of “pure veg” will continue to reflect more than cuisine; it will echo the enduring shadow of caste.
About the Author
Chandril Ray Chaudhuri is a B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Jindal Global Law School with interests in constitutional law, human rights, criminal justice, and the intersection of law and society. Their writing explores issues of equality, civil liberties, and social justice.
Image Source : https://freesvg.org/1531813273