The broadcaster is under scrutiny for alleged foreign exchange violations in India and an investigation was launched shortly after tax authorities searched BBC’s offices in Delhi and Mumbai in February.

The action by Indian authorities came after the BBC aired a critical documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi in January, examining his leadership during deadly communal riots in 2002, which prompted an angry response from the government.

The broadcaster said on Tuesday four staff members, including current India head Rupa Jha, would leave the organisation to form the new company named “Collective Newsroom” and provide services as commissioned by BBC.

“The regulations that govern publishing the news in India have changed,” BBC’s deputy CEO Jonathan Munro told staff in an email, seen by Reuters.

“The changes mean that any company publishing digital news content in India, must be majority-owned by Indian nationals,” he said.

Around 250 BBC staff will be asked to transfer to Collective Newsroom, which will be fully owned by its nine Indian shareholders, Munro and Jha told staff in a separate email.

The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters on Munro’s email.

An Indian government adviser said in February that tax searches at the BBC’s offices were not vindictive. The BBC has said it was cooperating fully with tax authorities and hoped to resolve matters quickly.

The BBC did not air its two-part documentary “India: the Modi question” in India. The documentary examined Modi’s leadership as chief minister of Gujarat state during riots in 2002, in which at least 1,000 people were killed, most of them Muslims. Activists put the toll at more than twice that number.

The government dismissed the documentary as “propaganda” and blocked the sharing of any clips from it on social media. BBC said its documentary was “rigorously researched according to highest editorial standards”.

Modi, who is aiming to win a third term in elections next year, has denied accusations that he did not do enough to stop the riots, and he was exonerated in 2012 following an inquiry overseen by the Supreme Court. A petition questioning his exoneration was dismissed last year.

The programme will aim to provide those in Gaza with the latest information plus safety advice on where to access shelter, food and water supplies, said the BBC.

“BBC News Arabic are extremely well-placed to offer this vital service for the people of Gaza at a time of greatest need,” BBC World Service Director Liliane Landor said in a statement.

Produced in Cairo and London, the Gaza radio service will run one programme from Nov. 3 and begin a second daily broadcast from Nov. 10.

The BBC World Service, which represents the British broadcaster’s non-commercial international broadcasting services, has a previous track record of launching emergency broadcasts.

In the summer of 2014 it launched a service for Gaza following an escalation in hostilities there.

It also launched an emergency radio service during the conflict in Sudan in May, and ran extended TV bulletins in Ukraine following the invasion of the country last year.

The announcement came days after BBC Arabic released an investigative documentary about the illicit drug trade in Syria, where they highlighted links between the estimated multi-billion dollar industry and the Syrian army as well as members of President Bashar Assad’s family.

The Syrian Information Ministry in a statement late Saturday said the decision was made after“ warning the channel more than once that it has broadcasted its misleading reports relying on statements and testimonies from terrorist entities and those hostile to Syria”.

Damascus revoked the licenses of both the British broadcaster’s radio and television correspondents in Syria, as well as their videographer.

“We speak to people across the political spectrum to establish the facts,” the BBC said in a statement emailed to the Associated Press, adding that the broadcaster provides “impartial independent journalism. ”We will continue to provide impartial news and information to our audiences across the Arabic-speaking world”.

The illicit drug industry, most notably the addictive Captagon amphetamine pills, has blossomed in war-torn Syria in recent years. While experts say it has been a way to generate revenue for the country’s crippled economy and sanctioned leadership, it has scourged neighboring Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as other Gulf countries.

Captagon has been used both recreationally and by people with physically demanding jobs to keep them alert as well as fighters on the battlefield.

The United Kingdom, United States, and European Union have sanctioned a handful of drug kingpins and close associates of Assad for their involvement in the trade.

The Syrian government denies any involvement in the production of Captagon. A Syrian parliamentarian told the AP last month that Syria has been used as a transit state for Captagon and other drugs, and accused opposition groups of running the industry.

After Syria restored relations with many of its neighboring countries and returned to the Arab fold, cracking down on drug smuggling has been a key issue in regional talks.

Syria’s uprising which turned into a full-blown civil war, now in its 13th year, has killed nearly half a million people and displaced half of its prewar population of 23 million. Syrians in both government-held territory and an opposition-held enclave in the country’s northwest suffer from rampant poverty and crippled infrastructure.

The defamation suit states the documentary “India: the Modi question” that aired earlier this year cast a slur on India’s reputation and that of its judiciary and the prime minister, the reports said.

The summons came months after Indian tax officials inspected the BBC’s offices in New Delhi and Mumbai in February following an angry response by the Indian government to the documentary.

The media reports said the suit was filed by a non-profit based in Gujarat, which is Modi’s home state. The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The documentary focused on Modi’s leadership as chief minister of the western state of Gujarat during riots in 2002 in which at least 1,000 people were killed, most of them Muslims. Activists put the toll at more than twice that number.

Modi has denied accusations that he did not do enough to stop the riots and a Supreme Court-ordered investigation found no evidence to prosecute him. A petition seeking a fresh investigation was dismissed by the Supreme Court last year.

The government called the documentary, which did not air in India, a biased “propaganda piece” and blocked sharing of any clips from it on social media.

The BBC has previously said that it “does not have an agenda” and has stood by its reporting for the documentary.

Hindus, who make up 80% of the Indian population, are major meat-eaters. Even only a third of the privileged, upper-caste Indians are vegetarian.

What are the most common myths and stereotypes about what Indians eat?

The biggest myth, of course, is that India is a largely vegetarian country.

But that’s not the case at all. Past “non-serious” estimates have suggested that more than a third of Indians ate vegetarian food.

If you go by three large-scale government surveys, 23%-37% of Indians are estimated to be vegetarian. By itself this is nothing remarkably revelatory.

But new research by US-based anthropologist Balmurli Natrajan and India-based economist Suraj Jacob, points to a heap of evidence that even these are inflated estimations because of “cultural and political pressures”. So people under-report eating meat – particularly beef – and over-report eating vegetarian food.

Taking all this into account, say the researchers, only about 20% of Indians are actually vegetarian – much lower than common claims and stereotypes suggest.

Hindus, who make up 80% of the Indian population, are major meat-eaters. Even only a third of the privileged, upper-caste Indians are vegetarian.

The government data shows that vegetarian households have higher income and consumption – are more affluent than meat-eating households. The lower castes, Dalits (formerly known as untouchables) and tribes-people are mainly meat eaters.

Vegetarian cities in India
Indore: 49%
Meerut: 36%
Delhi: 30%
Nagpur: 22%
Mumbai: 18%
Hyderabad: 11%
Chennai: 6%
Kolkata: 4%

(Average incidence of vegetarianism. Source: National Family Health Survey)

On the other hand, Dr Natrajan and Dr Jacob find the extent of beef eating is much higher than claims and stereotypes suggest.

At least 7% of Indians eat beef, according to government surveys.

But there is evidence to show that some of the official data is “considerably” under-reported because beef is “caught in cultural political and group identity struggles in India”.

Narendra Modi’s ruling Hindu nationalist BJP promotes vegetarianism and believes that the cow should be protected, because the country’s majority Hindu population considers them holy. More than a dozen states have already banned the slaughter of cattle. And during Mr Modi’s rule, vigilante cow protection groups, operating with impunity, have killed people transporting cattle.

The truth is millions of Indians, including Dalits, Muslims and Christians, consume beef. Some 70 communities in Kerala, for example, prefer beef to the more expensive goat meat.

Dr Natrajan and Dr Jacob conclude that in reality, closer to 15% of Indians – or about 180 million people – eat beef. That’s a whopping 96% more than the official estimates.

And then there are the stereotypes of Indian food.

Delhi, where only a third of residents are thought to be vegetarian, may well deserve its reputation for being India’s butter chicken capital.

But, the stereotype of Chennai as the hub of India’s “south Indian vegetarian meal” is completely misplaced. Reason: only 6% of the city’s residents are vegetarian, one survey suggests.

Many continue to believe that Punjab is “chicken loving” country. But the truth is that 75% of people in the northern state are vegetarian.

So how has the myth that India is a largely vegetarian country been spread so successfully?

For one, Dr Natrajan and Dr Jacob told me, in a “highly diverse society with food habits and cuisines changing every few kilometres and within social groups, any generalisation about large segments of the population is a function of who speaks for the group”.

“This power to represent communities, regions, or even the entire country is what makes the stereotypes.”

Also, they say, “the food of the powerful comes to stand in for the food of the people”.

• Cooking the world’s oldest known curry.
• The Indian street food bringing theatre to your plate.
• Why India is a nation of foodies.

“The term non-vegetarian is a good case in point. It signals the social power of vegetarian classes, including their power to classify foods, to create a ‘food hierarchy’ wherein vegetarian food is the default and is having a higher status than meat. Thus it is akin to the term ‘non-whites’ coined by ‘whites’ to capture an incredibly diverse population who they colonised.”

Migration

Secondly, the researchers say, some of the stereotype is enabled by migration.

So when south Indians migrate to northern and central India, their food comes to stand in for all south Indian cuisine. This is similarly true for north Indians who migrate to other parts of the country.

Finally, some of the stereotypes are perpetuated by the outsider – north Indians stereotype south Indians just by meeting a few of them without thinking about the diversity of the region and vice versa.

The foreign media, say the researchers, is also complicit “as it seeks to identify societies by a few essential characteristics”.

Chicken is thought to be the most popular form of meat eaten by Indians

Also, the study shows up the differences in food habits among men and women. More women, for example, say they are vegetarian than men.

The researchers say this could be partly explained by the fact that more men eat outside their homes and with “greater moral impunity than women”, although eating out may not by itself result in eating meat.

Patriarchy – and politics – might have something to do with it.

“The burden of maintaining a tradition of vegetarianism falls disproportionately on the women,” say Dr Natrajan and Dr Jacob.

Couples are meat eaters in about 65% of the surveyed households and vegetarians only in 20%. But in 12% of the cases the husband was a meat eater, while the wife was a vegetarian. Only in 3% cases was the reverse true.

Clearly, the majority of Indians consume some form of meat – chicken and mutton, mainly – regularly or occasionally, and eating vegetarian food is not practiced by the majority.

So why does vegetarianism exert a far greater influence on representations of India and Indians around the world? Does it have to do with “policing” of food choices and perpetuating food stereotypes in a vastly complex and multicultural society?

Article first published on BBC.

The first issue is that religiosity is understood quite differently by an Arab (and indeed a Muslim) than by your average secular western European. 

A recent poll of twenty-five thousand Arabs was published last week by Arab Barometer, a “…nonpartisan research network that provides insight into the social, political, and economic attitudes and values of ordinary citizens across the Arab world” (Arab Barometer). It was one of five major surveys conducted by the organization and provides significant and relevant information about the region. The data is also interesting reading for those concerned with Arab attitudes and opinions.

Spanning eleven MENA countries and commissioned by the BBC, the survey included multiple choice questions on the religious attitudes and practices of Arabs. This most recent poll found that the percentage of Arabs interviewed that identified as non-religious had grown from 8% to 13% since 2013.

Prominent British newspapers such as The Guardian and The Sun jumped to the conclusion that the Arab world was “turning its back on religion”. 

The Arab world is by any measure, in deep crisis. Politically, economically, socially and even religiously (the survey showed a dramatic increase in those reporting a lack of trust of religious leadership). That said, to claim that Arabs were abandoning their religion is – at best – a gross exaggeration. There are a number of important reasons why.

The question posed to participants in the poll was “In general, you would describe yourself as religious, somewhat religious, or not religious?” Basing your argument that Arabs are losing their religion solely on the answers to this question, while ostensibly straightforward, is somewhat problematic.

The first issue is that religiosity is understood quite differently by an Arab (and indeed a Muslim) than by your average secular western European. 

For example, I asked a family member whether they considered themselves religious. “Not really. But I hope, one day” she replied. This response came from someone who prayed five times a day, fasted Ramadan, wore the hijab, and paid zakat. By any western, secular measure, this person would be considered a religious, practicing Muslim. Yet, she did not consider herself as such. This is because for many Muslims, to be religious means to be engaged in many supererogatory acts of worship, not only those which are obligatory. Indeed many practicing Muslims would be loathe to make the claim that they were pious individuals out of modesty.

While the data for the 2018-2019 survey is not yet available on the Arab Barometer site (at the date of writing), this thesis is supported by the data of the previous 2016-2017 poll. Out of the 9,000 participants, around 10.4% said they were not religious. Of the 10.4% that said they were not religious, 18% of them said that they always prayed five times a day and another 11% on top of that said that prayed five times daily most of the time. To suggest that the 29% had “turned their backs on their religion” as these outlets have reported is quite the overstatement. It will be interesting to see how many of those in the 2018-2019 survey who said they weren’t religious are actually practicing Muslims.

I was recently in a popular mall in western Amman, one of the more secularised parts of the Jordan. Maghrib call to prayer had just sounded and I headed to the large prayer hall which could fit around a hundred people. I arrived early and managed to pray in what became a completely packed space. When I finished, I turned around to find people, young and old, waiting outside for their turn to pray. This does not look like a people who have turned their backs on religion. Quite the contrary.

Dr. Moamer Khalili is a doctoral candidate of religious and theological studies at Cardiff University. His area of research is modern atheism and Islamic theology.