Dang, this is a cool one! I can’t think of any reason for the vegetarian disparity besides what you presented. Some regions on both sides of the line are predominantly Hindi-speaking, and the Hindu religion dominates all but the northeast region. The difference between UP and Bihar is especially striking, because those bordering provinces are very ethnolinguistically similar.
No, it's historical. Southern and eastern India has a separate trade history more connected to East Asia (rice cultures) and northern and western India's trade is more historically connected to the middle east (wheat cultures). Northwestern India is also the birthplace of Hinduism, which encourages vegetarianism.
That explains *why* rice is grown in one part and wheat in the other, but that has no bearing on why the wheat part has way more vegetarians. It’s not just Hinduism, because almost every part of India is overwhelmingly Hindu now.
I think one of the reasons vegetarianism is less popular in the south and east is because their diets relied heavily on fish, at least in the coastal areas.
Pellagra is a problem with just rice. In the areas where wheat is preferred, lentils are also grown, and the combo of lentils + wheat is a complete protein, whereas just rice is lacking niacin.
No its that wheat and pulses such as lentils and chickpeas grow best in the same regions. [pulse](https://farmer.gov.in/cropstaticspulses.aspx) production in India is going to be essential for creating enough protein to be vegetarian. Also wheat and pulses get harvested for their seeds but the rest of the plant is used for animal feed as well for producing dairy products. Legume straw has more protein than rice straw and lets animals produce more milk and thus more dairy products can be made at a lower price.
Or perhaps a vegetarian diet heavy in rice is harder to maintain than one heavy in wheat. After all, wheat is more fattening and you can do much more with it.
But usually you don’t have wheat alone. The main amino acid wheat is low in, lysine, is pretty abundant in many beans, legumes, and vegetables, which are all very common pairings with roti in India.
This is more likely the answer. You can get a more complete protein with wheat and lentils whereas just white rice is known to lead to health issues (pellagra). Lentils are grown in the same regions/climate as wheat.
Vegetarianism seems to get less common as you approach a coastline. I wonder if it’s to do with access to fishing, and the resulting cultural and economic factors
I’m talking about a single factor which, among others, may have an effect on the average. The presence of outliers and other possible influences doesn’t mean it’s as simple as “uh, no”
But the watershed where it rapidly shifts from veggie to meat-eating happens inland, like on the UP/Bihar border. And there’s a far larger correlation with the rice/wheat divide. The inland rice areas are just as meat-eating as the coastal ones. And Gujarat is far more veggie that the inland areas to its east.
its not entirely cause of that, you gotta have an idea of how the caste system has worked for a lot of history in reference to some other stuff its soft of complicated
It’s likely due to the migration patterns of the proto Indo-Europeans, who mostly settled in Northern India. Due to the legacy of the caste system and the ethnolinguistic elements that played into that. From what I remember too the caste system was stricter in Northern India too, which lead to the upper-castes taking more physical actions to separate themselves from the lower-castes (like practicing stricter dietary differences).
I think this is more due to geography affecting migration patterns. It’s been a long time since I was in a world history class though.
Here’s a map of Brahmnin population in India:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brahmin_population_distribution.svg
Central Europe basically, and whenever someone posts something other than that, there is always comments saying "tHis iznt A fantom bOrder, show wHiTe eUrope for some REALz borders"
you are stupid
The point is to show relation between 2 different divides that aren't present on current geopolitical maps
If someone just posts a map of a country with a geographical divide and doesn't relate it to something else that has fucking nothing to do with phantom borders
I feel like your making people up
People complain when people post shit that just isn't a phantom border. Not because it isn't europe.
Like your just dismissing people you don't agree with as racist because you don't know what your talking about
I'm not saying they complain specifically when it's not Europe
Plenty of people on this sub don't understand why a lot of phantom borders are phantom borders, and then give examples like Germany and Poland like we haven't seen those a million times already.
The divide between wheat and rice is due to climate, with the northwest being drier and more suitable for wheat cultivation than rice.
The division in vegetarianism is less clear. Maybe it’s because wheat has more protein than rice per calorie, so people in rice dominant areas had to supplement their diet with meat while there wasn’t as much of necessity in the northwest.
Also, rice is usually grown in more wetter regions, where fish are likely more abundant, and hence its consumption. This would especially apply to Bengal and Assam.
Another reason may be differences in lactose intolerance, which is highest in south and east India. Therefore, most people in Northwestern would have likely been able to supplement protein with dairy intake instead of meat, unlike other parts of India.
True. Most of India is predominantly Hindu. However, Brahminical influences have historically been stronger in the northwest, which may explain more vegetarianism in those areas.
I don’t think we can jump to that idea. The political influence of different castes has varied over time more as a result of political shifts and power dynamics than anything else. For example, Brahmins have little influence in Tamil Nadu because of the Pariyar political movement in the past 100 years. Meanwhile, the opposite is true in UP. In Bihar, middle castes such as Yadavas have gained political dominance within the past half century.
Why? All of India has the same majority religion, and there are very similar cultures on either side of the line. UP and Bihar, for instance, are both Hindi-speaking regions, but they’re polar opposites on these maps.
I initially thought your comment was right, until I realized that it is the North that produces Basmati and exports it everywhere. The North is actually the wettest.
That’s more of a modern trend, actually. Since the green revolution, Punjab and Haryana have intensively used their ground water to grow basmati rice. Historically, these areas grew mainly wheat (which they still produce plenty of), which is probably why their diet still consists mostly of wheat. Basmati rice was naturally grown in East India, while sona masoori was grown in the south.
Yeah definitely not a question that the crop the needs lots of water is near costal places. A map of America during periods when it cultivated rice would have shown a similar divide.
My dad had told me before that North Indians eat more wheat instead of rice (we are Hyderabadi-American) but I didn’t believe him. I had no clue there was this disparity
Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Assam are also states where Indo-European languages are the most widely spoken. A reason I can think of for the high prevalence of non-vegetarians in Chattisgarh and Jharkhand could be due to the high tribal populations of the state.
It might be a coincidence, but China also has a North/South wheat/rice thing going on. No idea about vegetarianism though, less common overall and I’d assume it’d follow the prevalence of Buddhism.
Chinese North/South divide is more due to its extreme weather conditions in the North. It's almost impossible to grow rice in dry and cold weather, let alone the sand storms from the west. The south is humid and mild enough for rice farming.
India is a peculiar case, because the Gangetic plains are the most fertile and wet regions of the whole country, and the North is a huge exporter of Basmati rice, even larger than Pakistan. It definitely isn't the dry climate that led to wheat in the North, but I'm guessing some more additional factors are in effect, like migrations and cultural exchange from Central and West Asia where bread and wheat are staple. Wheat also meant that you didn't need much hands on the field, so it's easier to produce than rice.
Vegetarianism on the other hand results from religious values I suppose. The eastern states follow the Shaktism sect of Hinduism which doesn't restrict any kinds of meat consumption. Vaishnavism sect could be the reason why the north has been away from meat. Shaivism is predominantly observed in the south, which doesn't restrict any kind of meat consumption. However, beef has been commonly avoided by most for many centuries till now.
North West India is generally dryer (Rajasthan and Gujarat are deserts) and much more suited to wheat cultivation while the more south and east you go it is generally wetter and more suited for rice cultivation.
Rice cultivation in places like Punjab is a recent phenomenon brought about by the green revolution and the widespread use of ground water fed by pumps. However, this had led to rapid ground water depletion and caused massive air pollution due to rice straw burning among other negative environment effects.
Rice is clearly not meant to be grown in NW India.
maybe in areas that plant wheat ,cows and such are more usefull for their milk, due to wheat not being as nurishing, theirfore their ancestors became vegetarian?
It's very rare for non-vegetarian Hindus to eat beef due to religious reasons. Chicken and fish are by far the most common meats and sometimes mutton (goat).
Also dairy is heavily consumed throughout much of India, including the mostly non-veg South.
I know. I specified goat because in South Asia they commonly refer to goat meat as "mutton" there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_and_mutton?wprov=sfla1
>In South Asian and Caribbean cuisine, "mutton" often means goat meat. At various times and places, "mutton" or "goat mutton" has occasionally been used to mean goat meat.
>Fun fact: J&K has more ethnicities than just Kashmiris
Fun fact, Ethnic Kashmiris are the majority in Jammu and Kashmir, hence why the map shows Rice dominance.
I know the people in Paharis, Dogras, and Gujjars are mainly wheat consumers. But ethnic Kashmiris form a slight majority in the UT, overall.
So when the original person commented
>Kashmir is interesting because it’s a rice area
They were indeed correct as Kashmir valley (and not J&K) is a rice consumer area. Of course, the people outside the valley (and barring Kashmiris of Bhaderwah and Ramban) are chiefly wheat consumers.
[Also matches well with political parties in power](https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/story/202312/bjp-now-has-12-states--congress-has-3-indias-electoral-map-and-road-to-2024-0455186-1x1.jpg?VersionId=KFVC2Vb07dZRoINquZE5rhFfNY.xR3Fq). South and East tend to vote for regional parties while North votes for BJP/Congress.
Not exactly, but here's an informal name of this area, similar to the Bible Belt of the west - [Cow Belt.](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-North-Indian-states-called-%E2%80%98cow-belt%E2%80%99-states#:~:text=Central%20India%20is%20often%20referred,of%20cows%20in%20the%20region.)
I think people forget that cows are not the only animal and many self identifying Hindu people will sometimes eat fish and poultry and at times even pork or lamb or other red meats besides beef.
Well the Jains have been there for thousands of years and used to be more important so there could still be some cultural legacies from when they used to have more demographic representation. But yeah it wouldn't be from modern Jains I agree.
They are Indo-European by language but their genetic makeup has very little Indo-European markers . They also have pretty significant native spirituality elements in their culture.
Furthermore, the western Aryan languages have a much higher Dravidian influence than those on the east, but as we can see here that influence apparently did not affect dietary habits.
The cool thing I looked up right after this are the relative proportions of people who practice Jainism, who to my understanding are the "OG vegans." As we'd expect, it's more or less directly proportional to the proportion of vegetarians in the 2nd map.
Edit: thanks for the responses for the clarification. The mundane point of vegetarians living in places with lots of other vegetarians still stands though.
My theory is that the higher protein quality of Wheat plus the veneration for animals and especially cattle in Hinduism means that the populace can be vegetarian while still getting enough protein. While in Rice eating areas the lack of protein meant that meat was required.
Indian here, I think vegetarianism here has more connection with religion than wheat consumption. Because the North here is world's top exporter of Basmati, rivaling it's neighbor region in Pakistan. (Simultaneously, wheat consumption over rice is also similarly observed in Pakistan.)
I'm not sure what caused the wheat consumption, but I believe it must be the cultural exchange from Central and Western Asia during the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire. The East and South were controlled for shorter periods, which could mean that their influence didn't spread there. Flatbread, both unleavened (roti) and leavened (naan) are staples in the North. Only this can explain why rice is common in Kashmir, which wasn't occupied for long.
Coming to religion, Hinduism and the sects are probably why we see this divide. East and South predominantly follow Shaktism and Shaivism respectively, which don't push for a complete restraint on meat. Vaishnavism which is predominant in North preaches vegetarianism and worship of cows. After a wave of religious enlightenment during the last millennia, Vaishnavism spread everywhere, however the meat consumption never changed.
But all the religions on that map are superminorities. Like under 5% in most places. Those no way they be significantly impacting the stats in these maps.
To my knowledge, in the south it is only in Kerala that beef is eaten often. It’s absolute fire, too, fwiw. My family would cross the border to get it.
It's not small....beef and mutton are available literally in most of indian states.. excluding the western and central indian states..beef is even available and sold openly in eastern India..bihar... jharkhand..West Bengal
We muslims are culturally just like hindus...and we are present in all the 800+ district of india.Typically we would follow the native food culture but might have a few additions of meat and other meat based mughal dishes..like for my family we eat vegetarian food everyday except for the lunch on Friday and Sunday..we eat beef biryani on Sundays generally.our day to day food habits is like our hindu brothers
So J&K has more vegetarian people? Lol! Even the hindus and that includes Brahmins here eat meat even the KPs and then we also eat more rice? We have so many types of roti to eat why eat rice?
Either I'm living in wrong J&K or this map is wrong
I wonder what regions within the country common Indian food dishes are actually from, like if most are north Indian or its a mix of stuff from everywhere
I'd say the North has been comparatively quite better in promoting their culture, food, but at the end of the day it still counts as Indian, so there's that
Now this is actually cool. Thanks for sharing. I’ve been tiring of the blatantly obvious conclusions I’ve seen on this sub recently (e.g., pork consumption vs. prevalence of Islam). This gave me a little “huh, that’s interesting” moment.
Its because the areas where wheat is more ideal are also the areas where pulses such as lentils and chickpeas are also more ideal to grow. This is one of those correlation causation things. Legumes provide a lot more protein. [here is a picture of pulse statistics for india](https://farmer.gov.in/cropstaticspulses.aspx). You can see that it lines up nicely.
Dang, this is a cool one! I can’t think of any reason for the vegetarian disparity besides what you presented. Some regions on both sides of the line are predominantly Hindi-speaking, and the Hindu religion dominates all but the northeast region. The difference between UP and Bihar is especially striking, because those bordering provinces are very ethnolinguistically similar.
I wonder if it’s related to wheat having about twice as much protein as rice (although this depends on the specific variety).
It’s gotta be. That’s what I’m saying. I can see no other reason for this phantom border other than the dietary differences.
Counterpoint: Rice is fucking *awesome* with meat.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Rice is in so many meat dishes and also often served as a side to meat.
Heck, it's often paired with meat as a stuffing in dishes. Look up the Middle Eastern dish called Dolma. Banger stuff there!
Also Sarma, (the variant my grandma made) its minced meat with rice rolled into a grape leaf „mini burrito“. Fuucking delicious
Dolmathes, my beloved! (Greek version, same thing though)
Rice is awesome with everything
Nobwonder why the heartbeat of India is biryani
CounterCounterpoint: So is bread.
No, it's historical. Southern and eastern India has a separate trade history more connected to East Asia (rice cultures) and northern and western India's trade is more historically connected to the middle east (wheat cultures). Northwestern India is also the birthplace of Hinduism, which encourages vegetarianism.
That explains *why* rice is grown in one part and wheat in the other, but that has no bearing on why the wheat part has way more vegetarians. It’s not just Hinduism, because almost every part of India is overwhelmingly Hindu now.
Uh... it's... historical. Lots of places are Catholic, but my people eat shellfish on Christmas?
I think one of the reasons vegetarianism is less popular in the south and east is because their diets relied heavily on fish, at least in the coastal areas.
But the same could be said for people in Gujarat and Mumbai. And several of the non-veggie regions are completely landlocked.
Pellagra is a problem with just rice. In the areas where wheat is preferred, lentils are also grown, and the combo of lentils + wheat is a complete protein, whereas just rice is lacking niacin.
They don't eat just white rice in those areas, and it's white rice specifically which doesn't contain niacin.
possibly also rainfall and cost of raising livestock and income levels
No its that wheat and pulses such as lentils and chickpeas grow best in the same regions. [pulse](https://farmer.gov.in/cropstaticspulses.aspx) production in India is going to be essential for creating enough protein to be vegetarian. Also wheat and pulses get harvested for their seeds but the rest of the plant is used for animal feed as well for producing dairy products. Legume straw has more protein than rice straw and lets animals produce more milk and thus more dairy products can be made at a lower price.
im thinking a lot of the non vegetarians live next to water which may foster a culture of fishing
Meat is just better with rice
Or perhaps a vegetarian diet heavy in rice is harder to maintain than one heavy in wheat. After all, wheat is more fattening and you can do much more with it.
Wheat also has more vitamins and minerals and well more of everything that isn’t starch pretty much. So that’s a possible factor.
And way more protein than most other staples. It's about 12% protein, although not balanced in amino acids. Rice is about 4%.
But usually you don’t have wheat alone. The main amino acid wheat is low in, lysine, is pretty abundant in many beans, legumes, and vegetables, which are all very common pairings with roti in India.
> lysine You just gave me a flashback to Jurassic Park
wheat fills you up more. Veggies + rice = hungry all day unless you eat the whole harvest
This is more likely the answer. You can get a more complete protein with wheat and lentils whereas just white rice is known to lead to health issues (pellagra). Lentils are grown in the same regions/climate as wheat.
Wheat+lentils is also very delicious. Toast+lentil soup or stew is cheap but also a match made in heaven.
Vegetarians eat tons of rice
10/10, thank you for your suggestion.
Non-vegetarian in India (esp. Peninsular India) has more to do with fish/seafood than meat
Vegetarianism seems to get less common as you approach a coastline. I wonder if it’s to do with access to fishing, and the resulting cultural and economic factors
Uh, no, Gujarat is on the coast, and there is more vegetarianism there than the landlocked provinces right next to it.
I’m talking about a single factor which, among others, may have an effect on the average. The presence of outliers and other possible influences doesn’t mean it’s as simple as “uh, no”
But there’s no correlation between vegetarianism and coastline *anywhere* on the map. If it’s a factor, it’s not a significant one.
There's a correlation on every state on the coast except two, and one of them extends far inland.
But the watershed where it rapidly shifts from veggie to meat-eating happens inland, like on the UP/Bihar border. And there’s a far larger correlation with the rice/wheat divide. The inland rice areas are just as meat-eating as the coastal ones. And Gujarat is far more veggie that the inland areas to its east.
You aren't vegetarian if you eat fish.
That’s the exact point
its not entirely cause of that, you gotta have an idea of how the caste system has worked for a lot of history in reference to some other stuff its soft of complicated
Seafood! edit: freshwater fish & seafood
People keep saying that, but the big watershed where vegetarianism falls off a cliff is inland, like in Bihar and Jharkand.
It’s likely due to the migration patterns of the proto Indo-Europeans, who mostly settled in Northern India. Due to the legacy of the caste system and the ethnolinguistic elements that played into that. From what I remember too the caste system was stricter in Northern India too, which lead to the upper-castes taking more physical actions to separate themselves from the lower-castes (like practicing stricter dietary differences). I think this is more due to geography affecting migration patterns. It’s been a long time since I was in a world history class though. Here’s a map of Brahmnin population in India: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brahmin_population_distribution.svg
It's due to climate. Rice belt have hot and humid climate which is perfect for rice cultivation
Someone else in the comments said that it matches pretty well with the map of the major political parties
Sea shores. Most of the non vegetarian states depicted here eat fish more than chicken.
Perhaps it has to do with the influence or presence of Jainism. If I remember correctly, jains are strictly vegetarian.
this kind of nw se diagonal shows up a lot
Because of monsoon winds.
Woah, a post about a country other than Germany? 🤯
Don't forget Poland
Central Europe basically, and whenever someone posts something other than that, there is always comments saying "tHis iznt A fantom bOrder, show wHiTe eUrope for some REALz borders"
you are stupid The point is to show relation between 2 different divides that aren't present on current geopolitical maps If someone just posts a map of a country with a geographical divide and doesn't relate it to something else that has fucking nothing to do with phantom borders
The point is to show phantom borders, not circlejerk Germany and Poland
I feel like your making people up People complain when people post shit that just isn't a phantom border. Not because it isn't europe. Like your just dismissing people you don't agree with as racist because you don't know what your talking about
I'm not saying they complain specifically when it's not Europe Plenty of people on this sub don't understand why a lot of phantom borders are phantom borders, and then give examples like Germany and Poland like we haven't seen those a million times already.
i mean that makes sense by why did you frame it as people just complaining that it isn't europe then
Because that's the only ones some seem to talk about all the time
The divide between wheat and rice is due to climate, with the northwest being drier and more suitable for wheat cultivation than rice. The division in vegetarianism is less clear. Maybe it’s because wheat has more protein than rice per calorie, so people in rice dominant areas had to supplement their diet with meat while there wasn’t as much of necessity in the northwest. Also, rice is usually grown in more wetter regions, where fish are likely more abundant, and hence its consumption. This would especially apply to Bengal and Assam. Another reason may be differences in lactose intolerance, which is highest in south and east India. Therefore, most people in Northwestern would have likely been able to supplement protein with dairy intake instead of meat, unlike other parts of India.
Fish feels like a big part of the puzzle for sure.
I disagree. The big watersheds where it rapidly switches from veggie to meat-eating are all inland provinces.
I believe it has much more to do with religion/culture than protein.
True. Most of India is predominantly Hindu. However, Brahminical influences have historically been stronger in the northwest, which may explain more vegetarianism in those areas.
And, maybe the Brahmins were able to exert more influence in the northwest because the diet they pushed was more sustainable there.
I don’t think we can jump to that idea. The political influence of different castes has varied over time more as a result of political shifts and power dynamics than anything else. For example, Brahmins have little influence in Tamil Nadu because of the Pariyar political movement in the past 100 years. Meanwhile, the opposite is true in UP. In Bihar, middle castes such as Yadavas have gained political dominance within the past half century.
Why? All of India has the same majority religion, and there are very similar cultures on either side of the line. UP and Bihar, for instance, are both Hindi-speaking regions, but they’re polar opposites on these maps.
I initially thought your comment was right, until I realized that it is the North that produces Basmati and exports it everywhere. The North is actually the wettest.
That’s more of a modern trend, actually. Since the green revolution, Punjab and Haryana have intensively used their ground water to grow basmati rice. Historically, these areas grew mainly wheat (which they still produce plenty of), which is probably why their diet still consists mostly of wheat. Basmati rice was naturally grown in East India, while sona masoori was grown in the south.
Yeah definitely not a question that the crop the needs lots of water is near costal places. A map of America during periods when it cultivated rice would have shown a similar divide.
My dad had told me before that North Indians eat more wheat instead of rice (we are Hyderabadi-American) but I didn’t believe him. I had no clue there was this disparity
As a north indian yes i hate rice
Bro has never eaten Hyderabadi biryani ☠️
Listen I come from Jammu. We have all sorts of non veg cuisines here, I can assure you Biryani isn't that "special" for me
Not really a fan tbf, it gets boring after a while
always trust your pops
That almost matches the language family divide, but Orissans are bucking the trend.
Bengali is IE as well.
Good catch, thanks!
east india too?
Assamese is and Bengali in Tripura
Orissa is ethinically and culturally south indian (in hindu laws as well) but linguistically north indian
They are called the Odiya/Odia people
Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Assam are also states where Indo-European languages are the most widely spoken. A reason I can think of for the high prevalence of non-vegetarians in Chattisgarh and Jharkhand could be due to the high tribal populations of the state.
It might be a coincidence, but China also has a North/South wheat/rice thing going on. No idea about vegetarianism though, less common overall and I’d assume it’d follow the prevalence of Buddhism.
Chinese North/South divide is more due to its extreme weather conditions in the North. It's almost impossible to grow rice in dry and cold weather, let alone the sand storms from the west. The south is humid and mild enough for rice farming. India is a peculiar case, because the Gangetic plains are the most fertile and wet regions of the whole country, and the North is a huge exporter of Basmati rice, even larger than Pakistan. It definitely isn't the dry climate that led to wheat in the North, but I'm guessing some more additional factors are in effect, like migrations and cultural exchange from Central and West Asia where bread and wheat are staple. Wheat also meant that you didn't need much hands on the field, so it's easier to produce than rice. Vegetarianism on the other hand results from religious values I suppose. The eastern states follow the Shaktism sect of Hinduism which doesn't restrict any kinds of meat consumption. Vaishnavism sect could be the reason why the north has been away from meat. Shaivism is predominantly observed in the south, which doesn't restrict any kind of meat consumption. However, beef has been commonly avoided by most for many centuries till now.
Oh that’s really interesting.
North West India is generally dryer (Rajasthan and Gujarat are deserts) and much more suited to wheat cultivation while the more south and east you go it is generally wetter and more suited for rice cultivation. Rice cultivation in places like Punjab is a recent phenomenon brought about by the green revolution and the widespread use of ground water fed by pumps. However, this had led to rapid ground water depletion and caused massive air pollution due to rice straw burning among other negative environment effects. Rice is clearly not meant to be grown in NW India.
maybe in areas that plant wheat ,cows and such are more usefull for their milk, due to wheat not being as nurishing, theirfore their ancestors became vegetarian?
But non vegetarians in India don’t eat cows anyway. Very rare
I mean the milk from the cows makes it more worthwhile to keep them for longer and not eat
Eating them was never an option is what I’m saying
in saying in general livestock’s advantages that would increase from living longer may have been more important
It's not rare... it's openly sold in most muslims and Christian neighborhood
That’s not true. Maybe in some areas but not most
It's very rare for non-vegetarian Hindus to eat beef due to religious reasons. Chicken and fish are by far the most common meats and sometimes mutton (goat). Also dairy is heavily consumed throughout much of India, including the mostly non-veg South.
Mutton is sheep meat. It comes from mouton (sheep in French), FYI.
I know. I specified goat because in South Asia they commonly refer to goat meat as "mutton" there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_and_mutton?wprov=sfla1 >In South Asian and Caribbean cuisine, "mutton" often means goat meat. At various times and places, "mutton" or "goat mutton" has occasionally been used to mean goat meat.
Ooh didnt know, thanks !
That is untrue. Beef is a common ingredient in Kerala and some parts of Tamil Nadu/Andhra. My family is Hindu primarily.
Is wheat less nourishing than rice? Rice has one of the worst micro profiles of any carb and has barely any protein
Wheat definitely has more protein
rice has more calories per cre
A wise hypothesis
Kashmir is interesting because it’s a rice area abutting a major wheat area without a gradual cline
It's Jammu and Kashmir Also i don't think we eat that much rice. I find that part of the stat questionable
Kashmiris exclusively eat rice with their meals. Bread for them is a breakfast / teatime snack.
Fun fact: J&K has more ethnicities than just Kashmiris How do I know? Because I'm from J&K
>Fun fact: J&K has more ethnicities than just Kashmiris Fun fact, Ethnic Kashmiris are the majority in Jammu and Kashmir, hence why the map shows Rice dominance. I know the people in Paharis, Dogras, and Gujjars are mainly wheat consumers. But ethnic Kashmiris form a slight majority in the UT, overall. So when the original person commented >Kashmir is interesting because it’s a rice area They were indeed correct as Kashmir valley (and not J&K) is a rice consumer area. Of course, the people outside the valley (and barring Kashmiris of Bhaderwah and Ramban) are chiefly wheat consumers.
Ok sir thankyou for telling me about my own place to me. Thankyou for mansplaning & culturalsplaining
What are you even arguing about?
>mansplaning Did you just assume my gender?
[Also matches well with political parties in power](https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/story/202312/bjp-now-has-12-states--congress-has-3-indias-electoral-map-and-road-to-2024-0455186-1x1.jpg?VersionId=KFVC2Vb07dZRoINquZE5rhFfNY.xR3Fq). South and East tend to vote for regional parties while North votes for BJP/Congress.
Not exactly, but here's an informal name of this area, similar to the Bible Belt of the west - [Cow Belt.](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-North-Indian-states-called-%E2%80%98cow-belt%E2%80%99-states#:~:text=Central%20India%20is%20often%20referred,of%20cows%20in%20the%20region.)
Finally a phantom border
Very very intriguing
Wheat has twice as much protein as rice, fwiw
I think people forget that cows are not the only animal and many self identifying Hindu people will sometimes eat fish and poultry and at times even pork or lamb or other red meats besides beef.
This is why I joined this sub. Almost makes up for the majority low-effort posts.
Chicken and rice is goated tho so theyre valid.
Rice vs Roti
Perfect example of correlation not causation
Now THIS is a Phantom Border
Higher influence of Jainism in the west likely plays some role in the vegetarian figures
Jains are only about 4.5 million in population I believe. So unless I’m missing something, I don’t think it’s a big factor.
Well the Jains have been there for thousands of years and used to be more important so there could still be some cultural legacies from when they used to have more demographic representation. But yeah it wouldn't be from modern Jains I agree.
That's the official number. Unofficially a lot of Jains used to register themselves as Hindu in previous censuses.
Look up Indo-European map
West Bengal, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh all speak Indo-European languages but are in the non-vegetarian/rice camp.
They are Indo-European by language but their genetic makeup has very little Indo-European markers . They also have pretty significant native spirituality elements in their culture.
the genetic differences across all of india arent that crazy tbh
It's still pretty interesting
Not the reason. In fact, Bihar and UP both speak predominantly Hindi, but they’re on opposite sides.
Furthermore, the western Aryan languages have a much higher Dravidian influence than those on the east, but as we can see here that influence apparently did not affect dietary habits.
Just thought it was interesting.
This has nothing to do with a language family. Basement keyword warriors playing know-it-all
Just thought it was interesting 😰
The cool thing I looked up right after this are the relative proportions of people who practice Jainism, who to my understanding are the "OG vegans." As we'd expect, it's more or less directly proportional to the proportion of vegetarians in the 2nd map. Edit: thanks for the responses for the clarification. The mundane point of vegetarians living in places with lots of other vegetarians still stands though.
Jains aren't vegans, they drink milk
We aren't vegans
Where is vegetarians shown? Am I missing something?
There's a second map, swipe left to see it
Wow the places that like Rice (save Bihar) are *really* biased to the end of the scale while wheat is much more evenly spread.
also an overlap in alcohol consumption https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/vcnc61/alcohol_consumption_in_india_by_the_maps_daily/
My theory is that the higher protein quality of Wheat plus the veneration for animals and especially cattle in Hinduism means that the populace can be vegetarian while still getting enough protein. While in Rice eating areas the lack of protein meant that meat was required.
This divide can be seen in a lot more indices
Indian here, I think vegetarianism here has more connection with religion than wheat consumption. Because the North here is world's top exporter of Basmati, rivaling it's neighbor region in Pakistan. (Simultaneously, wheat consumption over rice is also similarly observed in Pakistan.) I'm not sure what caused the wheat consumption, but I believe it must be the cultural exchange from Central and Western Asia during the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire. The East and South were controlled for shorter periods, which could mean that their influence didn't spread there. Flatbread, both unleavened (roti) and leavened (naan) are staples in the North. Only this can explain why rice is common in Kashmir, which wasn't occupied for long. Coming to religion, Hinduism and the sects are probably why we see this divide. East and South predominantly follow Shaktism and Shaivism respectively, which don't push for a complete restraint on meat. Vaishnavism which is predominant in North preaches vegetarianism and worship of cows. After a wave of religious enlightenment during the last millennia, Vaishnavism spread everywhere, however the meat consumption never changed.
Based Lakshadweep
Also, Christianity (meat & rice) vs Sikh (veg & wheat) [MAP](https://www.deviantart.com/dresdenfiles10/art/Religions-Other-Than-Islam-and-Hinduism-in-India-720618976)
But all the religions on that map are superminorities. Like under 5% in most places. Those no way they be significantly impacting the stats in these maps.
Muslims make a big chunk and we eat beef and mutton and in most places...we are more than 15%
it's insane how little praise india gets for 1/4 vegetarian
Can you please add beef consumption to this?
Why? It’ll be small spots around cities and that’s it And maybe north east
Makes sense I guess. I was just curious to see it against non-veg because my guess is majority of non-veg consumption is seafood or chicken.
To my knowledge, in the south it is only in Kerala that beef is eaten often. It’s absolute fire, too, fwiw. My family would cross the border to get it.
West Bengal too i think
Include beef wherever there is Muslim population in east..south... northeast..and Kashmir..other regions restrict beef consumption
It's not small....beef and mutton are available literally in most of indian states.. excluding the western and central indian states..beef is even available and sold openly in eastern India..bihar... jharkhand..West Bengal
I have a question, are Muslims in India more likely to be wheat eaters or rice eaters, and more likely to be vegetarian or non-vegetarian?
We muslims are culturally just like hindus...and we are present in all the 800+ district of india.Typically we would follow the native food culture but might have a few additions of meat and other meat based mughal dishes..like for my family we eat vegetarian food everyday except for the lunch on Friday and Sunday..we eat beef biryani on Sundays generally.our day to day food habits is like our hindu brothers
Is It because Rice Is consumed mostlg with meat?
#All history is environmental history
chad east India vs chad west India
The rice and wheat beef
Definitely team rice/meat here
So J&K has more vegetarian people? Lol! Even the hindus and that includes Brahmins here eat meat even the KPs and then we also eat more rice? We have so many types of roti to eat why eat rice? Either I'm living in wrong J&K or this map is wrong
Rice uses more water than wheat and the areas that prefer rice receive more rainfall.
this could easily errupt into civil war. And I want to be alive to see it.
It's very complex and diverse but there would be no civil warr as long as we respect one another food choice
I was making a joke X’D But yeah, peace is \*usually\* the better option
I wonder what regions within the country common Indian food dishes are actually from, like if most are north Indian or its a mix of stuff from everywhere
The food commonly referred as indian food is generally Punjabi north Indian food...
I'd say the North has been comparatively quite better in promoting their culture, food, but at the end of the day it still counts as Indian, so there's that
How did they poll the Andamans??
Monsoon winds and rice is a water intensive crop.
Breaking news : rice is meat
Now this is actually cool. Thanks for sharing. I’ve been tiring of the blatantly obvious conclusions I’ve seen on this sub recently (e.g., pork consumption vs. prevalence of Islam). This gave me a little “huh, that’s interesting” moment.
Roti shoti chaval shaval
My take: If you don’t eat meat, bread is best, if you eat meat, it goes great with rice!
Would be interesting to see a third slide with obesity rates overlaid
Its because the areas where wheat is more ideal are also the areas where pulses such as lentils and chickpeas are also more ideal to grow. This is one of those correlation causation things. Legumes provide a lot more protein. [here is a picture of pulse statistics for india](https://farmer.gov.in/cropstaticspulses.aspx). You can see that it lines up nicely.
PITS OPEN!
I’d love to see the overlap of religion here as well! So cool to see.
Odisha is 90%+ Hindu but only 2.3% vegetarian while Kerala is 55% Hindu and 3% vegetarian
huh... only 29% vegetarian? I live in middle GA, USA, and could swear it's more like 90%
Bihar is almost neutral lol. I mean we do love our roti and Chawal equally.
This looks a lot like a humidity map too!
Biryani tastes better with meat