Naga Scholars Association organised an online panel on Naga food, exploring stigma, identity, culture and national perceptions.
Share
DIMAPUR — The Naga Scholars Association organised an online panel discussion on September 27 on the topic ‘The circulation of Naga food and national anxiety’.
According to an update, the panel was chaired by Dr. Shelmi Sankhil of Dr. BR Ambedkar University. Krishnendu Ray, director of the Food Studies PhD Programme, New York University, joined as the discussant.
The panellists were Akishe L Jakha, researcher at Sarai, CSDS, and Pamziuliu Gonmei, doctoral candidate of Cinema Studies, School of Arts and Aesthetics, JNU. Nearly 80 participants attended the event.
Akishe L Jakha began his paper presentation titled “Can’t eat in peace” by recounting the attack on two Nagas for selling non-vegetarian and Northeastern food in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Drawing from this incident, Jakha argued that Nagas experience discrimination against their food culture by “the mainland”, which dishonours both the labour of preparation and the culture itself. He contended that such acts enforce a monolithic food identity and expose intolerance toward diversity.
Also read: Insight Institute of Christian Counselling concludes month-long mental health training
Referring to experiences of Naga tenants facing scrutiny from landlords and neighbours in Munirka, Delhi, he noted that while food is inseparable from identity and collective memory, in urban spaces it becomes a site of contestation, surveillance, and stigma.
Jakha further raised how Nagas are stereotyped as “savages” or “cannibals”, citing a cab driver asking him if Nagas eat people and Debarathi Mukhopadhyay’s 2017 story “Bhoj”, which depicted Nagas as cannibals. He discussed how racism and discrimination manifest through food and its perceptions, including regulatory laws such as the Nagaland state ban on dog meat, which forced Naga students in spaces such as JNU to eat in secret to avoid harassment.
Political debates, such as those between a Tamil Nadu governor and an MLA, also framed Nagas as “uncivilised” for their food practices.
Pamziuliu Gonmei, in her presentation, emphasised the importance of “nuances” in presenting Naga food. She warned of the risk of erasing the unique practices of the different Naga tribes if nuances are overlooked. Expanding on this, she pointed out the dangers of curating, presenting, and privileging only the food practices of a few major tribes when trying to present “Naga food” in the mainstream.
Drawing from her Rongmei community, she highlighted the gendered dimensions, taboos, and superstitions attached to food. She concluded with a proposition for further thinking and writing on issues such as gender, supernatural beliefs, and internal and external conflicts within the Naga context.
Discussant Prof. Ray, responding to Jakha, praised the framing of “can’t eat in peace” as an entry point to the circulation of anxiety and related it to the weaponisation of taste in South Asia, particularly in India, where commensality has historically been marked by caste, race, and violence.
The discussant, Ray, then provided his responses to the two papers that were presented. Responding to Jakha, Ray praised the framing of “can’t eat in peace” as an entry point to the circulation of anxiety and related it to the weaponisation of taste in South Asia, particularly in India, where commensality has historically been marked by caste, race, and violence.
For Gonmei, he emphasised the relationship between food and language, noting how bodily experience transforms into expression, raising questions of authenticity, representation, and the politics of performance. He further linked Naga food practices to broader discussions on heritage-making, appropriation, and pre-national and pre-colonial continuities. He concluded by stating that food is not only a matter of taste but of subject-making, intersubjective relations, and cultural politics.
The Q&A session examined why Naga food faces greater stigma than other cuisines. The panellists and discussant cited disproportionate targeting and racialised perceptions as reasons for this stigmatisation. Other questions addressed exoticisation, patriarchy, and the gendering of food, with Gonmei urging closer attention to these nuances.
The panellists and discussant concluded the event by calling for more academic discussions and writings on the politics and practices of Naga food.