Inclusivity is a popular term in modern-day discourse. Quite literally, the term inclusive refers to the habit of including everything or all types of people—irrespective of their backgrounds, beliefs, or personal preferences—as long as one’s actions do not cause harm to anyone else. Inclusivity is relevant because it ensures equity, social cohesion, and diversity of thought, which is why most modern-day progressive societies aspire to be as inclusive as possible. So that everyone feels welcome. So that no one feels left out.
If you have watched Modern Family, you might know what I am talking about. The show has taken the example of a family and has beautifully incorporated inclusivity into it. You see a divorcee, an interracial couple, a homosexual couple adopting an orphan child, a person who loves dogs living with a person who doesn’t, and your good old traditional family—all living in harmony. Sure, they have their differences. But nobody belittles anyone for their choice of life.
It is as simple as that. Not rocket science.
However, there is a particular, twisted version of “inclusivity” that is almost exclusive to the northern regions of India. This version of “inclusivity” puts the vegetarian section of the population on a pedestal, effectively considering others as secondary. The infamous gated colonies and landlords who do not welcome meat-eating populations to their neighborhoods are some of the finest examples of this.
Recently, I came across a news article where a school in Noida had “requested” parents not to send non-vegetarian food in their children’s tiffins. The news didn’t surprise me as I have faced similar experiences during my relatively short stay in New Delhi. During the three-week-long training at the campus of Punjab National Bank, the main guy (I forgot his exact designation, which anyway I felt he was unworthy of) told us in no uncertain terms that bringing in non-vegetarian food was prohibited within the campus. Though the legality or even the morality of such a “diktat” seemed irrational to me right away, I did not feel comfortable debating it right then. Most Indian institutions still follow the colonial top-down hierarchical mindset, and any attempt at a healthy debate from our side may be rewarded with a transfer to a far-off place.
Anyway, back to the school. They cited two reasons for this. Let us examine and tear apart their bogus reasons.
1. Health and Safety
Quoting the school, “Non-vegetarian food, when cooked in the morning for lunchtime consumption, can pose serious health risks if not stored and handled properly.” Okay, I will give it to them. The first point does seem relevant, and one almost feels their heart is in the right place, and they are only looking out for the students’ well-being. However, this is not a good enough reason to consider not allowing students to eat what they prefer. If safe handling of food is the concern, the onus must be on ensuring the food is brought in a hygienic manner. One only needs to look at examples from around the world, including high-functioning societies like Japan or Scandinavia, to understand that meat products are an inherent part of school meals pretty much everywhere. If the whole world can get it right without “health hazards,” so can you. Hygiene applies to vegetarian food as well.
2. Inclusivity and Respect
Now, this is where they messed up—if you ask me. If the school had only highlighted health-related concerns, it would have been a tad more difficult for us to see through their facade. But this second reason has truly blown their cover. As I mentioned earlier, inclusivity means including everyone’s choices. Do you want to eat aloo parathas and curd for lunch? Be my guest! But I am going to have a problem with you if you also want to stop someone else from eating their mutton rogan josh and naan. You should be free to eat what you like, and so should everyone else. Tell me again, how does someone eating chicken biryani affect your rajma chawal?
Attempting this and trying to pass it off as “being inclusive” is one of the biggest examples of irony out there. At least have the decency to admit what you are trying to do. Then again, what better can be expected when the government officials themselves were in the news for asking meat sellers to shut shop during the periods of Navaratri simply because a fair section of the society abstained from eating meat during those days? Did the meat shop owners force chicken down their throats? I don’t think so. Why can’t people who want to follow Navaratri do that and those who want to eat chicken do that as well? Why is inclusivity so tough to understand? One wonders if it’s the absence of essential nutrition in the diet that’s making certain people unable to comprehend the nuances of inclusivity.
Sauce
Comments
Post a Comment