NLU Delhi students are currently debating introducing buffalo and pork meat in its mess food menu, after the mess committee proposed the move for “diversity” in the menu, and invited student comments.
The law school’s unofficial student newspaper Glasnost states in a post from yesterday:
In a historic and bold move, the student run Mess committee is considering offering Buff (Buffalo meat) and Pork on the menu. They announced it in an email to the student body yesterday, in which they recognised it to be a contentious issue and invited opinions and objections from the students. The Mess committee in a later email stated that this move was intended to increase diversity in the menu to cater to the needs of everyone on campus. This started a lively debate with heated opinions, the email thread hit a century within a few hours. While many students responded with shouts of joy and expressed complete support, some opposed the move strongly, including threatening to leave the common Mess.
Hat-tip to Lawctopus which first reported the news.
Comments
Read the recent posts by the central Government of India asking educational institutions to serve vegetarian food. Hope this institution does not go saffaron and looks at the dissent of the minorities who have meat in their staple diet.
P.s this is not a political rant, it is just observation of the current political discourse and minority opinions
1. Veg food is a lot better for the environment and for efficient land use. Rearing x calories of chicken, takes something like 10 times as much water, land and food to grow than the equivalent calories in veg food. Beef or larger animals are even less efficient. Those stats aren't fully accurate, but here are some more:
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html
2. If every country's college went veg, the energy, etc, savings could be huge. Not to mention the widespread suffering that the meat industry causes. (this is a worthwhile movie to watch on the topic: http://earthlings.com/ )
3. As far as I'm aware, no culture is offended by veg food (except for some Jains by potatoes perhaps). While some cultures may have meat as part of their staple diet, does any culture attach such special significance to meat that it is anything more than preference and becomes religious / cultural expression, etc? Veg food is the lowest most common denominator and makes more sense than offering dozens of menu choices to accommodate for each culture's lack of appreciation for certain meats.
4. Veg based diet can be healthier, provided it is prepared in a healthy way and you get your balanced nutrients. This could improve the nation's health, no?
I understand that people hate the idea of government, particularly a non-secular government, mandating the diet of its subjects, but still, the above arguments seem pretty strong to me.
Would be interested in counterviews...
Note: Am not a vegetarian but have strong sympathy for vegetarianism.
On a closer scrutiny, as far as India is concerned, I believe that dietary habits of most of us largely depend on our surroundings. While vegetarian parents may have kids who become non-vegetarian over a course of time, however, very rarely would we come across non-vegetarian parents having kids who resort to strictly vegetarian diet.
i come from a community which has non-veg at the heart of its cuisine. who gets the right to tell me what to eat.
Going by your environment logic, all counties would be better of if we decide not to use air conditioning or cars(make public transport the only means).
Finally, if we're going to decide our menu on the basis of which food is least offensive to the greatest number of students, I'm afraid a consensus is improbable. Instead, its much better to say that no one else has a right to be offended by what I'm eating and as long as food is cooked separately (not going to cost much, especially for NLU D which is flush with funds), I don't see probable cause for 'offense' or why such offense should be given any importance at all.
Mess food is always paid out of the students pockets and the University bears no expense in the same, therefore the cost and expenditure is borne by individuals eating in the mess. Anyone eating any Non-veg has to pay extra (per dish) to receive over the 'staple' vegetarian diet he receives in the mess.
Just saying, rationally & logically, eating meat is nearly indefensible on almost every level.
Sure, you should be free to eat it in a democratic society, but is it the duty of a university to provide it for you? Should a college go out of their way to provide meat, or pork, beef and other 'divisive' foods, which could spoil someone else's dinner, with only a limited pay-off in terms of someone else's happiness over eating their favourite (probably badly prepared) meat in the student canteen for some festival or other?
No one is talking of banning the meat, so it's one of those things where I feel the infringement of someone's right is so minor, that it might just be outweighed by the actual macro benefit in terms of resources saved, harm reduction, etc.
On another note, it's surprising how non-vegetarians speak so passionately about caring for animals- i.e. not killing insects etc.
1. Is it the duty of a University to provide it for you & students can eat meat elsewhere?
Most NLUs, if you bothered to drop by, are quite far off from the city. There aren't too many places to eat nearby. The ones that exist (dhabas, McDonalds) are either still a considerable distance away or are simply unaffordable to eat at on a daily or, for some, on a weekly basis. At a college mess, even though you pay extra, you still pay less than you would if you eat outside. Moreover, NLUs purport to be residential universities. Some even prohibit their students from living off-campus. I don't think it's that unfair for such claims to be backed by sufficient infrastructure to cater to everyone's tastes and needs to a reasonable extent. Some Student Bar Council's even procure fire crackers from their budget because of this same reason - that our college is in the middle of nowhere and what we do/have on campus is pretty much all we do/have.
2. Should colleges provide 'divisive' foods?
Yes, they should because these very categories of 'divisive' and 'sacred/profane' have been created by the loudest voices in both society, and in some cases, on campus. This is not to say that there isn't potential for offence. There is, and this harm can be offset by separate cooking areas and utensils and even a separate table for those eating 'offensive' meats; although I strongly suspect that person A eating one 'offensive' meat will get offended by person B eating another. Like I've argued earlier, a more effective method would be to just not give credence to this offense charade. Also, do let me know how me eating beef that is prepared separately will spoil someone else's dinner. I mean, most restaurants serve pork if not beef and I don't see anyone complaining that someone sitting at the other end of the restaurant eating beef has spoilt her dinner.
3. 'Badly prepared'?
Kian, please do come (and I mean this sincerely) and eat at the NALSAR mess or any other mess for that matter. EVERYthing is badly prepared. Instead of eating just badly prepared veg food, let's also enjoy some chicken and some badly prepared 'offensive' food. If everything badly prepared shouldn't be eaten, and I strongly support this proposition, then let's boycott the Mess!
4. Alright, on the utilitarian metric now - what IS the macro benefit in the NLUs (with campuses having less than 1000 people) not serving meat versus students who live there, often far away from both home and civilization, eating food that they perhaps eat on a regular basis at home or that introduces some much needed change in a campus that tends to get monotonous for prolonged periods of time. Happier students feeling more at home on campus v. tangible albeit negligible improvement to the environment which is anyway going to be offset by all the ciggies and beedies (the new Milds) and hostel barbeques (thanks to the shitty chicken in the mess) we have.
And finally Kian, despite your sincere pleadings, you're sounding like quite the militant vegetarian albeit armed with statistics and logic as opposed to lettuce and cabbage. Let us eat meat, Kian. Let's see you being happy if we coop you up 30 kms from the city and prevent access to LI because.
2. Cooking a chicken dish is easier and students are far more satisfied with 50 grams of chicken with 200 ml of gravy then 150 grams of lousy vegetable.
3. Pro -Choice, let people eat what they want to eat.
4. Any balanced diet can be healthier - veg or non veg is not relevant.
5. And why do you think BJP government is non secular....do you have any evidence any indication to suggest that this government is not secular.
Note: I was a vegetarian, 15 years of hostel life in school and college and staying by myself changed me initially into a reluctant now into a full time non-vegetarian.
NLUD's mess is providing a perfectly balanced veg diet. NV is over and above this. The nonveg will be cooked in a separate kitchen with different utensils. If I am from Kerala/NE/Goa I am used to a high beef and pork diet. Campus must provide for ways for me to get this.
PS: All students pay equally for veg food. You pay 50 bucks per plate of nonveg individually over and above it if you are getting some.
Some tolerence is important. And lowest common denominator is satisfied as veg is given. BUT WHY RESTRICT IT? We get unhealthy veg food - ajinamoto filled chinese, baturas and pooris and oily dosas and vadas in our mess. The meat is better prepared and healthier.
You can't impose an all veg canteen cause of energy savings. :) Cheers.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-03/science-suggests-msg-really-isnt-bad-your-health-after-all
Just sayin'
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/blogs/blog-datadelve/article6195921.ece
A little off topic, but I reckon I should be allowed to share my opinion in the comments as much as anyone else on this site. If you disagree with what we write in editorial, please feel free to criticise that.
IMHO, BJP is not a secular party because it is spiritually and strategically closely aligned to the religion of Hinduism. What's your problem with that categorisation?
Would you call the RSS a secular party?
Or is your objection that while the BJP may have once been a non-secular party, now under Modi it has become a secular party?