How accommodating should the public be of the private and personal? When do personal benefit and preference hinder the public? Who’s needs and requirements are more important and how is that decided?
Food is food is certainly a very simplistic and indeed increasingly privileged statement to make. Food is what can be afforded, what can be depended upon for sustenance at the end of the day, it’s not just what is preferred or chosen but certainly doesn’t exclude that.
Last Sunday, a incident occurred in the new dh around 9:30pm between certain IFMR individuals and the caterers of the Cravoury eating joint. Things escalated when a piece of chicken was found in the vegetarian order of the customer. Things escalated verbally and efforts were even made to physically shut the establishment down. Order was maintained by the administration by having residence manager Susnata intervene and have the joint closed until further notice to cool tempers, certain tempers only. The student government was inevitably roped in and the food committee took to reaching common ground with the parties involved (so to speak).
To say the manner in which the situation was handled was utterly distasteful of a liberal arts university setting would be a grave disservice. Why was the establishment closed, “intermediary step” is irrelevant. How can a few individuals be given preference over the entire (or close to entire) campus that avails the services from that food joint. How can the disrespect and blatant disregard for the workers manning the joint be tolerated, what is the precedent being set, precedent as this hasn’t been the first occurrence of such a transgression.
“Brahmanical Purity”, “Jai Shree Ram stuff”, these phrases aren’t baseless. Caste and indeed religion has very much entered conversation if such an uproar is created for a simple mistake. Shutting down food joints, demanding separate counters for veg and non veg food, reeks of casteism and a purity mindset, there is simply no other way to view this, and to do so would be a show of complete ignorance if not apathy.
The townhall yesterday, the first of the newly elected Student Government (2024-25), highlighted just how distorted the dynamics of power and authority are in this unnecessary mess. Authority lying very evidently with the students who shut down Cravoury. If the matter was urgent enough, the governments of both schools would have acted together in collaboration and hauled up the offenders, not used the excuses of placements and hectic schedules (end term and break) to postpone the matter to the following trimester. If the matter were urgent enough there wouldn’t have been an indecisive shut of the food joint and a form presenting alternative eating joints and leaving the matter upto the student body. If the matter were serious enough more thought would have been given and reflected on the sheer disrespect of the students code of conduct that is to be signed by students before setting foot at KREA, workers’ laws in place and the precarity such shutdowns put on the economic condition of these workers.
If it can be acknowledged that this has been done before, why is the casual nature to let it be repeated? This doesn’t require referrals from the previous student government, this requires basic empathy and firmness against sensitive egos. Few individuals and groups being given a free pass on their crass behaviour is far from fair and far from liberal! There lies little use in engaging with critical thought in our classes and courses if we are mere bystanders when we see applications of disparity and hierarchy in our shared living spaces.
We now find Copamocha serving non vegetarian but using separate counters for veg and non veg, while Cravoury remains shut.
Segregation of food, imposing preferences, lovely. This is about food, caste, security and privilege. The voice and convenience of students and workers on this campus is of paramount importance, nothing and certainly no one should alter that.
Comentários