Magistrate retracts beef decree amid opposition from citizens, orgs, political parties

Staff Reporter

ITANAGAR, 15 Jul: After the people of the state reacted angrily to the order issued by the Naharlagun executive magistrate, banning the use of the word ‘beef’ on the signboards of hotels and restaurants in Naharlagun township area, the same magistrate on Friday retracted the order.

The magistrate issued a fresh order, stating that the earlier order, which had barred the use of the word ‘beef’, has been “kept in abeyance till further order.”

The magistrate claimed that he has received “representations from various quarters regarding the order, and in view of reports of compliance reports of quoted order, No EAC/NLG/JUD-02/2021, is being kept in abeyance till further order.”

On Thursday, Naharlagun Magistrate Tamo Dada in his order claimed that the word ‘beef’ on the signboards of hotels and restaurants “may hurt the sentiments of some sections of the community and may create animosity between different groups.”

As soon as the order went viral on social media, the citizens of the state vented their anger and said that it was a needless order. The Arunachal Chamber of Commerce & Industry (ACCI) termed it unprecedented and unwelcome.

“We totally condemn and reject this order. On what basis did the magistrate pass this order?” said ACCI secretary-general Toko Tatung. He said that the majority of Hindu businessmen operating in the ICR did not raise any issue regarding the word ‘beef’ used in the restaurants.

“There are many Hindu businessmen working closely with us. We spoke to them and nobody has raised any such concern. In fact, many see this move as an attempt to paint them in the wrong way,” he added.

Further, he said that the business community is still struggling to recover from the effect of the Covid lockdown, and that such a controversial order will hurt their efforts to recover.

“As a business group, we reject this attempt to interfere in our affairs using religious sentiment as a tool. Such a thing should not come up in Arunachal. We are a tolerant, secular, and peace-loving state. This is a non-issue,” said Tatung.

 The state unit of the National People’s Party (NPP) alleged that the order had been issued “with the intention of evoking unrest, contrary to its claim of appeasing sentiments.”

“It looks like it is done with an intention to create a stir of dissent among the indigenous and other faiths, rather than maintaining peaceful existence amongst the various faiths. The intentions reek of intentional public stir to show themselves close to some vested interest,” the NPP stated.

The Arunachal Pradesh Youth Congress (APYC) also criticised the order issued by the magistrate, and asked the authority concerned to revoke the order.

“It is well known to everyone that Arunachal Pradesh has citizens who have been consuming beef since time immemorial and are in the practice of visiting beef restaurants and hotels for decades, and this has never hurt the sentiments of anyone or any community,” APYC president Tarh Johny stated in a release.

“In fact, the sudden and surprising order of the executive magistrate has created restlessness in the minds of different groups of people in the state, especially in the capital region. The word ‘secularism’ has nothing in relation to writing ‘beef’ on the signboards of such restaurants and hotels. The order has created chaos in the minds of different people,” he said.

“Being in a tribal and beef-consuming state and being responsible leaders of a very sensitive state, we urge the office of the executive magistrate to reconsider the order passed on 13 July, ordering the removal of the signboards of restaurants and hotels having the word ‘beef’ on them, to avoid any kind of communal or religions conflicts in coming days,” the APYC said.

Johny termed the order a “misuse of magisterial power and internal injection of RSS agenda.”

Meanwhile, a top government official told this daily that the magistrate acted on his own, and that the state government had nothing to do with it.

“The magistrate should have ideally consulted with senior officials before passing such a sensitive order,” the official said.