Vegetarians, non-vegetarians and public dining in India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
A brief history
1909- 1936
Vikram Doctor, How India’s veg and non-veg divide started, February 23, 2020: The Times of India
While education institutes and the railways did cater to different food habits as far back as the early 20th century, friction is relatively recent
The first recorded use of the word non-vegetarian
The website for the Merriam-Webster dictionary gives 1883 as the date for first recorded use of the word non-vegetarian. But The Times of India has one use of the term from 1878, in a report from one of its correspondents in the UK about some dietary economics in Manchester.
The writer refers to a meeting of vegetarians in Manchester where, presumably to popularise their diet, one had mentioned it allowed him to live on just sixpence a day. This was a tiny sum, even 142 years ago, and to counter doubts about whether this was possible, the writer gives details of a Manchester hotelkeeper who managed this feat even while having fish, eggs and meat twice a week: “The money expended on these nonvegetarian items would doubtless have gone further... if expended on vegetables.”
Vegetarian as a term had been around for 30 years by then. While diets that avoid meat had been recorded, and advocated for centuries, the term now commonly used was coined with the launch of the Vegetarian Society in 1847. This was partly inspired by members of a Christian sect created by the suitably named William Cowherd who, as Tristram Stuart writes in his history of vegetarianism, The Bloodless Revolution, “encouraged his congregation to see God dwelling in all creatures.”
Non-vegetarian must have come into use at some point as an extension of the first term, but the use remained limited because it was not needed. Meat eating was the norm and vegetarianism the exception — unlike India, the one country where vegetarianism is common enough for the opposing term to be needed.
When did vegetarian versus non-vegetarian become a divisive issue?
When did vegetarian versus non-vegetarian become a divisive issue? And this seems relatively recent, because while most community-driven food restrictions meant than Indians were always particular about what they ate, the situations where they might have had to eat other people’s food were few.
Restaurants didn’t exist in India before the early 20th century, and even then were meant mostly for Europeans. (Bombay’s Irani cafes, which formed one of the earliest spaces where different communities came together, famously had colour-coded crockery: pink for Hindus, green for Muslims, floral for everyone else). Travellers took their own food, stayed with community members or stuck to safe foods like fruits.
It is significant that some of the first mentions of segregated dining appear with the growth of institutions of higher education that got students from different parts of India. A TOI report from 1911 about the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, founded in 1909, mentions that the students are “Brahmins (Bengalis), nonvegetarian Hindus and Europeans who are grouped in separate messes, by which they are enabled to use separate kitchens.”
Another area where the issue crops up is in the national political meetings that the Indian National Congress pioneered. A TOI notice from 1916 about its 31stmeeting mentions that “vegetarian and non-vegetarian delegates will have to pay for board at the rate of Rs 2 and 2.8 respectively.” Boy Scout jamborees (meetings) were another place where provision of separate vegetarian and non-vegetarian food was made clear, perhaps to persuade reluctant parents that their children wouldn’t be taught more than how to tie knots and light campfires.
But the biggest influence on getting people to eat in public was the railways. In 1916, TOI published a report about how the Great Indian Peninsular railway was taking pains to make sure there was acceptable food for both Hindus and Muslims (other communities would presumably have to choose between them). By 1922, TOI was publishing ads where Indians seeking accommodation specified that non-vegetarian tenants should be acceptable, and by 1934, PS.Divadkar & Co was advertising “Delightful X’mas” tours of Delhi or Mysore with vegetarian and nonvegetarian catering.” And, responding to one of the biggest problems faced by Indians travelling abroad, shipping companies had started offering veg menus.
There are hints, at times, of possible frictions between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. A TOI report from 1936 records complaints about Muslim hawkers in the Fort area preparing non-vegetarian snacks during Shravan which “offended the sentiments of Hindu women and children.” But there is mostly just a sense of the need to find practical solutions to the needs of both groups, with no idea to use the differences as a way to divide.
What is a vegetarian?
Various definitions
Heena Khandelwal, March 22, 2024: The Indian Express
“The term ‘pure vegetarian’ originated about 150 years ago. Essentially, it signifies that the food is prepared and served by Brahmins, making it acceptable to everyone within the Indian caste system,” says archaeologist, historian and culinary anthropologist Kurush Dalal, “Food is very casteist in India. For Hindus, there’s a prescribed list of acceptable foods. Moreover, if prepared by Brahmins, it is deemed suitable for everyone. However, if prepared by Shudras, it’s considered acceptable only to them. Traditionally, most cooks, including Maharajs who cooked in people’s homes, as well as caterers, were Brahmins.”
Dismissing the concept of “pure vegetarianism” as a myth, political theorist, writer, and Dalit rights activist Kancha Ilaiah asks, “What’s pure? Is milk vegetarian? Are all milk products vegetarian? No. They are animal products. They are not coming from plants; they are coming from animals.” He explains, “The purity issue arose when doctors began prescribing eggs to malnourished children, stating there’s nothing spiritually wrong with consuming eggs.”
Ilaiah also critiques the terminology of ‘non-vegetarian’ for ‘meatarians’ (meat eaters) as incorrect. “Those who eat vegetables can call themselves vegetarians, but why are others labelled non-vegetarians? In Hindi, there are separate terms — shakahari and maasahari. It’s not non-shakahari or ashakahari. The same applies in Tamil and Telugu,” he says.
A 2022 analysis of National Family Health Survey (NFHS) data says that more people are consuming non-vegetarian food than ever before. As per NFHS-5, which was conducted in 2019-21, an overwhelming 83.4 per cent of men and 70.6 per cent of women in the 15-49 age group eat non-vegetarian food daily, weekly or occasionally. Despite the data highlighting that a significant percentage of people in our country consume meat, there persists an inaccurate belief that associates meat consumption with “lower” castes, and Muslims or Christians.
Food historian Pushpesh Pant criticises the term “pure vegetarian” as an “oxymoron and a wild goose chase”. According to him, once something is labelled vegetarian, adding “pure” becomes unnecessary and implies that non-vegetarians are somehow impure. “The concept of purity and pollution are really direct descendants and distortion in our mind bred by the caste system,” he says, adding that the term is not just about food but also reflects a climate of intolerance aiming to suppress diversity.
Many on social media also pointed to the efforts by social reformer Dr BR Ambedkar who played a pivotal role in highlighting the intricate connection between food and caste in Indian society. Ambedkar emphasised how caste-based dietary restrictions were used as tools of social exclusion and discrimination, with certain castes being restricted from consuming certain foods deemed “polluting” or “impure” by upper castes. “Pure and Impure = modern-day forms of casteism and religious segregation,” wrote author Nilanjana Roy on X.
The origins of vegetarianism, Dalal says, wasn’t until about 2,500 years ago. Contrary to common belief, it isn’t solely a Brahminical concept, which categorises food into satvik, rajasik or tamasik, but rather finds its roots in Jainism and Buddhism. “Both religions advocated ‘ahimsa’, meaning non-killing of animals. Jainism even objected to consuming vegetables growing under the ground,” he says.
In India, Dalal says, vegetarianism has displayed flexibility, with individuals from various communities adhering to it on specific days of the week. “Indians also follow lacto-vegetarianism. Milk and its products are sourced not from plants but from cows and buffaloes,” he adds.
Dalal also highlighted on social media platform X that technically, salt could be considered non-vegetarian because it contains foraminifera from the sea. “Himalayan sea salt appears pink due to the high concentration of dead marine animals resulting from the drying of the Tethys Sea,” he says.
Historians also note that various Brahmin communities across the country, from Kashmiri Brahmins to Saraswat Brahmins and Bengali Brahmins consume various forms of meat. “Brahmins in Eastern India consume fish and also meat if it comes as a “prasad” from a sacrifice made to a god or goddess. It is interesting to note that it will be cooked without onion and garlic, as is the practice among Brahmins,” says Dalal. He adds that only a small group of Brahmins across the country, including Iyers, Iyengars, Nambudiri and some communities in north India are vegetarians in that sense.
Calling vegetarianism a diet of privilege, Dalal emphasises the necessity for a wide array and quantity of food items to fulfil nutritional needs. “The protein or fat obtained from a small quantity of meat must be replaced with a larger quantity of vegetarian food. For example, the reason you see Brahmins and Marwadis adding a lot of ghee in their food in their meals is because their bodies require fat, typically derived from meat in non-vegetarian diets.”
In India, many restaurants serving vegetarian food label themselves as “pure vegetarian”. While this term may differentiate them abroad, where a vegetarian dish simply lacks meat pieces but may contain animal-derived stock, its meaning is clearer domestically.
“Vegetarianism is associated with the upper caste and class. The adoption of the term ‘pure vegetarian’ by restaurants aims to attract affluent upper-caste clientele. For example, vada pav in Mumbai is inherently vegetarian and accessible to all, yet you won’t find it labelled as ‘100 per cent pure vegetarian vada pav’,” says Dalal.
See also
Vegetarians, non-vegetarians and public dining in India
