Nungshilemba
Dimapur
The world of today lacks civility in conversation and both parties scream at each other from the extreme end. What was once deemed logical and good manners, to meet midway over a disagreement is now seen as weakling if anyone tries to mediate on common ground.This pattern of polarising civil conversation is dangerous for any society. A highly polarised activism benefits no one, has no common social assets, and impediments ongoing social and cultural dialogue.
The combative activism to explain any situation in the light of victim and aggressor narrative, the black and white ideologue that ignores the grey matters. It is important to remember that in any civil conversation that entails the critical discussions of social and cultural analysis , superseding the due process , skipping the fundamental principle of ‘explaining’ the keynote before jumping to critical analysis and finding common grounds is dangerous and disingenuous. Many social commentaries and even many academicians in a rush to earn a cookie point in the fast news culture relish upon this laziness. There is no logical discourse and capturing headlines is prioritised. The rage now is to post a tweet on Twitter, post a long status on Facebook, make a video with sensationalising background score, or even post a dramatised picture on Instagram, or do all the listed. This constructs a polarised narrative.
In less than 24 hours, they changed their angle of protest multiple times - from cruelty against animals to AFSPA, to then racism, and then to veganism and Brahmanism, and some even managed to evoke human rights. And all because of what?? To earn favour in the Twitter tweets and Facebook posts. How many really understood the issue? It was more a race to be the most morally righteous of them all, the wokest of them, nicest of them all, and wisest of them all. This is a queasy pundit affair that lacks integrity of any sort. Blaring the words and declaring the culprit for the internet mob to go after. How about some pragmatic solutions? Better policy proposals? Intermediate peace offerings?
How about an honest discussion about the status of dogs as pets with extremely sentimental value to ‘most’ humans from the time we were dwelling in caves?
Under The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the subsequent banning of ‘trading’ dog meat is now suddenly about Nagas being identified as a savage society. However, the ban only applies to the interstate trading of dogs for meat, and selling dog meat in the market. It remains silent on the actual culinary practice of “eating” the meat. The ambiance of this law isn’t clear yet and more clarification is awaited at the writing of this article.
However, this buzz should not take the attention away from the fact there needs to be a serious discussion about dog meat, this is long overdue. As opposed to popular narrative, animal lovers in Nagaland never advocated veganism. The academic world has been quick to diagnose pet lovers with the self-colonizing disease (notable work of Alexander Kiossev, popular among minority studies in academia). It does not end there- they are also labelled as self-hating Nagas who look down at their own identity and culture. Dog lovers in Nagaland are the “official” representatives of internet favourite slang SJW. Who knew that a perfectly fine and lawful approach raising an issue about the dignity of household pets by animal lovers from Nagaland to the concerned authorities would be tagged apostate. It really was not a complicated issue. But when you arrive on the scene with an already guilty verdict, even standing at the far end with your thumb on the tweet button, it is eminent; this is a rabbit hole. We write ourselves into the Lewis Carrol novel and spin on its axis.
At present, a large part of our energies is diverted to fighting with frivolous loony bins on the internet who have derogatory things to say about Nagaland. Although activism is voluntary and it should remain as such, we nagas rather seem to be in favor of public prosecution in social media over our judicial system. Is our collective Naga identity and honour so fragile that some quacks in the comment sections in social media sites are going to shake us into oblivion in larger india ? More Nagas have disparaging things about the Non-Nagas as well and there is no hero and victim in this matter. If we continue to play into the mob and outrage culture of the internet, there won't be any value left but the “us” versus “them” culture. And that is a toxic world to live in.
The colloquy should have begun by understanding the essence of pets in human life, and dogs as pets, and how pets are seen in different cultures. We need a holistic approach to understand who is in question here: dogs and dogs of Nagaland . Let’s not confuse pets with livestocks and wild animals. The issue is not the same, any sensible person or country clearly separates livestock and pets, but we have many ‘dignitaries’ who place all animals on equal ground and shriek, “Then how about chicken, pork, beef, and mutton?” This is the perfect equivalence of today’s turmoil in the US with regards to the Black Lives Matter movement that gets shouted down with ‘All Lives Matter!’. Dog lovers said, “Dogs’ lives matter!”which was then rattled down to “Why don't all animal lives matter? You hypocrite!”
Yes, all animal lives matter, and it should, but no one advocates an extreme solution. No one is looking to propagate animosity among the Nagas. But let’s face it, there should be a villain and a victim, there should be an Appolonian and a Dionysian in every social dimension of today’s world. It gets the work done for the day and makes it easier to manipulate with a preconceived narrative. Animal lovers in Nagaland came in the middle with a solution, laid forward an emotional request, but very much within the law not to shoot dogs at sight. The government responded with another news - the ban on dog meat. As a dog lover, it is impossible to not celebrate that.
Nagaland needs a philosophical introspection, ‘which animals should be considered food?’ Should cats and dogs who have been seen as pets across different cultures for centuries be considered edible? If we are talking about food, it should come to nutritional values, whose nutrition are we depriving by banning dog meat ? As a society we need to develop ethical culinary habits, that is the civilised thing to do. We can’t hide behind tradition or 371A and claim immunity from criticism.
Claiming the right to eat dog meat in the name of “tribal dietary rights” is playing us right into the hands that we are a tribal community with savage stereotypes. Statements like ‘dog meat is an integral part of the food culture’ is amusing; it is perplexing if they are infantilizing the Nagas or reclaiming heritage.
In a socially sound and culturally reformed world, no one should eat pets. The empathic values towards a human companion older than the written words should come to us naturally without slinging mud at each other. This is for all of us to give a thought; we as an evolved individual and as society in 2020 and beyond.
