Delhi: CPI(M)Seminar Voices Need for Organised Resistance Against Imperialist Aggression

Mukund Jha | 30 Mar 2026

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The presence of a substantial youth audience reflected the growing concern among them about global conflicts, imperialist interventions, and their consequences.

Image Courtesy: CPIM Facebook

New Delhi: As tensions continue to escalate in West Asia after US-Israel attacked Iran, a seminar held in New Delhi expressed deep concern over the rapidly evolving global situation, the expanding role of imperialist powers, and the deepening humanitarian and economic crises that accompany such interventions. Speakers at the seminar voiced their shared concern about intensifying militarisation, the erosion of international norms, and the cascading impact of wars on everyday life.

Titled “Imperialist Aggression & Its Impact”, the seminar, organised under the banner of the Coalition Against Imperialism, was held at Harkishan Singh Surjeet Bhawan on Sunday, drawing a packed audience. The event brought together a wide spectrum of participants — activists from Left mass organisations, academics, journalists, diplomats, and notably, a large number of youths.

The presence of a substantial youth audience stood out. Their engagement, attentiveness, and participation reflected the growing concern among India’s young generation about global conflicts, imperialist interventions, and their consequences. If anything, the composition of the gathering underscored a broader political message: that opposition to imperialism is not confined to older ideological traditions but is finding resonance among contemporary youth.

A World in Turmoil

Opening the discussion, Communist Party of India (Marxist) politburo member R. Arun Kumar set a sombre tone, placing the seminar within what he described as a “deeply unstable global moment.”

“The genocidal attack on Palestine carried out by Israel with the active support of the US… though there is only a namesake ceasefire, attacks are still continuing in Gaza and the occupation in the West Bank has increased,” he said.

Reflecting on the broader international climate, Kumar added: “We are living in what is called ‘interesting times’, but these are not hopeful times—these are very difficult times marked by wars, aggression and instability across regions.”

He pointed to the continuity in US foreign policy, arguing that interventions in countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela reveal a pattern rather than isolated events. Recalling the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he noted that wars justified on dubious grounds have had long-lasting consequences, destabilising entire regions.

Media, War and Public Opinion

Among the prominent speakers was N. Ram, senior journalist and former Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, who placed a sharp critique of US foreign policy and the narratives that accompany it.

“This seminar is designed to focus on the current military attacks violating the sovereignty of numerous countries. As far as we know, President Trump has bombed at least seven countries during his time in office. He came to the White House promising to end endless wars, but we know what actually happened.”

Highlighting contradictions within dominant global narratives, Ram observed: “Today, even conservative publications like The Economist are pointing out the contradictions—claims of destroying 100% of Iran’s capabilities, while the remaining 0% is enough to disrupt the global economy by choking oil supply.”

He characterised the ongoing escalation as a “war of choice” and drew attention to dissent within the US itself: “We are also seeing mass protests across the the US under the ‘No Kings’ movement… It is very important to pay close attention to the mood of the American people.”

In a strongly worded intervention, Ram described the attacks on Iran “a totally unprovoked, brutal and fascistic attack,” adding that such actions violated international law and the UN Charter. He also pointed to the global economic ripple effects, particularly through disruptions in oil supply routes such as the Strait of Hormuz — consequences that directly affect countries like India.

Turning to India’s foreign policy, Ram was critical: “In total contrast, the BJP government’s response has been shameful… its actions created an impression of complicity at a very critical moment.”

He further argued that India’s strategic alignment with the US and Israel marked a significant departure from its historical commitment to non-alignment and anti-colonial solidarity.

‘Age of Stupid Evil’: Reframing Imperialism

Journalist Seema Chishti began her remarks with a short video illustrating Iran’s military response — a deliberate attempt to challenge dominant perceptions.

“We are living in what I would call the ‘age of stupid evil’—a time where the most absurd things coexist with the most horrifying realities,” she added.

Rejecting contemporary euphemisms, she argued “We can stop using the word ‘neo’. What we are witnessing is not neo-imperialism—it is colonialism 101.”

For Chishti, the driving force behind current conflicts is unmistakable “This is fundamentally about resources—oil, lithium, precious metals.”

She also emphasised the dehumanisation inherent in such conflicts, noting how populations in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran are reduced to abstractions within geopolitical calculations.

A striking dimension of her analysis focused on technology “What we are witnessing very clearly is the role of Big Tech—not just as information platforms, but as active enablers of war.”

She highlighted the convergence of economic power, data control, and military interests, arguing that this nexus had made the political economy of war more visible than ever.

Voices from Global South

Adding an international perspective, diplomat Juan Carlos Marsan Aguilera, representing Cuba, spoke about the wider implications of US and Israeli actions.

“Every day we wake up to the news of the US and Israeli war against Iran… which generates tragedies and human suffering and impose instability on oil markets,” he said and warned of a pattern: “Yesterday it was Palestine, then Venezuela, now Iran. Tomorrow it may be Cuba.”

Aguilera strongly condemned economic blockades, describing their impact on everyday life in Cuba — from healthcare to food production — and called for global solidarity.

Building Unity Against Imperialism

CPI(M) politburo member Nilotpal Basu said the “central question before us today is—are we prepared?”

He emphasised the direct connection between global events and domestic realities, “Rising prices—especially of essential goods like cooking oil and fuel—have made global imperialist actions a domestic issue.”

Basu argued that building broad anti-imperialist unity requires translating these connections into political understanding among the masses.

“Unless we explain how these global developments affect daily lives, we cannot build a meaningful movement.”

He proposed the idea of a wider platform — “World Against Imperialism” — to bring together diverse sections in a coordinated campaign.

A Question of Sovereignty and Resistance

Political leader Rajaram Singh reiterated the continuity of imperialism as a system: “Imperialism has not disappeared—its form may have changed, but its character remains the same.”

He stressed that the struggle is not about religion or region, but about control over resources and markets “A handful of powerful nations and corporations want to dominate the world’s natural resources. This monopoly is unacceptable.”

Calling for unity, he added“Workers, farmers, and all sections of the working people must unite to defend their rights.”

A Clear Message

The seminar concluded with a shared understanding of urgency for some kind of broad organised resistance against imperialism and war and its tangible consequences — rising prices, economic instability, erosion of democratic norms, and human cost.

The call for solidarity — across nations, movements, and social groups — was presented as a political necessity in an increasingly polarised world.

(Note: This report, written in Hindi, has been translated with AI assistance.)

 

Energy Anxiety: Living Through a Fragmented World

Anusreeta Dutta | 01 Apr 2026

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

For India, the shift toward cleaner, more sustainable energy systems is both essential and unavoidable.

Representational Image. Image Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

There is a strange kind of quiet after the power goes out. There is not only a lack of light, but also a sudden loss of confidence. The fan slows down, the refrigerator hums less, and the Wi-Fi goes out. This makes one feel a little more worried. In India today, this feeling of discomfort is called energy anxiety. It is not a common political term yet, and it is not as important as inflation or unemployment.

But the fear of energy is real, widespread, and quietly changing how people see the government, the economy, and their own future. Energy anxiety is the worry—sometimes right away, but usually ahead of time—that cheap, reliable energy won't be available anymore.

People in different parts of India experience it differently. In big cities, it shows up as people being unhappy with rising electricity rates and unreliable supply during heat waves. In rural homes, it's more about life and death: they don't know if the power will last all night or if the solar panels will work when it rains. This fear is so strong because energy is no longer a background utility. It has become a necessary part of modern life in ways that make people more vulnerable. Power must be available all the time for work, school, health care, and communication. A small interruption is no longer just an annoyance; it is a disruption to life itself.

There are both structural and environmental reasons for this worry. India's need for energy is rising quickly because of urbanisation, digitisation, and temperature extremes caused by climate change. Summers are getting hotter, which is making peak demand go up even more. The change in energy, on the other hand, has made things more uncertain.

Many people think that renewable energy, especially solar energy, is the answer to India's energy problems. It is, in a lot of ways. But the change isn't even. During the monsoon season, solar power goes down, which is when some places have the most trouble with energy. The infrastructure for storage isn't good enough, and integrating it into the grid is still a problem for technology and government.

For populations currently experiencing energy poverty, these disparities extend beyond mere policy considerations. These are real things that happen. A decentralised solar setup could shine in April but struggle in July. Even a reliable grid can buckle when pushed. The final act is a tangled web of optimism and uncertainty, a place where the thrill of innovation battles with skepticism about its longevity.

This uncertainty is also caused by policy. For example, India has been working for the past 10 years to make it easier for people to get energy and move toward renewable sources. But it's not always the same when it comes to implementation. Local governments are overworked, subsidies are late, and it's hard for federal and state officials to talk to each other. This situation creates what could be called a "trust deficit" in energy systems.

People are becoming more doubtful that promises like reliable, 24-hour power, fair prices, and long-lasting improvements will be kept. As trust erodes, anxiety inevitably fills the void.

There is also a geopolitical part that can't be ignored. India's energy sector still depends on global markets, especially for fossil fuels. Price shocks, supply problems, and wars in other countries all affect the domestic market. The LPG problem, rising fuel prices, and worries about the supply chain -- all make people feel more vulnerable when it comes to energy security. In this case, the worry about energy goes beyond home issues to become a national mood.

But it's important to remember that anxiety isn't always a bad thing. It can also be good for politics. In the past, times when people were worried have led to new policies and changes in institutions. The question is whether India's growing energy worry will be noticed and dealt with before it turns into distrust. To deal with it, you need to do more than just increase generation capacity. It requires a complete overhaul of how energy policy is made and put into action.

First, reliability should be just as important as growth. Access is not as important as consistency. This is especially important for systems that are spread out, since maintenance, local capacity, and seasonal changes must all be taken into account during design and implementation.

Second, it's important to talk to each other. People need clear, easy-to-understand information about energy systems, including how these work, what they can't do, and what to expect when things go wrong. Uncertainty tends to increase in the absence of information. Policies should be flexible, accommodating local circumstances.

A standardised approach to renewable energy implementation could potentially intensify existing inequalities. Regions prone to monsoon-induced challenges, for instance, necessitate tailored approaches that integrate storage technologies, hybrid systems, and community involvement.

Energy justice, in the final analysis, must transcend mere verbal commitments and manifest as concrete measures. This necessitates the equitable allocation of the economic, environmental, and social benefits stemming from the energy transition, concurrently safeguarding vulnerable communities from experiencing disproportionate risks. India presently finds itself at a pivotal juncture in its energy transformation.

The shift toward cleaner, more sustainable systems is both essential and unavoidable.

Transitions, however, seldom occur without friction. These inherently generate uncertainty, which, in turn, fosters anxiety. The objective is to navigate energy-related anxiety, rather than eliminate it entirely—a feat that may be unattainable or even counterproductive.

The aim is to transform this anxiety from a cause of apprehension into a catalyst for improved policy, more robust institutions, and more equitable systems. This is because, at its core, energy transcends mere power; it fundamentally involves trust. In a nation as vast and intricate as India, this trust could prove to be its most invaluable asset.

The writer is a columnist and climate researcher with experience in political analysis, ESG research, and energy policy. The views are personal.

 

Illusion of Multipolarity: Power Still Has One Address

Zahoor Ahmad Mir , Hilal Ramzan | 

30 Mar 2026

US dominance may be contested in speeches, but in practice, it still sets the boundaries of what the rest can safely do.

On January 3, 2026, the US special forces swept into Caracas under cover of night, grabbed then Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, and whisked them off to New York to face narco-terrorism charges. Barely eight weeks later, on February 28, the US and Israel unleashed Operation Epic Fury, wave after wave of strikes that left Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dead and much of Tehran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure in ruins.

Two months, two seismic moves. And the world watched. What was perhaps even more striking than the operations themselves was the absence of any meaningful deterrent response, revealing not merely the audacity of American power but the permissive environment in which it continues to operate.

For two decades we have been told this kind of swagger was finished. Journalist Fareed Zakaria’s “rise of the rest” became the mantra: China was rising, Russia was back, BRICS was the future, and de-dollarisation was just around the corner. The unipolar moment, we kept hearing, was history. The planet had gone multipolar. Academic discourse, policy think tanks, and diplomatic rhetoric alike converged around this assumption, presenting multipolarity not as a distant possibility but as an already unfolding reality.

The evidence on the ground tells a different story. When Trump’s second administration slammed tariffs on imports, pushing the average effective rate from around 2.5% to peaks that touched 28% on key goods in 2025, the global outcry was loud but toothless.

When Maduro was snatched in broad daylight, Beijing and Moscow issued angry statements and demanded his release. They did nothing more. When the bombs rained on Tehran, the same script played out: furious condemnations at the United Nations, followed by silence.

Why the restraint? Not because China and Russia suddenly lost their nerve, but because the math of self-interest simply did not add up. Beijing is not about to torch its $600 billion plus trade relationship with the US or risk its oil tankers in waters the US Navy can shut down at a moment’s notice, not for Tehran.

Moscow, already stretched thin elsewhere, saw no upside in opening a second front over Caracas. They talk multipolarity at every BRICS photo-op. When the chips are down, they act like countries that know exactly where real power still sits. Even within BRICS itself, internal asymmetries and competing national interests prevent the emergence of a coherent strategic bloc capable of challenging American primacy in any sustained manner.

And then there are the institutions that were supposed to keep any single power in check. In a truly multipolar world, the UN and its sister bodies were meant to be the referee, the place where collective will could balance American muscle. Instead, they have become spectators in the cheap seats.

The UN Security Council, where Washington holds a permanent veto, could not muster a meaningful resolution on either Venezuela or Iran. The General Assembly passed ritual condemnations that everyone knew would change nothing.

The IMF and World Bank? Same story. These organisations were not designed to be neutral; they were built on the realities of 1945 power. Seventy years later, those realities have not shifted as much as we like to pretend. Institutional inertia, combined with entrenched voting structures and financial dependencies, ensures that any challenge to the existing order remains procedurally constrained and politically diluted.

Look at the hard numbers and the picture sharpens. The US dollar still handles 58% of global reserves and 89% of foreign exchange transactions. The US defence budget, the latest SIPRI figures put it at roughly 37% of total world military spending, dwarfs everyone else’s. When Washington sanctions someone or rewrites the trade rulebook, the rest feel the pain because they are still plugged into an American dominated system. No rival currency or alliance has come close to breaking that grip.

Efforts to promote alternative financial architectures, whether through currency swaps, regional payment systems, or digital currencies, remain fragmented and far from achieving systemic disruption.

Sure, the economic map has changed. China is a giant. India has real swing weight. Global GDP is more spread-out than it was in 1990. But turning economic heft into the ability to project force, enforce rules, and hold alliances together is another matter entirely. That part of the game still runs through Washington.

Power in the international system is not merely about accumulation of wealth but about the capacity to convert that wealth into strategic leverage, and on that count, the US continues to enjoy a decisive edge.

For India, this illusion has been a useful diplomatic tool. We have balanced the Quad with the US for tech and sea lanes, BRICS with the Russians for cheap oil, and kept our own strategic autonomy intact. It felt smart when the world looked messy and multipolar. The shocks of January and February have made the limits painfully clear. When the biggest player moves, the rest, institutions included, mostly scramble to react. This moment, therefore, compels a reassessment of strategic autonomy not as an end in itself but as a flexible instrument that must adapt to enduring hierarchies of power.

The language of multipolarity will not fade. It sounds nice in seminars, flatters our sense of fairness, and gives everyone hope that the old order is crumbling. But the past three months have been a cold reminder: the centre of gravity has not moved nearly as far as the headlines suggested. US dominance may be contested in speeches. In practice, it still sets the boundaries of what the rest can safely do. Until alternative centres of power develop not only economic scale but also institutional influence and credible military reach, the gap between rhetoric and reality is likely to persist.

The world is changing, no question. The real question is whether it is changing, as fast or as deeply, as we keep telling ourselves. For now, the answer appears uncomfortable yet unmistakable: beneath the language of transition lies a system that remains, in its core logic, remarkably unchanged.

Zahoor Ahmed Mir is an Assistant Professor at Akal University, Bhatinda, Punjab. He holds PhD from Jamia Millia Islamia. (mirzahoor81.m@gmail.com.) Hilal Ramzan is an Assistant Professor and Head of the Social Science Department at Akal University. (hilal.mphcupb@gmail.com.) The views expressed are personal.

 

Miscalculation of the Century: Trump’s Iran Adventure

Vijay Prashad | 30 Mar 2026

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

As Iran presses its conditions for ending the war, the US and Israel are left with few good options. They can continue bombing, but they will also continue to see Iranian escalation that inflicts harm on Israel and on US interests in the region.

ONLY ONE IDIOT IS WEARING HIS CAP

Transfer of Remains of Six US Soldiers, March 7, 2026. Photo: The White House

Last year, in June, the United States and Israel bombarded Iran’s nuclear energy and nuclear research facilities over twelve days. After a few days, the two belligerent powers – who had no United Nations authorization for this war of aggression – opened the door for a ceasefire. At that time, believing that this might very well be the basis for a full negotiation, the Iranian government, led by Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei agreed to the terms set out: an immediate end to the strikes and no escalation. The missile launchers went quiet, but the deal was very fragile. There was no long-term peace agreement, no binding enforcement or monitoring mechanisms, no settlement on the nuclear issues, and no agreement to end US and Israeli sabotage and attacks on Iran. This was not an end to the war imposed by the United States and Israel on Iran, but only an agreement to stop one battle. Khamenei described the US and Israel aggression as futile and said that they “gained nothing”, while at the same time saying that Iran had forced a ceasefire and would “never surrender”.

Oman has a decades-long reputation as a neutral intermediary between Iran and the United States (with Israel lurking in the background). Between 2012 and 2013, it was Oman that hosted the US-Iran talks that resulted in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5+1 (USA, UK, France, China, Russia + Germany) and the European Union – reducing sanctions in exchange for some promises on nuclear enrichment. A secure and discreet channel existed between Muscat for Tehran and Washington, and this communication line became active after June toward a proper negotiation to clarify red lines and to reduce the risk of miscalculation. In fact, the conversation broadened, and Iran came to the point of accepting that its uranium enrichment would be capped, that its highly enriched stockpiles would be diluted, and that the International Atomic Energy Agency could re-expand monitoring and inspections. This was not a final deal, but it was a negotiation framework with conditional nuclear restraint and an ongoing practice of de-escalation. Both Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian had the political will for a deal, which was very much on the horizon. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said, less than a day before the US and Israeli attack, that a deal was “within reach, but only if diplomacy is given priority.”

In fact, the United States and Israel took the other path: a war of aggression that violated the UN Charter (Article 2). On the very first day, February 28, the United States and Israel assassinated Supreme Leader Khamenei and killed 180 girls at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab. The United States and Israel believed that this barrage of strikes against political leaders, key infrastructure, and civilians would immediately lead to a popular uprising that would remove the Islamic Republic. The US and Israeli intelligence overestimated the protests that began in December 2025 around the depreciation of the rial and rising inflation. But there is an enormous difference between a cycle of protests against economic issues and the appetite to rise up and overthrow an entire system. When the missiles killed the Supreme Leader – who has a reputation even amongst his critics for piety (he was elevated by the Society of Seminary Teachers at Qom as a Marja-e Taqlid or Source of Emulation in 1994) – and when they killed the school children, the public mood was electrified by patriotism. It was impossible in this situation to take the side of the imperialist war against innocent children. The nature of the US and Israeli attack, and the fact that Iran was able to strike Israeli targets as well as US targets in the Gulf Arab states, focused the population of Iran around its own survival and its ability to defend itself. 

Since the US wars on Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, US war planners have not set aside the concept of the escalation ladder and have used the concept of rapid dominance (through decapitation strikes, paralysis of command, and total dominance of the adversary’s military). This worked with Afghanistan and Iraq, where the scale of the US violence destroyed the capacity of retaliation. It was truly “shock and awe”. Such a military framework did not function with Iran. The Iranians had prepared for a full-scale US and Israeli attack for decades. Their political leadership understood the vulnerability of decapitation strikes, and therefore created eight levels of replacements for most of the top, essential leaders. The military hastily formed different kinds of weapon systems, from hypersonic cluster missiles that could overcome air defense systems to the fast inshore attack crafts that employ swarm tactics in the Gulf waters. These, alongside the pro-Iranian militias from Lebanon to Iraq, are the many rings of defense that the Iranians have built. This means that while the US opens with rapid dominance and does not have an escalation ladder, the Iranian response to the US and Israel was strategically built on starting with its simplest missiles and moving to its more sophisticated cluster missiles – while it has been holding back its small boats and its militias. These have not been deployed, as Iran remains reliant upon its missiles and its hold on the Straits of Hormuz (now only open to ships from certain countries).

Iran’s intelligent response to the United States and Israel has pinned them down, leaving them with no choice but to beg for a ceasefire. The Iranian leadership says that it is uninterested in a partial ceasefire, as in June 2025, that would simply allow Israel and the United States to rearm and return with another round of violence. Iran says that it wants to have a grand bargain that includes Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon – not just Iran – and that it wants total sanctions withdrawal, an end to the genocide of the Palestinians, and other requirements that the US remove its threatening base structure that encircles Iran. If the United States and Israel agree to these demands, it would mean an absolute victory for Iran – despite the tragic losses of human lives from the vicious attacks by Israel and the United States. 

Having killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who had been eager for the ceasefire in June 2025, the United States and Israel have lost someone who would perhaps have argued again for a ceasefire. The current leadership, including the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, has made an accurate assessment that a ceasefire without a grand bargain is merely about time and not about peace. The Iranians want peace for the region, not war, ceasefire, war – an endless war that results in austerity and pain.

The Israelis have not said much about the war in Iran, preferring to strike with their missiles and block any news coverage of the Iranian missile strikes on Israel. Would they be governed by a peace deal made by Trump? Unlikely. The Israelis have an eschatological view of the Middle East, eager to take the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, which would need them to silence their biggest and most consequential critic in the region, namely Iran. For Israel, this is a fight to the end. They have dragged the United States into this battle, even though there is no realistic gain for the US regarding the existence or not of the Islamic Republic (which has not threatened the United States at all). Israel wants to see the Islamic Republic uprooted, but that is an unlikely outcome given its deep roots in Iranian society. The United States would, on the other hand, be content with the management of the Islamic Republic with a pliant leadership. Neither option is on the cards. The only option for military escalation is for either the US or Israel to launch a nuclear strike against Iran – which would, after the egregious impact on the lives of Iranian civilians, evoke a totally negative response from global opinion.

There are no good options for the United States and Israel. They can remain with their bombing, but they will continue to see Iranian escalation that inflicts harm on Israel and on US interests in the region. The United States and Israel will have to face the world as fuel and food prices skyrocket. This was a miscalculation by the United States and Israel. Iran will not bend so easily. Hundreds of years of a proud civilization is at stake. Its leaders know that. They are not just standing for the Islamic Republic or the Iranian Revolution of 1979, but for Iran itself. They will not back down.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa, written with Grieve Chelwa. He is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the chief correspondent for Globetrotter, and the chief editor of LeftWord Books (New Delhi). He also appeared in the films Shadow World (2016) and Two Meetings (2017).

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

Did Gods Eat Meat?

Ram Puniyani | 31 Mar 2026

• 
  
• 
  

There are extensive quotes from the holy books about consumption of non-vegetarian food in ancient times.

Dhruv Rathee during a interview. Image Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

Recently a video by popular YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, which narrated the food habits of Lord Ram in particular, was subject of great controversy. In this video, Rathee, whose videos are very popular and based on thorough search, stated that Lord Ram was non-vegetarian. His video (with 9,2 million views) has extensive quotations from Valmiki Ramayan in particular. Based on scriptures, he also narrated the food habits of many gods and the prevalence of meat eating at that time and somaras drinking as part of their menu.

The controversy was how can Gods eat non-vegetarian food? There are extensive quotes from the holy books about consumption of non-vegetarian food in those times. Swami Vivekanand in his book, East and West, also endorses this view. Swamiji, while speaking to a large gathering in the US, said: “You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.” (Vivekananda speaking at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, USA (2 February 1900) on the theme of ‘Buddhistic India’, cited in Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol 3 (Calcutta: Advaita Ashram, 1997), p. 536.)

This is corroborated by other research works sponsored by the Ramakrishna Mission established by Swami Vivekananda. One of these reads: “The Vedic Aryans, including the Brahmanas, ate fish, meat and even beef. A distinguished guest was honoured with beef served at a meal. Although the Vedic Aryans ate beef, milch cows were not killed. One of the words that designated cow was agonya (what shall not be killed). But a guest was a goghna (one for whom a cow is killed). It is only bulls, barren cows and calves that were killed.” (C. Kunhan Raja, ‘Vedic Culture’, cited in the series, Suniti Kumar Chatterji and others (eds.), The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol 1 (Calcutta: The Ramakrishna Mission, 1993), 217.)

Babasaheb Ambedkar also traces the history of dietary tradition to tell us that with the rise of Buddhism, Brahminism resorted to countering Buddhism by raising the slogan of ‘Cow as mother’. Those who could not afford vegetarianism stuck to beef eating and were made untouchables. As such, on the evolutionary scale, early human beings were hunter food gatherers till the coming up of pastoral society. During this, apart from dairy products, they continued eating animals. Animal sacrifice to please the Gods became a norm. Sacrifice of cows and other animals to Gods was resisted by Gautam Buddha. While Lord Mahavir was for total giving up of eating animals, Lord Buddha did tell his disciples to accept even non-veg food given in bhiksha, by a donor to the begging monk. Emperor Ashoka, a Buddhist, in one of the edicts says that animal sacrifice should be stopped but the animals and birds necessary for eating can be killed.

Through a long journey of time, animal sacrifice continues in many a temple even today. Today, temples of Kamakhya Devi (Assam), Dakshineshwar Kali Temple (West Bengal) amongst others continue this practice of sacrifice of meat and chicken. In Maharashtra, near Lonavala, there is a Temple of Ekvira Devi where chicken and toddy (alcoholic drink) are offered.

As per data by the Anthropological Survey of India, today in India nearly 70% of the population is non-vegetarian. More Jains are vegetarians and only 45% of Hindus are vegetarians. Most of the population in coastal regions consume fish as the first priority. In the Konkan region, this is called ‘Sagar Pushp’ while in regions of Bengal it is called ‘Sagar Fal’. Incidentally, in Bengal, fish has a place of importance in many customs.

Dietary habits are totally diverse from region to region in the world. Right in India, there is the Musahar community, which eats rats out of the compulsion of poverty. In the North Eastern states, the prevalence of beef-eating is higher than in many other states of India.

As beef was made a political issue and lynching of Muslims and Dalits became common by Hindu nationalists, we heard Kerala Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) N. Sreeprakash stating that if he is elected, he will ensure the supply of better-quality beef. In the teaser of the film, Kerala Story 2, we see a Muslim family forcibly feeding beef to a Hindu girl who has married a Muslim. What a parody. To dissuade Hindu girls from marrying a Muslim man, this is shown to discourage girls from making their choice in marriage. The fact is that beef is very common in Kerala as a food item.

Human history is replete with all types of dietary practices. Currently the trend is of veganism. This is on the grounds that milk produced by animals is for their calves, not for humans. This is a welcome moral stand. Practically speaking, vegetarianism is better for environment protection. That apart, the present practices of people have to be respected.

My friend and mentor Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer used to tell me that Gandhiji (a vegetarian)was very open about offering non-vegetarian food to his guests without much hesitation. When requested that he should ensure a ban on cow slaughter, he said that the country belongs to people of diverse food practices so it will be unfair to them to resort to such a law.

What is being popularised by communal forces is that Muslims are violent because of non-vegetarianism. The truth is that a good number of Hindus also consume meat or fish. As far as violent tendencies and non-vegetarianism is concerned, it is an absurd correlation. We have seen the biggest mass murderer, Hitler, was a strict vegetarian after 1933 till his death, and advocates of peace like Nelson Mandela must have been meat eaters. There is no medical correlation between dietary habits and the psychological make up of an individual.

The most dangerous distortion is to deny the consumption of meat in ancient times and the propaganda that Muslims are violent due to their dietary habits.

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.