Jaibans Singh
In Britain, a Sikh body called the Jhatka Council has initiated a campaign for legal recognition of what is being termed as, “the Sikh method for ethical slaughter of meat called the Jhatka.” The objective is to provide Jhatka meat for Sikhs and associated communities in the UK and also promote ethical, modern and humane methods for the slaughter of animals for sustaining the food chain of non-vegetarian consumers. Similar debates are raging in many other nations too, especially in the global west.
There is an attempt to give this debate a religious sheen on the basis of the religious practices of the Sikh and Muslim communities. This is a simplistic connotation to adopt and one which cannot find a solution to the sensitive issue.
Overview
The Human race, in its many forms, has essentially been omnivores since the beginning of time. It implies that we have a physiological capacity to absorb meat products as well as fruits and herbs.
In the beginning of time that goes back to millions of years and much before the evolution of Homo Sapiens, our ancestral race had a diet based on fruits, nuts, green leaves and occasionally small insects/animals, much like the Chimpanzees of the modern age. To summarize, we were predominantly plant eaters with a little bit of non-vegetarian stuff consumed here and there.
As we evolved and learnt the use of fire and stone, meat found favour even as dependence on herbs etc. did not reduce. Meat provided essential nutrients like protein and calories as also fats and amino acids which were partially responsible for the evolutionary process. With cooking, humans adapted to a broader diet which led to the development of small jaws and larger brains.
Geography played a big role in the dietary habits of humans, where there was no plantation, like the arctic of very cold habitats, meat and fish became the basic diet. In tropical areas, plants hold an important place. Overall the human diet consisted of meat, fish, fruits, nuts, roots, honey etc. Agriculture gave us stability and grain.
It can be summarized that the human species, before the birth of religion, have been omnivores and then they became meat inclusive. They were never strictly carnivorous or vegetarian. They were not required to eat meat but evolved towards eating it which helped in the expansion of the brain. It is so because some nutrients that the human body craved came only from meat.
The dietary habits developed our body structures, we have both canines and molars while herbivores have only grinding teeth. Digestion of meat is supported by our intestines and the production of necessary acids.
Eating meat is considered among a major part of humanity as a method to maintain cosmic balance. Hunters of old times held rituals of respect for their prey and accepted meat as natural and sacred.
In case we wish to follow a pure vegetarian lifestyle then the diet plan has to follow a route of proper supplements that otherwise come from meat. It has to be noted that a poorly planned meat diet or a poorly planned vegetarian diet can cause health and strength related issues among humans.
Meat Consumption and Religion
Religion has generally treated meat as a moral, spiritual and disciplinary issue and not as a biological one. Most religious practices do not deny the need for humans to consume meat. Some lay down rituals by which the sanctity of eating meat can be maintained.
In Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) eating of meat is permitted. In some cases, regulation and discipline have been imposed. This mostly coincides with humane slaughter and expression of gratitude to God.
The Jews follow a ritual of declaring meat Kosher before consumption. Kosher meat comes from mammals with split hooves that chew their cud (like cows, sheep, goat, deer). So naturally forbidden are pigs, camels, rabbits, squirrels, horses etc. In the fowl category chicken, Turkey, duck etc. are permitted while predatory birds like the eagle, falcon, owl are not permitted. The Kosher fish has to have fins and scales which makes seafood like lobster, crap shrimp and a whole lot more non-Kosher items. The Kosher meat has to be slaughtered in accordance with a ritual called Shechitah. It has to be soaked and salted to draw out all blood before consumption.
Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. Over there import of non-kosher food is largely though not fully banned. The Jews across the world, due to their limited numbers, have their own meat shops and Kosher certifications. They go about purchasing and consuming their Kosher meat without creating a political fuss.
The Muslim law (sharia) specifically permits the consumption of meat but only after ensuring purity during the slaughter. The slaughter, therefore, requires a ritual called Halal which entails religious purification of the meat before it is cooked and consumed.
Halal requirements are that the slaughterer should be sane and the animal should be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter. The act of slaughter requires a deep incision on the throat of the animal while reciting a prayer. The incision should cut the windpipe, the jugular vein and the carotid artery but not injure the spinal cord. The concept is to acknowledge the benevolence of God at the time of slaughter and drain the blood to remove impurities. Fish and seafood can be eaten without the ritual of Halal and the pig is a forbidden meat.
Muslims consider this to be a humane way to slaughter animals but the fact is that the animal dies a slow painful death suffering till the blood is full drained out and the heart fails.
Christianity has not evolved a specific ritual or methodology for the slaughter of animals. Christians believe these ritual laws were fulfilled and superseded by Christ’s sacrifice. The New Testament, therefore, explicitly removes ritual restrictions on food. The faith prioritises thankfulness, moral responsibility, and compassion as important and not ritual.
In the diverse religious practices of India there are different approaches to the issue of non-vegetarianism. There are some religions like the Buddhists and the Jains who are essentially vegetarian. In some countries where Buddhism spread later, like Tibet and Japan, meat is taken as a staple food.
There is a complex philosophy guiding the consumption of meat in the Hindu (Sanatan) way of life. In summary it can be said that while vegetarianism is regarded as the best and highest ideal, consumption of meat is not deemed to be a sin and is, as such, not universally forbidden. Meat has remained a staple diet of Kshatriyas (warriors) and many other castes of Hindus. Self-restraint, however, is praised by all spiritual leaders and is said to yield higher spiritual merit.
In the Sikh religious scriptures there is no recorded prohibition to eating meat. However, the Gurus never encouraged or commanded the Sikhs to eat meat and did not offer any methodology for purification of the process. The sacred system of Guru Ka Langar (Community food in the name of the Gurus) serves only simple vegetarian food. Alongside, there is a belief that all food involves taking life, and as such, arguing about the purity of one food above the other is futile. The Sikh thought rejects ritualism in the consumption of meat as hypocrisy and Brahmanic taboos as pointless.
There is no detailed slaughter method prescribed in any Sikh holy book. Over time, the Sikh Rehat Maryada (Code of conduct and conventions) have advocated a slaughter practice that kills the animal with one swift blow, usually severing the head in order to ensure instant and painless death. The process should not involve any prayers or ritualism that exhibits hypocrisy around food. The Sikhs called this the Jhatka method of slaughter. The process reinforces the fact that for the Sikhs eating meat is morally neutral. Obviously, the Jhatka is quite different from the Halal ritual.
The Jhatka/Halal Debate
The issue of meat slaughter and the terms “Jhatka and Halal” got a religious sheen due to the exercise of power and politics in Punjab. The issue gained precedence during the Mughal regime when the Islamic rulers restricted and sometimes criminalised non-halal slaughter. The Sikhs, who were in political conflict with the Mughals, naturally resisted such directions. The refusal to eat Halal became an act of resistance and a symbol of political defiance. The priority was independence from Mughal authority, not food rules or spiritual purity.
The divergent views were further cemented by the British Indian army dietary instructions which formalised the Jhatka and Halal meat denominations in order to respect the religious practices of their Indian troops.
Muslims troops were provided Halal meat and Hindu/Sikh soldiers were provided Jhatka meat. This was ensured by creating different slaughter houses and different kitchens in peace time cantonments. In the field during campaigns, live animals called meat of hoof were provided to be slaughtered as required by the diverse communities. This was to ensure that religious sentiments were not ignited. The method continues to be followed by the Indian army to date.
The Sikhs began consolidation of their distinct religious identity in the late 19th and early 20th century in what was termed as the Singh Sabha & Gurdwara Reform Movement. In the attempt to standardise Sikh identity as distinct from Muslim as well as Hindu, Kutha meat (killed according to Muslim or Jewish religious rites) was specifically forbidden through Rehat Maryada. The non-negotiable principles adopted Jhatka as religious obligation and Halal as anti-Sikh. As a consequence, the ethical debate on animal welfare stands side-lined.
The Western Intervention in Jhatka/Halal Debate
In western countries like the UK and Canada Halal meat is widely used in schools, prisons, councils and often without clear labelling. One reason behind this situation is that Christianity does not forbid eating of meat slaughtered by non-Christians. With no religious doctrine governing how animals must be slaughtered, the Christians find no difficulty in consuming meat slaughters by any method be it Halal, Kosher or Jhatka. There are several reasons for the same, the main being its large geographical spread across different cultures which makes enforcement of rigid ritualistic practices difficult.
The situation has caused alarm bells among the Sikhs who, being a minority, look upon the situation as a cultural domination by the Muslims which is unacceptable to them. The Sikh voice against this trend in the form of Jhatka Councils is a defence mechanism for creation of its secular space as a community. The Jhatka movement, therefore is a counter symbol, that is mobilising the so-called meat debates. As the rift becomes more intense any attempt at moderation will be labelled as an unacceptable compromise
Conclusion
It is necessary to understand that the Jhatka/Halal debate is not essentially the product of a religious or spiritual doctrine. It pertains to emotional content and the safeguarding of a historical identity.
The emphasis may not be on ritual but it has to be on morality and compassion with stress on humane treatment. St Augustine has said that cruelty to animals deforms human character. St Thomas Aquinas held the belief that cruelty to animals is wrong because it encourages cruelty to humans. Modern churches increasingly recognise animal welfare as an ethical concern in itself.
Most of the nations where Christianity is predominant, the focus is on quick and humane slaughter in a manner that the animal feels minimum pain. Most of the world’s non-Muslims also believe in non-ritual slaughter. The non-ritual Jhatka therefore is not uniquely Sikh as it is being termed. A perception is being created that it is a fight to communal stand against Halalisation when in actuality it is a stand for civilisation and humanity.
If a nation wishes to centralise meat slaughter according to the sensibility of particular communities, then it should extend the facility to all such communities that hold an ethical principle to slaughter practices. No better example can be given beyond the policy followed by the officers of the British Indian army who exhibited sensitivity to the feelings of all who were serving under them and catered to their emotions and feelings.
The international model of slaughter should be based on scientific techniques that focus on speed of unconsciousness of the animal and its slaughter with generation of minimum pain and stress. More so, the process should remain without rituals of any religion.
Those who wish to follow a religious practice for slaughter as in the case of Jews and Muslims can be allowed to create separate infrastructures.
However, widespread use of the practices of a particular community only to reduce the workload is not a correct and sensitive route for any government to follow.