After the BJP-ruled Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation banned the sale of meat in the area for eight days this month during the Jain fasting period called Paryushan, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has also banned animal slaughter and sale of meat for four days this month in Mumbai. The demand for the ban was brought up by several Jain organisations and backed by the BJP, whose legislators Raj Purohit and Atul Bhatkhalar had written to BMC chiefs endorsing the demands.

This move comes a few months after the beef ban was enforced in Maharashtra, in which, anyone found selling beef or in the possession of it can be jailed for five years and fined Rs 10,000.

But by deciding to ban the sale of all kinds of meat for eight days this month, the Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation is not only opposing basic rights, but also hurting business. A local meat shop owner told NDTV: "If you stop our businesses for such a long period what will we eat at home? What will our kids eat at home? Is there any solution for us? Earlier we used to shut it for two days. We follow the law. What kind of a law is this?"

Mayor Geeta Jain justified the decision saying that it was passed by a vote. Interestingly, the BJP's ally Shiv Sena is opposed to the ban. Shiv Sena Corporator Neelam Dhawan told NDTV, "People of different religions live in the city. You cannot put restrictions on what people eat even if it is during the fasting period. Nobody is taking anything to their homes. This is all politics." The 2011 census suggests that of the 8.5 lakh people in the area, 1.25 laks are Jains, who fast for about 10 days during Paryushan.

BJP leaders meanwhile, cited the example of Mughal Emperor Akbar, who had banned the slaughter of animals during the fasting period. BJP legislator and corporator Narendra Mehta told Asian Age: “Even Emperor Akbar who had great respect for Jainism not only banned slaughtering animals during the fasting period but himself refrained from non-vegetarian food on certain days out of respect for his Hindu wife.” He also claimed that, “The enforcement is legal and under the ambit of law. Secondly, the apex court, while delivering a ruling to approve the Ahmedabad civic body’s practice of keeping slaughterhouses closed during Paryushan, had stated that it is easy for people to abstain from non-vegetarian food for a few days”.

Who decides?

The question, to be fair, isn't really about abstaining from meat or not. The last time we checked, India was a secular nation in which everyone was free to practise the religion of one's choice or not practise any. Now, the question that arises is, does one person's religious beliefs allow them to dictate their lifestyle choices on others? And to what extent? Banning meat (albeit not fish) for four days is preposterous. It's not simply about people not eating meat on particular days, a custom which a lot of people follow.

Also Read: Dear Mumbai, police please stay out of my bedroom

The point is, to what extent can the government or the civic body dictate people's eating habits. After all, it's the Jain community's prerogative to decide what they should or shouldn't eat on a particular day. But can they also dictate what other communities or individuals should eat? How far can someone's religious beliefs be used to create laws that impeach upon another person's basic fundamental rights? What if tomorrow a particular community decided that chicken or even something vegetarian like paneer was sacred? What if their religion was insulted by that particular form of milk? Would the powers-that-be prevent all other people from consuming those food items?

Before Narendra Modi-led BJP government swept the 2014, one of his famous quips to project his anti-corruption stance was to say “Nahin Khaunga, Na Khaane Dunga” (Neither will I take a bribe, nor shall I allow my ministers to do so”). It seems like in Maharasthra, particularly Mumbai, members of his party took it to mean meat instead of bribes!

British philosopher John Stuart Mill had famously said, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person was of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.’

This is a democracy, and a democracy does not push the will of the majority on the minority or the minority on the majority. If that's the case, we might as well stop pretending to be a secular state and declare India a theocracy.