I clearly agree that property owners can set their own criteria for who they want in their home/land/property or not. Which is why I said that I am questioning whether it is property ownership that makes people conservative (protecting the sanctity of property by not allowing non-veg to be cooked) or whether the conservative attitudes of society add on to the attitudes of property owners. And I repeat that I am a property owner myself, and it is likely that if I had certain world views, I would also set limitations on who can use my property and in what ways. My problems are the following:
1). Stereotyping - that if your name is so and so, then you are more likely to be non-veg than veg. This completely shuts off the possibility of any kind of engagement/interaction which is precisely what is required for creating an open society. 2). Where is this sanctity of property coming from - that if I cook meat or my friends bring non-veg home, then it violates the purity of my property and of my ancestoral traditions? Is property frozen in tradition? Brokers and agents clearly tell us, "you eat outside but don't cook at home". Does that not violate sanctity of property? Moreover, eating pesticide laden vegetables is as ecologically damaging and kills lives of bacteria, worms and insects in the process of growing more veggies and catering to the needs of the market. Also, I do not necessarily agree that cooking non-veg gives foul smell. For that matter, when the neighbours and folks from opposite building cook sambhar, I get the odour. There are ways of cooking non-veg. The smell argument is what most people have given to me and even Bengalis are discriminated in the rental markets on the smell issue. 3). If the market is so biased towards vegetarian tenants, then where is the freedom of choice? Can I not have the choice to choose my own preferences just because I won't get a house for choosing to be single/non-veg/hippie, etc etc? I disagree with the fact that only a competitive market will resolve these deep seated prejudices. But then I am not advocating for more regulations. That is an even more terrible thing to do. Deepa, we are all marginalized at various points in time. But then this is also a strength - it allows for more understanding! Now I know how people feel when they are discriminated against on the lines of religion, gender, caste, etc. On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Sumant Srivathsan <[email protected]>wrote: > > But I don't think people can directly question you on those two for > renting out houses. It's not like they > are giving stuff for free. > > If I own a house, I can set my own criteria for choosing a tenant. For > better or for worse, these criteria are always discriminatory on some count > or the other. But when it comes to picking someone over an equally > appropriate alternate, the choice comes down to the intangibles of how one > feels/relates to the potential tenants. If religion, eating habits, marital > status or length of hair is the consideration, so be it. A marketplace with > alternatives should sort it out easily enough. > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Zainab Bawa <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Property owners have every right to ask such questions. But then, are > > these questions being asked from a very purist perspective of disrupting > > the sanctity of property by cooking 'non-veg'? Does property ownership > make > > us conservative or is it the trends in society that add to the > > conservativeness? I am asking myself all these questions. There are also > > fundamental issues of freedom of choice that I feel are involved here. In > > some cases, I feel scared to even say my name because the moment people > hear > > my name, they say no non-veg when in reality I am vegetarian for health > > purposes and because of my political problem with the poultry industry > which > > is very unhealthy. Processed/factory meat is as terrible as pesticide > laden > > vegetables! > > > > My experience is that the social aspects of apartment living contribute > significantly to the no non-veg, no Muslims, no bachelors rules. The first > is simply because vegetarians are far more intolerant of the smells > associated with cooking meat, and homeowners are loath to deal with the > complaints that come from it, and the complaints are many. My mother's > tenant is non-vegetarian, and the people who live upstairs call her twice a > week to whine about the smell of fish. My mother is hardcore veggie, but > it's a credit to her fortitude that she ignores them and doesn't bother our > very nice tenants (who make a most excellent Chettinad meen curry). > > I find the no Muslims rule disgusting, and as you say, it's a result of > preconceived notions about what Muslims do at home, many of which are > absurd > and ignorant. In some parts of Bombay, they won't let the Muslims in simply > because of communal sensitivities. Some apartment complexes in Mahim are > quite aggressive about this, and are supported by the Shiv Sena and their > associate hoodlums. OTOH, many societies will actively prefer Catholic (or > the more secular ones, just Christian) tenants. We're an equal-opportunity > discriminatory society. > > -- > Sumant Srivathsan > http://sumants.blogspot.com > -- Zainab Bawa Ph.D. Student and Independent Researcher Between Places ... http://wbfs.wordpress.com
