Dr Eyingbeni Humtsoe-Nienu
Pfutsero
In preparation for a webinar organized by the Naga Scholars Association on Saturday August 1, I did a small survey to ascertain the number of dog meat consumers among Nagas and their take on the recent ban by the Nagaland cabinet on the import and sale of dog and its meat in Nagaland. A total number of 248 participated; out of which a good 57% of the respondents said they eat dog’s meat. That was an unexpected finding because normally the presumption is that very less people eat it. The number is clear that there are more people who eat than those who don’t.
The government can argue that dog’s meat consumption is not banned and that the people are not forbidden to eat it. But the question is, if it is not allowed to be sold, where do people go to buy for eating it? Where do we even buy to rear for consumption? Isn’t the ban as good as indirectly saying that you cannot eat it anymore?
Why I think the order is an overreaction:
1. Nagas are not big consumers: Unlike other meat, everyone in Nagaland is aware that dog’s meat in not a regular diet. It is eaten only occasionally. Very rarely do we also see it being served in restaurants. In fact the very few cooked-food stalls that sell them usually cater to specific customers. The quantity eaten and served is also normally few small pieces and not like one whole leg or arm per person. Even in big events like a wedding or a tribe festival, a small portion is cooked for those who wish to relish it. It is never served for general consumption, out of respect for the remaining 43% who do not eat. Even in a home setting, not every member may eat so it would usually not be cooked in the house or maybe done with the permission of the non-eaters. These are the ground realities surrounding dog’s meat intake.
2. Nagas are not big traders: Likewise, unlike many other meat dealers, there are very rare dealers who regularly sell only dog meat in Nagaland. Most sellers are small time vendors that sell a variety of food stuff. A walk in Kohima market will tell us that a majority of those who sell fresh dog’s meat are women who carry a couple of portions in their small spaces alongside vegetables and other ethnic food items like larvae, insects and worms. The profit margin is undoubtedly miniscule compared to a lot of other meat dealers. The sale is also irregular and there is no daily supplier of the meat; usually neighbors and known persons who would sell what remains after setting aside for self, family, and friends. The non existence of dog farms or stray street dogs should remind us that the dog population in Nagaland is under respectable control.
The way forward:
Referring to the survey, a whopping 61% of the respondents expressed their unhappiness with the ban. It is clear that there are more people who disagree with the ban than those who eat dog’s meat. It proves that even those who do not eat its meat are equally displeased by the government’s intrusion into the cooking pots. Moving forward, we can think of four ways in which the keyword is sustainability.
1. Sustainable consumption: The ban couldn’t have come at a worst time in human history. The pandemic has shrunk the accessibility to basic needs, including food. Except those forced by medical condition, almost all Nagas are non-vegetarians. But they are also huge veggie eaters of all sorts – farmed or foraged. So meat is usually a side dish, although essential. As known to those familiar, Nagas don’t rear dogs by the dozens. Apart from those who keep a few pets (who normal die a natural death and are buried), most homes with a compound rear a whole lot of animals – hens, roosters, rabbits, pigs, also dogs – for consumption. But each is only few – perhaps a dog or two of the local breed. Animals that are plenty or huge to be consumed by the family alone are sold at times; a dog’s as well. Other domestic animals are eaten judiciously with well thought out spacing between each meat to ensure continuity of the life cycle of each livestock. Such natural approach to meat consumption is still relevant and must be promoted even in urban places as much as it is common in the rural areas.
2. Sustainable trade: In recent times there are few cases of rogue activity that involves trading of dog by way of supplying stray dogs to Nagaland, particularly from nearby state. Consequently, the cost of live dogs is unreasonably high and the meat is not cheap either. If this chain of supply and demand for indiscriminate profit is broken, the people will enjoy healthier meat and business will be sustained for the small time sellers who procure the extras from known people. Even for those who buy it live, the meat for selling earns them just enough to sustain themselves and their family. I’m yet to see a Naga family that has become extremely wealthy by selling dog or its meat! Such sustainable trade is to be encouraged more. It is immoral to threaten the livelihood of small time dog meat traders by elitist ideologies that hypocritically produce some of the highest quantity of meat for export.
3. Sustainable standards: Dog’s meat is bought and eaten by many for medicinal purposes; some don’t even like the smell and the taste of it. Traditional wisdom considers its broth as energizing for women after childbirth and for those who have general weakness. It is also deemed to be effective for treating malaria and typhoid and for healing open wounds. Perhaps, an in depth research is necessary to confirm the belief but it could not be dismissed simply as a placebo effect because, at least for now, the efficaciousness is substantiated by survivors. Hence, checking the quality of dog and its meat seems like a reasonable thing to be invested in rather than banning it. Unchecked import of unhealthy dogs into the state can cause health issues to the consumers instead of acting as a cure.
4. Sustainable ethics: By Naga tradition, pregnant dogs are never slaughtered. It is deemed a taboo to do so. Also, to kill somebody’s dog without provocation is a punishable offense by customary law, which requires restitution in kind of equal value or by paying a fixed monetary fine. Laws against cruelty to animals are well in place without the need of an imposed food choice from mainland animal activism. The unwritten ethics of sensitivity towards those who do not take dog’s meat or have deep emotional connection with pet dogs are virtues that can be extended beyond the homeland by those who venture out for work or study.
Any wholesale ban of food item that is not directly injurious to consumer’s health; not religiously offensive in a particular time and place; not an issue of wider public health and safety; and is not related to an endangered species, will find its way to more illegal dealings of the same. To contain that problem will be most challenging; apart from the error of depriving the concerned people from living and enjoying the little pleasures of life. The government instead can make regulations that protect the food rights and dignity of the citizens while also ensuring their health and food security. To reduce animal activism to a ban of certain animals or even a stealth move towards vegetarianism is an insult to the activism itself and also to the diversity of food cultures in a microcosmic country like India.
The writer is the Principal of Baptist Theological College, Pfutsero.
The opinion expressed herein is exclusively personal.
