Following the footsteps of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, IIT Hyderabad also introduced a segregated dining area for vegetarians. Furthermore, IIT Bombay took a severe step by imposing a hefty fine of Rs 10,000 on a student who protested by opting to sit in the vegetarian section while having non-vegetarian food. This decision has faced strong criticism from various quarters. According to students of IITs, these segregated spaces on campus have long been an unwritten rule, with a few institutes even having separate mess facilities for vegetarians.
What is this segregation? Why such a hefty fine for a petty violation and what does it say about our society when a meal becomes a symbol of division rather than a shared experience?
The untouchable and the impure: Caste and cultural context
At first glance, this issue may seem rooted in dietary preferences, but a deeper examination unveils its profound caste-based connotations of purity and pollution. This move, as pointed out by former UGC Chairman Prof Sukhdeo Thorat, contradicts the constitutional provisions regarding non-discrimination based on caste, religion, colour, and race. He says, “It will reinforce the prejudice about the religious connotation of some food being good and pure, and others impure.”
This issue brings to mind a recent incident involving Sudha Murty, Chairperson of the Infosys Foundation, who expressed food anxiety in a video clip which went viral almost immediately. She admitted to carrying her own spoon to avoid using cutlery contaminated with non-vegetarian food. Prof Ravikant Kisana, a professor of Cultural Studies, popular as the Buffalo Intellectual on social media and known for his analysis of the intersection of caste and privilege, points out that her anxiety is not merely a food issue but a symptom of casteist prejudice. And this mindset is not restricted to her alone.
Historically, India's caste system has intertwined the ideas of "pure" and "impure" foods with discrimination. The choice between vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets tend to reflect cultural and religious affiliations, further complicating the matter. When a public institute like IIT decides to partition its dining spaces based on an individual's dietary preferences, the issue transcends mere culinary concern; it reflects deeper cultural issues.
“It is disgusting what happened at IIT Bombay. How dare an institute get into this question of vegetarians and non-vegetarians? The construct of vegetarianism is very modern and the Savarna group is only trying to maintain its hegemony,” says Dr Veena Shatrugna, former Deputy Director at the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad.
The role of food: Why should food habits be a reason for our irk?
Food and the caste system have a long history of entanglement. The idea of "pure" and "impure" foods has always played a role in caste-based discrimination. Prof Ravikant Kisana explains that such an attitude towards segregation based on dietary preferences stems from the notion that non-vegetarian food is inherently polluting. “This concept manifests in various forms like smell, spatial separation, and dedicated spaces, but these are not scientifically grounded concepts,” he says.
Notably, such divisions are not prevalent on a global scale, even in the era of emerging veganism. This begs the question: why do Indians feel a compelling need to safeguard the 'purity' of vegetarianism? Prof Kisana underscores that this issue is fundamentally about pollution, with its roots tracing back to the caste system. “A separate or segregated dining space only institutionalises this politics of pollution.”
The demarcation between vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism often carries connotations of purity and spirituality, predominantly adhered to by Brahmins. “This is an idea and not a fact,” contends Prof Thorat. He goes on to explain that it's a Brahmanical concept that emerged later, particularly after the Manusmriti, with the aim of asserting the superiority of high castes, especially Brahmins. “Dr Ambedkar also argued that the idea of vegetarian food being superior to non-vegetarian was developed to score points over Buddhists, who believe in non-violence but continue to eat beef offered by others,” he adds.
This historical division has led to the segregation of food spaces, perpetuating caste-based discrimination and social divisions in India. In the words of Prof Thorat, “In history, there is clear evidence that both high and low-caste used to eat meat. At a later stage, the idea of vegetarianism was developed and also linked with the ban on cow killing. Then the idea of non-vegetarians being impure or inferior emerged.” This evolution in food habits served as the bedrock for the stigmatisation of non-vegetarians, particularly those from lower castes who included beef in their diet, as they were unjustly considered polluting. He underscores, “In fact, Dr Ambedkar's theory of the emergence of untouchability and untouchable castes attribute the continuation of eating of beef (dead animal) as a reason for the rise of the notion of untouchability and untouchable castes. The impure and polluting status of the untouchable is linked with them being beef consumers.”
Prof Thorat further emphasises that the decision of IIT Bombay to segregate eating spaces will further strengthen this idea of caste and pollution with food habits. “It must be recognised that what food to eat is the individual right of a person, but to treat vegetarians as pure and good and non-vegetarians as bad and impure and therefore both should be segregated from each other while sitting, is a wrong practice.”
“Veg and non-veg; garlic and no-garlic”: The endless segregation
The concern is that once segregation based on dietary choices begins, it could become a never-ending process, extending to separate hostel rooms and other spaces within educational institutes. This could lead to an environment that divides students based on their food choices, which might not be conducive to the inclusive ethos of an educational institution. “As a policy, where do you draw the line?” questions Prof Kisana.
Dr Shatrugna's remark further underscores the potential for endless divisions within this framework. “There is no end to this,” she says, explaining that the categorisation between vegetarian and non-vegetarian, along with subcategories like garlic or no-garlic, sattvic, or egg-vegetarian, has no natural endpoint. Such distinctions can multiply endlessly, fragmenting society and undermining the very essence of unity and diversity. “As if vegetarians drink milk that comes from the sky,” asserts Dr Shatrugna, questioning why it should be an issue if another human being consumes non-vegetarian food when milk, which is also derived from animals, has never been a source of contention. This line of reasoning only reinforces the fact that the issue extends beyond the simple matter of dietary impositions but has to do with the larger context of caste prejudice.
Moreover, how do these policies align with the broader educational goals and values of institutions like IITs, and what impact do they have on the students' educational experiences?
Prof Ravikant Kisana aptly questions the compatibility of such policies with the core values of scientific education. Segregation based on dietary choices sends a disturbing message to students that their food preferences define their purity and worth. This notion contradicts the essence of scientific inquiry and rational thinking, which should be central to any academic institution, particularly one that excels in science and technology like IIT.
“These are students of science and they should be instilled with a scientific rigour and discipline over caste-based notions of purity and pollution,” emphasises Prof Kisana as he explains how medical students dissect bodies as part of their education, students in scientific disciplines should be instilled with rigorous thinking and an open-minded approach to diversity. “This cannot be institutionalised by an educational institution, these are students of science.”
Food: A shared experience vs a symbol of division
Colleges are transformative spaces where students, on the cusp of adulthood, undergo profound experiences. In an environment as diverse as a multicultural institute like an IIT, they have the unique opportunity to interact with peers from various backgrounds and cultures. This setting can be a catalyst for personal growth and intellectual expansion, particularly when it comes to unlearning prejudices and embracing diversity.
“In college, food becomes the unifying factor that fosters cultural appreciation and brings people together.,” highlights Dr Shatrugna, adding, “From savouring Punjabi chana to relishing South Indian idli, students learn to appreciate different cuisines with joy. Institutes should not hinder that opportunity to explore.”
It's these shared experiences, born out of diversity, that help forge connections and enrich their understanding of the world, as Dr Shatrugna mentions. The introduction of segregation would severely impede this vital process of exploration and cultural exchange. It would hinder students from experiencing the richness of diversity and limit their opportunities to unlearn biases, ultimately stifling the growth and maturation that college life can offer.
Dr Shatrugna also highlights how this segregation, especially when justified on grounds of purity and pollution, can have far-reaching and dangerous consequences. “These are the ideas that are later used to justify acts like lynching,” she says. History offers a stark reminder of how such divisive ideologies can lead to extreme violence.
Recent years have witnessed a disturbing rise in cases of mob violence, often fueled by religious, caste, or dietary differences. These incidents have been driven by a twisted sense of purity and a distorted notion of protection, where certain groups are targeted based on what they eat, how they pray, or their social identity.
As Dr Shatrugna puts it, this rhetoric of purity and pollution, when perpetuated through practices like segregation, can contribute to the dehumanisation of specific communities. This dehumanisation, in turn, can justify violence against those who are perceived as impure or different.
The hefty fine: IITs and their Brahminical persona
The fine structure in place at IIT Bombay involves Rs 5 per day per book for library fines during the first 30 days, which then escalates to Rs 10. In the case of late fees for the Annual Progress Seminar (APS) for PhD students, the institution imposes Rs 500 per week, capped at a maximum of Rs 10,000. These fines appear as standardised administrative measures that students are familiar with. Further, a Mumbai Mirror article from September 24, 2014, reveals the fine in the institute back then used to be Rs 2,000 to Rs 5,000 for serious offences such as possessing marijuana or alcohol.
This reveals that the Rs 10,000 fine imposed on the protesting student is the highest penalty that IITs impose on students. Therefore, it raises a host of questions about the arbitrariness of fines and whether such high penalties are intended to discourage certain behaviours. “Fining students Rs 10,000 in a public institution is unbelievable. How was this decided, how was the quantum of this fine fixed? Is there a policy? Why Rs 10,000 and not Rs 100? Who decided this?” asks Prof Kisana. He adds, “If the penalty for possession of drugs is less than a symbolic dissent of just sitting on a table then the institution is just exposing itself.”
Expose how? Prof Kisana doesn't shy away from addressing a fundamental issue within IITs: representation and inclusivity. He says, “The IIT administration is Brahmanical and full of people whose sympathy lies with vegetarians; thereby letting personal politics creep in.” His assertion draws attention to a critical issue within these esteemed institutions concerning representation and inclusivity.
The Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle (APPSC) of IIT Bombay has over the years exposed important concerns about the institute's adherence to reservation norms. In December 2022, with data obtained through Right to Information (RTI), APPSC revealed a severe lack of representation of SC/ST/OBC candidates, both in PhD admissions and faculty positions. The RTI also revealed that there has not been a single ST candidate admitted to a PhD programme in eight years which is a stark indictment of the institute's adherence to diversity.
Similarly, the lack of representation among faculty members, with 95% belonging to the higher castes, is a matter of deep concern. From 2007 to 2020, only one professor from the SC/ST/OBC category was hired while 42 general category candidates were hired. “Their bias reflects in these admission and appointment processes. How do you expect a fair appointment if there is no diversity at all,” said a concerned APPSC member to EdexLive in December last year. In most cases IITs declare ‘Not Found Suitable (NFS)’ for their recruitment drives of reservation candidates, thereby, letting the entire process hang in a loop forever.
Referring to the innumerable deaths of Dalit students on the IIT campus this year, Prof Kisana further emphasises the disparity. He states, “So many Dalit students died by suicide this year and not a single resignation came. The impunity with which this is operating and not seeing it as a cultural issue while dead bodies are piling up is appalling. There is no culture of reflection, or guilt, shame, on the other hand, hefty fines are being imposed for sitting on a vegetarian table.”
The Brahminical nature of IITs is also evident during orientations and convocations, where events commence with a Saraswati Vandana. Prof Kisana argues, “Educational institutes in a secular country have no business doing things like this. It is clearly a Brahmanical institute — the syllabus is Brahminical, the orientation, the teachers, therefore, the food too has to be Brahmanical. If it were only about food, the rational reaction would be that it is absurd. But this is part of a larger conversation about Brahminical ideas about science and a far larger ecosystem.”
Elite institutions: Why are IITs adopting these new measures?
Prof Ravikant Kisana points out that although most news about caste discrimination emerges from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, it is because there is a higher level of resistance in these states. However, such discrimination and prejudices are equally prevalent in more liberal spaces like West Bengal, often in subtler but more widespread forms. Similarly, he notes that the caste discrimination issues we hear about in government schools, where students refuse to eat food prepared by Dalits, are because of the resistance by the marginalised in these schools and areas. Nevertheless, when it comes to elite institutions like IITs, such caste discrimination goes unnoticed and unaddressed because the representation from the community is low, and they have little voice to resist.
Furthermore, in response to a post by APPPSC on X (formerly Twitter), a question posed by Dr Srinivas Kakkilaya (@skakkilaya), MBBS MD Physician, raises a significant point. He asks, “Why is it necessary in IITB to have a 'vegetarians-only' table now, 65 years after its founding?” This question becomes pivotal in the context of dining space segregation. While a few current students claim that an unspoken rule for segregated vegetarian spaces has always existed during their time at IIT so far, reports suggest that segregated spaces for vegetarians were not present before 2014.
As per a report in The Quint, the IIT administration's actions may be influenced by the political expectations of the ruling dispensation. According to the report, a group associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) wrote to the Union Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister, Smriti Irani, in 2014, requesting the establishment of segregated dining areas for vegetarians in IITs and the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). The letter argued that non-vegetarian food and Western culture has a negative influence on students and that it led to the development of 'tamas' (dark and unrighteous) nature.
According to The Quint's report, students of IITs assert that segregated spaces for vegetarians were not present before 2014.
The Deccan Herald report from October 2014, which The Quint also references, reveals that a group of individuals from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) intervened by writing to the then Union Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister, Smriti Irani, requesting the establishment of segregated dining areas for vegetarians in IITs and IIMs.
The interference of the ruling dispensation is not a myth and has made headlines, with IIT directors resigning before their terms end and VCs of Delhi University and Aligarh Muslim University being removed from their positions. These instances occurred during the tenure of HRD Minister Smriti Irani. During her term, the Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle (APPSC) cell, which represents the voice and issues of marginalised students on campus, was also banned from IIT Madras.
One of the signatories of the letter, Satyendra Kumar Jain is quoted by the Deccan Herald as saying, “We have demanded a separate canteen for vegetarian students at these institutes so that good students are not spoiled by non-vegetarian food. If your eating habit is pure, you will have a pure nature. If you eat Tamasic food, your nature and behaviour will also become Tamasic.”
The casteist discourse, which invokes notions of purity and pollution, reflects the intolerance and deeply entrenched biases within the nation. Such biases stigmatise anything non-Brahmanical as dirty and dangerous, reinforcing the legacy of casteist ancestors. Prof Kisana raises these concerns and questions the message IITs are sending out to students who consume non-vegetarian food. “These are just Brahminical ideas about science and not science.”
The way forward: UGC’s stance and impact on students
Moving forward, addressing the issues of caste-based discrimination and related matters in educational institutions necessitates not only a recognition of these problems but also a proactive response from the administration. Prof Sukhdeo Thorat has raised compelling concerns regarding IIT Bombay's apparent non-compliance with UGC guidelines addressing anti-discrimination and equal opportunity. He unequivocally stressed, "The Equality Regulation 2012 treats segregation on account of caste and food as a violation of the rule of equality." In no uncertain terms, he urged the UGC to communicate to educational institutions that such segregation should be considered a deviation from the principles of equality, making it explicit in the 2012 regulation.
Moreover, it is imperative to educate students and staff at these institutes about the deeply personal nature of dietary choices, emphasising that these choices should never be contorted into matters of religious conviction. Prof Thorat underlined the importance of IIT Bombay adhering to the 2012 Equality Regulation, which is designed to combat caste discrimination and prejudices and urged them to discontinue any form of segregation based on food, caste, religion, or other factors.
In a parallel vein, Dr Veena Shatrugna shed light on the complexity of issues that dietary segregation introduces for students. She points out that imposing such divisions not only promotes shame and anger among students and their families but can also potentially sow the seeds for prejudices that persist into adulthood. Her stance is clear: "I would advise not responding to these absurd requests at all. The more you cater to them, the worse the situation becomes."
Prof Ravikant Kisana, on the other hand, proposed an effective solution by highlighting the need to diversify the administration of these institutions. He explained, “The IIT administration is composed of those with intergenerational wealth and literacy and thus, they believe this is the way of life. So, the best way to tackle casteism in institutions like this is to diversify your administration.” He revealed how, in most cases, these institutes have a token SC/ST faculty member who is placed on a panel for caste complaints but is often rendered ineffective due to the power imbalance. “Imagine the pressure on that faculty who has to comply to save his career.” Therefore, Prof Kisana says the best way out of this systemic Savarna hegemony is to diversify the entire administration and cater to the reservation laws, and automatically things in the institution will change.
The concerns raised by experts like Prof Sukhdeo Thorat, Prof Ravikant Kisana, and Dr Veena Shatrugna underscore the need for change. It is imperative that institutions adhere to UGC guidelines and promote anti-discrimination and equal opportunity. Moreover, diversifying the administration is a crucial step towards dismantling the Brahminical nature of these institutions and truly reflecting the principles of 'unity and diversity'.
