Tag:

gender

By Ritika Khatri

Food has a magical effect on people. When we are having a terrible day, a good day, or celebrating, it has the power to change moods and make things better. It’s an important part of our life, from festive meals to simple soothing meals on bad days. Yet, in our country, individual or community food choices are frequently morally policed. Food has the capability to both unite and divide people across culture and societies. And this duality of food­ is a reflection of our societal complexity.

Besides, food, a fundamental human necessity, has become contentious and politicized topics in our society. The degree of controversy has reached to the point that people are facing violence and lynching over their food choices. This acute reaction to individual food penchants is revealing the deep-seated social conditioning and larger socio-political backdrop that rules/shape our behaviour.

Even in urban settings, people encounter the widespread and inescapable stigma associated with non-vegetarian food. While renting a home or room, landlords frequently question about dietary preferences, with many specially barring non-vegetarian foods. In areas such as Kamla Nagar (nearby Delhi University’s North campus), it is common to find PGs (paying guest accommodations) that strictly prohibit non-veg on the premises. This form of dietary discrimination is based not only food preferences but also has connotations related to smells associated with non-veg food. Vegetarians often stigmatize the smell of non-veg dishes, associating them with impurity and pollution.

While conducting fieldwork in Punjab and Haryana, I encountered Pummy (name changed), a working woman from Sangrur, Punjab. During our conversation she shared her experience which showed how cultural, familial and societal expectations influence and constrain our food choices. This article explores the intricate relationship between food preferences, the stigma attached to non-vegetarianism, and how caste, class and gender intersect to shape these narratives.

Caste, Gender and Dietary Prejudices

My fieldwork in two villages of Punjab and Haryana in 2022-23 involved interactions with women from diverse age groups and castes. A striking pattern emerged: while most women and their daughters refrained from eating non-veg, their sons were permitted to do so outside the home. When questioned, the justification was often that sons needed more protein for physical development and sports activities. Daughters, on the other hand, were expected to conform to stay vegetarian foods. Reason, because daughters will get marry one day and will go to stay her future in-law’s house. This perpetuates a cycle of dietary control and gender-based discrimination.

In another incident, an upper caste woman campaigning for panchayat elections recounted feeling nauseous upon entering a Dalit household, attributing the smell to their consumption of pork. Ironically, she herself consumed chicken but looked upon those who ate pork. This attitude is deeply rooted in the notions of purity and pollution associated with caste. Many people I spoke to during my fieldwork believed that non-vegetarians emit a distinct, unpleasant odour, further entrenching caste-based prejudices.

Societal expectation and familial pressure

Pummy was a lively and friendly woman. During a ride to my fieldwork area, our conversation naturally turned towards food. To my surprise, Pummy hesitantly shared her love for butter chicken, a preference she had to keep hidden from her husband and in-laws. Even though she is a working woman, she finds herself unable to openly discuss her non-vegetarianism with her family, who were strict vegetarians. Societal expectation and familial pressure prevent her to openly share it her family. This situation reflects a common predicament among many women in similar cultural contexts.

Pummy additionally shared a funny yet insightful incident from a relatives wedding. During the pre-wedding rituals, an elderly vegetarian woman accidently ate a non-vegetarian dish, mistaking it for potato curry. When she realized she’d erred, she joked that if she had known how delicious non-veg food was, she would have started eating it long ago. Nevertheless, other relatives took a sigh of relief, as they were panicking that the older women could make scene at the wedding. This incident highlights the rigid norms and occasional, unintentional breaches have the protentional to sour up and tense the situations.

Reflecting on Personal Biases

Reflecting on my own experience, I realized that I, too, had unconsciously contributed to the problem. Growing up in a strict vegetarian household, where even onions and garlic were eschewed, I remember an instance from school when a girl brought an omelette for lunch. The silent gossip and social exclusion she faced from her peers, including myself, mirrored the societal conditioning we had all received at home. Such early experience shape individuals’ attitude towards food and perpetuate a cycle of judgment and exclusion.

‘There’s nothing more political than food’

An American Chef, Anthony Bourdain, shared his thoughts about food in a different context, but it seems plausible to share here. He said, “There is nothing more political than food. Food is reflection, maybe the most direct and obvious reflection of who we are, where we came from, what we love, who eats in the country, who does. The things that we eat are the direct reflection of our histories. The ingredients, whether they are dried or pickled or preserved, these are reflections of often long, very painful histories”. It is imperative for us as a society to recognize the diverse food habits that exists. With empathy and understanding, we can begin to dismantle the discriminatory practices that have long been entrenched in our social-cultural fabric. We need to work towards a society where food, instead of dividing us, becomes a means to celebrate our diversity.

0 comments 38 views
8 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

By Sayan Dasgupta

COVID-19 has been a fertile spawning field of sexual violence. Where some Courts have been deontological and acknowledging of this phenomenon, certain judgments act as a means of disenfranchisement of sexual violence victims. Bombay High Court in a recent judgment, in Satish v. State of Maharashtra has rendered an absurd interpretation of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO]. The accused was charged with Section 8 of POCSO read with Section 354 of Indian Penal Code along with Sections 342 and 363, for sexually assaulting a minor girl. The Bench acquitted the accused of sexual assault under POCSO while upholding conviction under the sexual assault charges under IPC on the rationale that there was lack of sexual intention on the part of accused to sexually assault the minor since there “was no direct physical contact, i.e., skin to skin” touch.

This verdict caused a huge uproar in the civil society and the legal fraternity alike causing the Supreme Court to stay the acquittal of the accused on the charge of Section 8 of POCSO. The judgment has rendered that mere groping would not amount to sexual assault under Section 7 of POCSO. Such an abhorrent interpretation prima facie trivializes not only sexual assault of female minors, but disproportionately excludes male minors from seeking justice.

The minor male victims of sexual abuse constitute a large majority in India. The Bench elucidated that mere groping over the clothes of the minor would not amount to sexual assault under Section 7 and 8 of POCSO. POCSO is inherently a gender-neutral legislation providing reprieve to minors of all genders. Section 7 provides that whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.” The words “penis, anus” annotate protection to the male victims from sexual assault. However, the case establishing the ‘skin-touch’ doctrine has significantly narrowed the scope of application of the provision.

Adoption of this exclusionary doctrine would impact both female and male victims adversely, however, where the female victim could resort to relevant provisions of IPC, the male victim is left remediless. The provisions of sexual crimes under IPC are highly gendered protecting only the woman or the girl child disenfranchising the male victims of sexual violence. Furthermore, the doctrine places the onus of proof on the prosecution per contra to POCSO. Section 29 of POCSO reverses the burden of proof and presumes the offence has been committed or abetted by the accused. If the view purported by the Bombay High Court is considered, and if the prosecution fails to satisfy the onus, the female victim can have a recourse to relevant provisions of IPC, whereas on the contrary, the male victim cannot. 

The ‘skin-touch’ doctrine categorically contradicts the Model Guidelines issued by Ministry of Women and Child Development under Section 39 of POCSO which provides that “almost every known form of sexual abuse against children as punishable”. Furthermore, the Delhi High Court in Rakesh v. State without even delving into the detail of disrobing of the victim dismissed the appeal holding that mere groping of the private parts of the victim with sexual intent amounts to sexual assault under Section 7 of POCSO. Conflicting this accurate interpretation, the heavy onus placed on the victim results in narrow application. Whereupon the female victims have an alternative remedy, the abusers of the male victim are left scot-free on committing the atrocity leaving a permanent scar on the well-being of the child survivor. Ergo, mere groping would amount to sexual assault of the female victim under Section 354 of IPC but would not be sexual assault of male victim, either under POCSO or IPC. The provisions governing sexual crimes in IPC are gynocentric and neither the legislative or the judiciary have displayed any intention to take affirmative step on making the sexual offences gender neutral, despite there being categorical recommendation by the 172nd Law Commission Report and the Justice Verma Committee Report to make rape and other sexual offences gender neutral

This inspires little to no confidence on the state functionaries with regard to gender justice. The ‘skin-touch’ doctrine creates a very real and alienating affect of male survivors wherein, groping over clothes would not amount to sexual assault. The lack of gender-neutral sexual offence laws and such interpretation is a clear dereliction of the male survivors.  

0 comments 27 views
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
The Womb - Encouraging, Empowering and Celebrating Women.

The Womb is an e-platform to bring together a community of people who are passionate about women rights and gender justice. It hopes to create space for women issues in the media which are oft neglected and mostly negative. For our boys and girls to grow up in a world where everyone has equal opportunity irrespective of gender, it is important to create this space for women issues and women stories, to offset the patriarchal tilt in our mainstream media and society.

@2025 – The Womb. All Rights Reserved. Designed and Developed by The Womb Team

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?