Legal Niches

Vegetarian in the western world

By joel

Gandhi vowed at a young age not to eat meat or drink alcohol. In India, where Jain and Hindu thought over centuries had legitimized such a lifestyle choice, this was not a terrible hardship. Then Gandhi traveled to England to study law.

Gandhi openly stated that it was difficult to maintain an ethical lifestyle in England. In talking about the difficulties he faced during this period, he talks about difficulty with the language and fitting in to another race and culture, and about abstaining from sex and alcohol, but he reserves most of the space for the difficulties of being a vegetarian in England.

From the moment he set foot on the boat to England, he found the pressure and disapprobation of society. Passengers with him on the boat openly urged him to eat meat, and expressed no comprehension of his religious beliefs. He survived primarily on food that he brought with him from home during that boat ride.

From the autobiography:

An English passenger, taking kindly to me, drew me into conversation. He was older than I. He asked me what I ate, what I was, where I was going, why I was shy, and so on. He also advised me to come to table. He laughed at my insistence on abjuring meat, and said in a friendly way when we were in the Red Sea: ‘It is all very well so far but you will have to revise your decision in the Bay of Biscay. And it is so cold in England that one cannot possibly live there without meat.’ ‘But I have heard that people can live there without eating meat,’ I said. ‘Rest assured it is a fib,’ said he. ‘No one, to my knowledge, lives there without being a meat-eater. Don’t you see that I am not asking you to take liquor, though I do so? But I do think you should eat meat, for you cannot live without it.’ ‘I thank you for your kind advice, but I have solemnly promised to my mother not to touch meat, and therefore I cannot think of taking it. If it be found impossible to get on without it, I will far rather go back to India than eat meat in order to remain there.’

In England, living in an Anglo household, he ate mostly bread. Again, the people around him refused to understand, and found it difficult to be in any way accomodating of something so incomprehensible.

The landlady was at a loss to know what to prepare for me. We had oatmeal porridge for breakfast, which was fairly filling, but I always starved at lunch and dinner. The friend continually reasoned with me to eat meat, but I always pleaded my vow and then remained silent. . . . The friend once got disgusted with this state of things, and said: ‘Had you been my own brother, I would have sent you packing. What is the value of a vow made before an illiterate mother, and in ignorance of conditions here? It is no vow at all. It would not be regarded as a vow in law. It is pure superstition to stick to such a promise. And I tell you this persistence will not help you to gain anything here. You confess to having eaten and relished meat. You took it where it was absolutely unnecessary, and will not where it is quite essential. What a pity!’ But I was adamant. Day in and day out the friend would argue, but I had an eternal negative to face him with. . . . One day the friend began to read to me Bentham’s Theory of Utility. I was at my wits’ end. The language was too difficult for me to understand. He began to expound it. I said: ‘Pray excuse me. These abstruse things are beyond me. I admit it is necessary to eat meat. But I cannot break my vow. I cannot argue about it. I am sure I cannot meet you in argument. But please give me up as foolish or obstinate. I appreciate your love for me and I know you to be my well-wisher. I also know that you are telling me again and again about this because you feel for me. But I am helpless. A vow is a vow. It cannot be broken.’ The friend looked at me in surpirse. He closed the book and said: ‘All right. I will not argue any more.’ I was glad. . . . I once hit on a vegetarian restaurant in Farringdon Street. The sight of it filled me with the same joy that a child feels on getting a thing after its own heart.
…
Meanwhile my friend had not ceased to worry about me. His love for me led him to think that, if I persisted in my objections to meat-eating, I should not only develop a weak constitution, but should remain a duffer, because I should never feel at home in English society. When he came to know that I had begun to interest myself in books on vegetarianism, he was afraid lest these studies should muddle my head; that I should fritter my life away in experiments, forgetting my own work, and become a crank. He therefore made one last effort to reform me. He one day invited me to go to the theatre. Before the play we were to dine together at the Holborn Restaurant, to me a palatial place and the first big restaurant I had been to since leaving the Victoria Hotel. The stay at that hotel had scarcely been a helpful experience, for I had not lived there with my wits about me. The friend had planned to take me to this restaurant evidently imagining that modesty would forbid any questions. And it was a very big company of diners in the midst of which my friend and I sat sharing a table between us. The first course was soup. I wondered what it might be made of, but durst not ask the friend about it. I therefore summoned the waiter. My friend saw the movement and sternly asked across the table what was the matter. With considerable hesitation I told him that I wanted to inquire if the soup was a vegetable soup. ‘You are too clumsy for decent society,’ he passionately exclaimed ‘If you cannot behave yourself, you had better go. Feed in some other restaurant and await me outside.’ This delighted me. Out I went. There was a vegetarian restaurant close by, but it was closed. So I went without food that night. I accompanied my friend to the theatre, but he never said a word about the scene I had created. On my part of course there was nothing to say.

Full post as published by Animal Blawg on December 11, 2007 (boomark / email).