After The Guardian, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), another representative of Western media, criticized the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand for implementing strict penalties for food contamination, including incidents involving spitting.
The BBC and other Western outlets seem to oppose the rule requiring restaurant staff of all religions—Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and others—to display their real names, allowing customers to know who is preparing their food. They seem to expect Indians, particularly Hindus, to prioritize secular values over hygiene and health.
Image via iStock/Business Standard/India Today
In an article titled, “India states’ plans to punish spitting in food spark controversy,” published on October 28, the BBC condemned the BJP for its efforts to ensure food safety. The article referenced the findings of Alt News, run by Mohammed Zubair, to suggest that Muslims are being unfairly blamed, citing one instance involving a maid accused of contaminating dough. The BBC highlighted this isolated case to counter widespread incidents where contamination was reported, dismissing credible complaints in what could be viewed as an effort to downplay such concerns.
Echoing arguments from opposition groups and segments of the Indian media, the BBC article offered little in terms of data or proof. Ironically, the piece underscored the importance of food safety—a major issue in India—while portraying the regulation negatively.
The Uttar Pradesh government enacted this decision following repeated conflicts between Hindu pilgrims and Muslim vendors, addressing both public safety and the religious sentiments of devotees. Although the article critiqued the policy, it unintentionally emphasized the government's intent to prevent anti-social or unlawful activities by verifying identities, thus fostering communal harmony and public well-being.
What did the piece add?
The piece added, “The government directives followed the circulation of unverified videos on social media showing vendors spitting on food at local stalls and restaurants – and one video depicting a house-help mixing urine into the food she was preparing. While the videos sparked outrage among users, with many expressing concern about food safety in these states, some of the videos also became the subject of blame campaigns targeting Muslims, which were later debunked by fact-checking websites. They pointed out that many on social media had alleged that the woman adding urine to food was Muslim, but police later identified her as a Hindu.”
“Officials say strict laws are necessary and are aimed at deterring people from indulging in unhygienic practices around food, but opposition leaders and legal experts have questioned the efficacy of these laws and allege that they could also be misused to vilify a specific community. The Indian Express newspaper criticised the ordinances proposed by Uttar Pradesh state, saying that they ‘act as a communal (sectarian) dog whistle that preys on the majority’s notions of purity and pollution and targets an already insecure minority’,” the article suggests that this directive could be less about ensuring safe food for consumers and more about reinforcing prejudice against a specific group.
The BBC echoed rhetoric from the opposition and liberal segments of the Indian media, yet, like them, offered no data or evidence to substantiate its claims. The article went on to emphasize the importance of food safety as a critical issue in India, underscoring the need to provide consumers with safe and hygienic food. “Food and food habits are sensitive subjects in culturally diverse India as they are deeply intertwined with religion and the country’s hierarchical caste system. Norms and taboos around food sometimes lead to clashes between communities, sparking feelings of distrust. Consequently, the notion of ‘food safety’ has also become entangled with religion, which is sometimes used to ascribe motive to alleged incidents of contamination.”
The piece then mentioned, “Food safety is also a major concern in India, with the Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSAI) estimating that unsafe food causes around 600 million infections and 400,000 deaths annually. Experts cite various reasons for poor food safety in India, including inadequate enforcement of food safety laws and a lack of awareness. Cramped kitchens, dirty utensils, contaminated water, and improper transport and storage practices further compromise food safety. So, when videos of vendors spitting on food came out, people were shocked and outraged. Soon after, Uttarakhand announced hefty fines on offenders and made it mandatory for police to verify hotel staff and for CCTVs to be installed in the kitchen.”
“In Uttar Pradesh, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said to stop such incidents, police should verify every employee. The state also plans to make it mandatory for food centres to display the names of their owners, for cooks and waiters to wear masks and gloves and for CCTVs to be installed in hotels and restaurants. According to reports, Adityanath is planning to bring in two ordinances that will penalise spitting in food with imprisonment for up to 10 years,” it highlighted the legislation implemented by both governments to ensure food safety.
It also highlighted that the Supreme Court of India prohibited the enforcement of the order and declared, “In July, India’s Supreme Court had stayed directives issued by the Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh governments asking people running food stalls along the route of Kanwar yatra – an annual Hindu pilgrimage – to prominently display the names and other identity details of their owners. Petitioners told the top court that the directives unfairly targeted Muslims and would negatively impact their businesses.”
The BBC attempted to defend the perpetrators, revealing its underlying agenda
The article also highlighted two recent incidents of spitting involving members of the Muslim community. “On Wednesday, police in the state’s Barakanki town arrested restaurant owner Mohammad Irshad for allegedly spitting on a roti (flat bread) while preparing it. Mr Irshad was charged with disturbing peace and religious harmony, the Hindustan Times newspaper reported. Earlier this month, police in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, arrested two men – Naushad Ali and Hasan Ali – for allegedly spitting in a saucepan while making tea, and accused them of causing public outrage and jeopardising health, reported The Hindu.”
Interestingly, the claims suggested that Muslims are now considered to be ‘under attack’ simply because they were caught spitting. “The videos of the men spitting, which found their way onto social media days before they were arrested, were given a religious spin after many Hindu nationalist accounts began calling them incidents of ‘thook-jihad’ or ‘spit-jihad.’ The term is a spin on ‘love-jihad‘ which has been coined by radical Hindu groups, who use it to accuse Muslim men of converting Hindu women by marriage. By extension, ‘thook-jihad’ accuses Muslims of trying to defile Hindus by spitting in their food.”
To begin with, there is a significant history of incidents involving Muslims spitting or urinating in food intended for others, making it difficult to dismiss the previously mentioned occurrences as isolated. The public outrage only emerged after numerous such incidents were reported across India, not just in two states. For instance, last month, a man named Chand was seen spitting on rotis being prepared for customers at a dhaba in Noida. Additionally, Muhammad Zaid was recorded spitting on his client, Pandit Ashish Kumar's face, during a salon visit in June, highlighting how spit can even be used as a cosmetic element. Moreover, when it isn't about spitting, there are instances of disrespecting Hindu sentiments in other ways, as demonstrated by Tanver, who sold chicken biryani to devotees returning from Haridwar, falsely claiming it was vegetarian.
The so-called "radical Hindu groups" do not instruct members of the Muslim community to contaminate food and drinks, just as they never encourage them to conceal their identities in order to trap, abuse, and forcibly convert Hindu girls to Islam, which can tragically end the victims' lives. Terms like ‘thook-jihad’ or ‘love jihad’ have emerged as a response to these cases that have come to light in various regions of India over the years. The BBC has deliberately sought to undermine the reality of these tragedies, suggesting they are mere fabrications of a notorious Hindu imagination, thus downplaying the very real and serious events that continue to impact thousands of lives.
“This is not the first time that the Muslim community has become the target of spitting accusations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of fake videos showing Muslims spitting, sneezing or licking objects to infect people with the virus went viral on social media. The videos heightened religious polarisation, with Hindu hardline accounts posting anti-Muslim rhetoric,” the article subsequently attempts to counter the documented instances of Muslims, particularly members of the Tablighi Jamaat, who significantly contributed to the spread of the pandemic. They not only disregarded the stringent measures implemented but also evaded authorities and concealed themselves in various locations across the country. In some cases, they even harassed hospital personnel where they were being treated. Additionally, many Muslims publicly proclaimed that COVID-19 was sent by Allah, referring to it as “Allah’s NRC” (National Register of Citizens).
The article then included a comment from a Uttarakhand government official and noted “But Manish Sayana, a food safety officer in Uttarakhand, says the government’s orders are solely aimed at making food safe for consumption. He told the BBC that the food safety officers and the police have started conducting surprise checks at eateries and that they ‘urge people to wear masks and gloves and install CCTVs’ wherever they go for checks.”
“Legal expert and journalist V Venkatesan says there is a need for new ordinances and laws around food safety to be properly debated on the assembly floor,” the piece stated and quoted him, “According to me, the existing laws (under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006) are sufficient to take care of any offences connected to food safety. So, one needs to ask why the a need for these new laws and directives. Governments seem to think that laws prescribing harsh punishments will deter people from committing crimes, but research has shown that it is the proper implementation of laws that deter people from committing crimes. So, have the existing laws not been properly implemented in these states yet?”
BBC's campaign of hostility towards Hindus and India
The BBC has gained a reputation for its biased coverage of India and its negative portrayal of the Hindu community. The media outlet often claims that "minorities are under attack in India," as highlighted in the article mentioned earlier, while downplaying the systematic attacks on minorities, particularly Hindus, by Islamists in Bangladesh. Additionally, the BBC has propagated narratives against the Ram Mandir and attempted to justify its highly partisan reporting on the subject. Known for its animosity toward Prime Minister Narendra Modi and “Hindutva,” the BBC has also not hesitated to spread misinformation regarding the anti-Hindu incidents in Leicester.
To summarize
The BBC notably suggested that the rule applied solely to Muslims, when in fact it affected all communities. Furthermore, the report neglected to explore why Muslims prefer not to operate their eateries under their actual names. Are they hiding something? If Muslims can prioritize halal food and products as part of their basic freedoms and rights, why aren’t Hindus afforded the same opportunity to choose where they buy their food? Why should they be subjected to deceit and subterfuge to uphold ‘secularism’ in the nation? Why must Hindus bear the burden of secularism alone?
Western media outlets that adhere to strict food safety standards seem disinclined to allow these two states to do the same, as it would conflict with their anti-India narrative and their ongoing portrayal of the country’s second-largest community as a vulnerable minority, regardless of the actual circumstances. Are they inadvertently exposing their favored community by suggesting that they could face legal repercussions for frequently engaging in such practices? More importantly, is the author willing to consume food from such an establishment and risk her own health and hygiene to promote the ‘secularism’ she expects the Hindu community to embrace?
Comments