top of page

By:

Amol Deshmukh and Vaibhav Mathkari

5 March 2025 at 11:13:08 pm

Can Maharashtra’s Food Industry Take Civic Responsibility?

The food industry can turn everyday business practices into everyday civic action. AI generated image We all love eating out. Maharashtra’s food culture is inseparable from its identity. From a small vada pav stall to a five-star hotel, and from a family restaurant to a large wedding caterer, food businesses are part of everyday life. What responsibility does a food business have towards the citizen? Is serving tasty food enough? Or should restaurants also minimise food and plastic waste,...

Can Maharashtra’s Food Industry Take Civic Responsibility?

The food industry can turn everyday business practices into everyday civic action. AI generated image We all love eating out. Maharashtra’s food culture is inseparable from its identity. From a small vada pav stall to a five-star hotel, and from a family restaurant to a large wedding caterer, food businesses are part of everyday life. What responsibility does a food business have towards the citizen? Is serving tasty food enough? Or should restaurants also minimise food and plastic waste, maintain clean kitchens, use safe ingredients, manage waste responsibly and avoid traffic problems outside their premises? Several countries are already asking these questions. Japan has made reducing food loss a national priority, bringing businesses, government agencies and citizens together to prevent usable food from becoming waste. France has taken steps to reduce single-use plastics, including plastic drinking-water bottles in collective catering. Singapore requires large commercial premises to segregate and manage food waste. The European Union is also working to reduce unnecessary single-use plastics and promote circular packaging. Maharashtra need not copy them. But they offer one lesson: civic responsibility cannot rest with the government alone. The food industry has a major role to play. What if Maharashtra took up an 11-point challenge? Imagine major hotels, restaurants, caterers and food establishments voluntarily adopting a civic charter. First, reduce food waste. Large kitchens should track daily waste and aim to cut it by 25 per cent and then 50 per cent. Food safe for consumption should, wherever possible and legally appropriate, be redirected for human consumption. The rest should go for composting, biogas or other scientific treatment. Second, reduce unnecessary plastic water bottles. If safe drinking water is available, why automatically give every customer a plastic bottle? Maharashtra can develop a model using glass, steel and refill systems. Third, rethink packaging. Food delivery has created mountains of packaging. Do we really need all this plastic? Reusable, recyclable and genuinely sustainable alternatives should be preferred. Fourth, end open dumping of food waste. Restaurants should not send organic waste to roadside dumping points. Segregation and treatment should be part of commercial food-waste management. Fifth, make healthy choices available. Menus should include lower-salt, lower-sugar and nutritionally balanced options. This is about choice, not telling people what to eat. Sixth, use cooking oil responsibly. Restaurants should record its use and replacement and ensure used oil goes through authorised channels. Food safety and environmental responsibility should go together. Seventh, make kitchen hygiene a culture, not a certificate. The World Health Organization’s principles are simple: keep clean; separate raw and cooked food; cook properly; maintain safe temperatures; and use safe water and raw materials. The challenge is making them daily habits. Eighth, give consumers a voice. A QR code could allow customers to report serious food-safety concerns through a system that records and follows up complaints. Ninth, use technology intelligently. Artificial intelligence, sensors and digital systems can monitor temperature, hygiene schedules, waste segregation and other safety parameters. Tenth, think beyond the kitchen. If customers block footpaths, roads or emergency entrances, restaurants should help manage the situation. A successful restaurant should not become a problem for its neighbourhood. Finally, the Safe Food Oath. Can Maharashtra’s food industry voluntarily pledge that no known unsafe substance will knowingly be used in food? The proposed oath could state: “We pledge that we shall not knowingly use any carcinogenic, teratogenic, hepatotoxic, nephrotoxic or allergenic substance as a colouring agent, flavour or taste enhancer, adulterant, sweetener, or preservative or for any other food-processing purpose. We shall use only legally permitted and scientifically evaluated ingredients and additives and maintain transparency and accountability in the preparation and serving of food.” This is not a call to ban every chemical or synthetic food additive. Many are legally permitted after safety evaluation. The point is simple: unsafe substances should never be shortcuts for making food cheaper, brighter, sweeter or more attractive. Civic Food Industry Award Maharashtra could take the idea further by inviting the food and hospitality industry to adopt an 11-point Civic Food Industry Charter. Those meeting the standards could be independently assessed and recognised through a Maharashtra Civic Food Industry Award. The award would ask not only, “How good is your food?” But also, how much food did you save? How much plastic did you eliminate? How safely do you manage your kitchen? What happens to your food waste? Are your ingredients safe? Do you respect the neighbourhood? That would give “hospitality” a deeper meaning. Maharashtra has the institutions, entrepreneurs, technology and, most importantly, a food industry large enough to make a difference. The government can make regulations. Citizens can demand better standards. But the food industry can lead by choice. So the question before Maharashtra’s hotels, restaurants, caterers and food businesses is simple: Are you ready to accept the challenge — not just to serve citizens, but to take responsibility for them? (Deshmukh is a forensics scientist. Mathkari is co-founder, Civic Engineering Foundation.)

Israel’s Long War in Lebanon: From Sharon’s ‘Mailed Fist’ to Precision Strikes against Hezbollah

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Israel’s Long War in Lebanon

Israel’s tangled tryst with Lebanon has been one long, dark waltz in the violent ballroom of the Middle East. Once known as the ‘Paris of the Middle East’ before being consumed by the flames of a horrific civil war, Lebanon, for much of the mid-20th century, coexisted with Israel in a state of relative calm.

Unlike other Arab countries, cosmopolitan Lebanon had refrained from participating in the major wars against Israel that defined the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. Despite the broader Arab-Israeli animosity, Lebanon - a mosaic of Christians,


Sunni and Shia Muslims, and Druze - kept its distance from open conflict with its southern Jewish neighbour.


However, by the 1970s, that fragile calm began to unravel, leading both nations into a tangled web of violence and proxy battles that persist to this day with Israel locked in mortal combat with Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shia militant group.


Lebanon’s delicate political system, carefully crafted to balance its religious sects, had kept the country relatively stable during Israel’s early wars with its Arab neighbours. While Lebanon did not officially make peace with Israel, there was no active conflict between the two. Lebanese Christians from Maronite factions, had a pragmatic relationship with Israel, viewing it as a buffer against hostile forces like Syria and Palestinian militants.


By the 1960s, Lebanon's internal balance shifted dramatically with the influx of Palestinian refugees following the Six-Day War of 1967, during which Israel decisively defeated the Arab states. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Yasser Arafat, established bases in southern Lebanon - having previously set up strongholds there after being expelled from Jordan in 1970 - and began launching cross-border raids into Israel, which in turn provoked Israeli retaliation.


In his monumental and judicious 1,300-page masterwork ‘A History of Israel’, historian Howard Morley Sachar observes how the frustrated Palestinian refugees became “fair game for the PLO,” already entrenched in Lebanon. Arafat and his colleagues, says Sachar, had at their disposal some $400 million in annual subsidies from Saudi Arabia and Gulf Oil states, with which they organized labour welfare and generated employment for their kinsmen, becoming a semi-autonomous government in Lebanon.

In 1975, Lebanon’s social fabric ruptured into a brutal civil war. What began as sectarian clashes between the Maronite Christians and Muslim factions, snowballed into a full-blown proxy war, involving regional and global powers. Amid the chaos, the PLO gained strength, making southern Lebanon a launching pad for attacks into northern Israel.


In response, Israel cultivated relationships with Lebanese Christian militias, particularly the Maronites, who were fighting the PLO and its Muslim allies. One of the key figures in this alliance was Bashir Gemayel, a charismatic Maronite leader and head of the Lebanese Forces, the main Christian militia.

By the early 1980s, Israel had had enough. The situation in Lebanon, particularly the constant threat of PLO attacks, had become untenable. Ariel Sharon, Israel’s hawkish defence minister at the time, saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: oust the PLO from Lebanon and install a friendly Christian government under Bashir Gemayel, creating a pro-Israel buffer state to the north.


What was Sharon’s Gamble?

In June 1982, Israel launched ‘Operation Peace for Galilee,’ sending its troops deep into Lebanon. The stated objective was to push the PLO back from Israel’s northern border, but Sharon’s ambitions went far beyond that. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reached Beirut within days, laying siege to the capital city and bombarding Palestinian positions, prompting Arafat to flee Lebanon.


Yet this invasion would become one of the most controversial chapters in Israeli military history. It was during this period that Israel’s Christian allies, under the leadership of Bashir Gemayel, found themselves in the international spotlight for all the wrong reasons.


In September 1982, Gemayel was assassinated in a massive bomb attack just days after being elected president of Lebanon. His death, a devastating blow to Israel’s plans, triggered a horrific massacre at the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. In retaliation for Gemayel’s death, members of the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia (They drew inspiration from the Nazi and Italian Fascist movements, while also embracing the Catholic nationalism and imperialist nostalgia of the Spanish Falange), with the tacit approval of the Israeli military, stormed the camps, killing between 700 and 3,500 Palestinian civilians.

The world was outraged, and Israel’s moral standing suffered greatly. (The Kahan Commission, an Israeli government inquiry, found Sharon personally responsible for allowing the massacre, leading to his resignation as Defence Minister)


The operation saw Israeli forces occupy the southern half of Lebanon and eventually reach Beirut, where, in a controversial move, they laid siege to the city. While Israel succeeded in driving the PLO out of Lebanon, the occupation sowed the seeds of a far more dangerous foe: Hezbollah.


Initially founded as a small resistance movement to fight Israel’s occupation, Hezbollah would grow into a formidable paramilitary force. Bolstered by funding and arms from Iran, and taking advantage of Lebanon’s weak central government, Hezbollah emerged as both a military and political player. For Israel, the group’s emergence was a bitter unintended consequence of its military intervention. By the time Israeli troops withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 after an 18-year occupation, Hezbollah had established itself as a potent guerrilla force and the dominant power in southern Lebanon.


The 2006 war, a 34-day conflict sparked by Hezbollah’s abduction of Israeli soldiers, revealed Hezbollah’s ability to strike deep into Israeli territory using rockets revealing the extent of its military capabilities. Though Israel claimed to have damaged Hezbollah’s infrastructure, the group emerged as the epitome of ‘resistance’ against Israel in the Arab world.


Since then, the two adversaries have engaged in sporadic but lethal confrontations that has now metastasized into an Armageddon following Israel’s pounding of Gaza in retaliation to the October 7 attacks launched by Hamas and other Palestinian terror outfits.


As Israel today launches strike after strike to decapitate Hamas leadership, killing the once-elusive Hassan Nasrallah and his potential ‘heir apparent’ - senior Hezbollah leader Hashem Safieddine - the Lebanese government is nonplussed at the mounting casualties of its civilians.


While Sharon’s ‘mailed fist’ of the 1980s was all about overwhelming force against the PLO in Lebanon, Israel’s military claims that today its military operations are surgical, aimed at eliminating key Hezbollah figures and neutralizing the group’s rocket and missile stockpiles in the benighted country.


Today, it seems endgame for Hezbollah. But as Gaza and Hamas — once the focal points of conflict since October 7 last year — give way to Iran, Hezbollah’s primary backer, the question remains whether the IDF can eliminate the hydra-headed Lebanese militant outfit.


In a visceral scene in German filmmaker Volker Schlöndorff's haunting Circle of Deceit (1981), the finest film on the Lebanese Civil War, a journalist, portrayed by Bruno Ganz, frantically runs toward the camera, chased by a carload of militiamen from one faction, only to stumble upon the lifeless bodies of another. Overwhelmed, he clutches his head in a moment of paralyzing despair. As the IDF continues to maul Lebanon, the scene serves as a chilling shorthand for the relentless cycles of bloodshed that continue to define the country today.


(Tomorrow, we explore the ‘special relationship’ between Israel and the United States. As the Left across the globe censures Israel and students in American campuses stridently condemn it, we look at the so-called ‘Jewish Lobby’, the forgotten history of left-wing support for Zionism and the future of the Israeli-American relationship in the context of the ongoing war in Gaza)

Comments


bottom of page