Imlisanen Jamir
The dog meat ban in Nagaland enforced by the State Government on July 4 has unraveled a myriad of questions on government policy making and moral subjectivity on the meat trade.
Following the killing of a pet for straying from its home in Mokokchung, which went viral on the internet, and a picture of dogs stuffed in sacks for sale purportedly in Nagaland, the State Government was put under pressure.
Similar uproars had occurred in the past as well with Nagaland’s dog meat trade going viral on the internet; but this time, the Government was quick to respond. Following the Chief Secretary’s announcement on July 3, the official notification banning commercial import and sale of dog meat in Nagaland was issued the next day.
Intervention on food habits, especially those which are considered taboo by the majority, is a sensitive issue, with both sides bound to make emotional arguments.
On the one hand, as much as it distresses dog lovers like me, dog meat has been a part of the dietary palette for many Naga people. Emphasis on the ‘many’, as there are also many Naga people who refrain from consuming this particular meat.
Meanwhile, any attempt to quickly bring a sweeping change of deep rooted traits will inevitably provoke outrage; especially in the context of the present political climate of fear, anxiety and suspicion. These are legitimate concerns which cannot be just swept aside.
Having said that however, once any animal communicates with you it is hard to regard them as merely an object that we can make use of to serve our ends. And while these bonds can be formed between individual persons and individual animals of any species, dogs have been the companions which have formed the strongest of bonds with most people. Give them your heart and they give us theirs.
Similarly there definitely is an ethical question about how we should treat any sentient creature.
The question, then, should really be about raising and slaughtering animals for food, not just eating. That would make the question a lot more relevant. Cases of animal cruelty need to be charged by authorities, as was done in the one instance cited above. Similarly, there needs to be regulation of how farm scale slaughter of all animals is done.
This is an issue of policy and the politics of culture intertwined with subjective views on the core of ethics and morality.
In terms of legality, the State Government’s decision is in keeping with the Food Safety and Standards Act and Regulation. Issuing the ban however is one thing; implementing it will be a challenge, especially with the rampant smuggling of dogs and the foreseeable situation of driving the dog meat trade underground and even further away from regulation.
Given the rapidity of this ban, it is fair to question whether the decision was taken by appropriately gauging the numerous issues related to this matter.
Comments can be sent to imlisanenjamir@gmail.com
