Ban on dog meat in Nagaland

 Nagaland has been seething with resentment in the last few days following an executive order that banned the sale and consumption of dog meat. Rapper Moko Koza even rapped about it seeking to preserve Naga Culture. The Nagaland Government, on 3rd July, 2020, banned the commercial import and also sale of dog meat (cooked and uncooked. This move divided the public into two groups. The group supporting the ban hailed it as an important milestone in the cause for securing animal rights. The other group looked at it as a direct attack on the Naga culture. The habit of eating dog meat stems from the belief people derive strength from consuming the meat. Some warrior tribes consume it for strength before wrestling and some consider it to be the most coveted dish that can be served to honor guests. Sacrifice of dogs in rituals are also popular as it is believed that such a sacrifice wards off evil spirits.

According to the government of Nagaland notification issued on July 4, any person violating this ban will be punished under Section 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960. The relevant sections of these acts prescribe punishments for treating animals cruelly.

 Besides these two Acts, the government has also invoked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) Regulation, 2011, specifically sub-regulation 2.5.1(a) which defines animals that are safe for human consumption. Now, dog meat is categorised as food outside the food safety standards in India.

Now, there are a few questions to ponder upon. Is the ban violative of Article 371A of the Indian Constitution? If dog meat consumption was banned on the grounds of animal cruelty, what about consumption of other animal meat?

1. Article 371A(1)(a)(i) and (ii) state that no Act of Parliament will apply to the state of Nagaland that interferes with the religious/ social practises of Nagas and Naga Customary law and procedure. This ban was initiated by the State Government and not the Parliament. Therefore, the ban is not violative of Article 371A.
2. Dog meat is consumed by a small part of the Naga community. It may not be an integral part of Naga culture but it definitely is a part. This ban is also seen as an attempt to "civilize" Nagas. Dog meat is also used to racially provoke the natives of Nagaland.
3. Many justify the ban on the grounds of animal cruelty. It may be a welcome step. But if dog meat consumption is banned on grounds of cruelty, then that opens up the argument for ban on chicken, pork, beef, mutton etc.

The question remains whether such a ban was necessary at this hour. The denizens of Nagaland already feel alienated due to the extension of the application of AFSPA. Given the circumstances, when there are serious questions being raised on gross human rights violations, was such a ban the need of the hour? Does the ban not send a message that animal rights take precedence over human rights?

Being a dog lover myself and the proud owner of 2 dogs, any action that s undertaken for animal welfare brings me joy. But the Nagas had a right to be consulted and taken into confidence.

The State Government in Nagaland had also banned liquor. Liquor black market is booming there with business. What is not to say the same wont happen with dog meat?

Now only time will tell if this was the right move.