prasad1
Active member
The country’s beef debate should really have been between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, not between Hindus and Muslims. It should have been a matter of choice, not a case of vegetarian values being forcibly stuffed down the throats of people, as the Supreme Court rightly pointed out. What the people of this country eat should not in any way interest the government unless they chomp on endangered species or another human being.
Had the beef debate been over ethical issues involved in killing animals and not just one particular divine species, more people from across all religions would have sided with vegetarians. But now, many people will think twice before crossing that sharp divide between Hindus and others. The lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq has ensured that vegetarianism remains a Hindu idea and non-vegetarianism a Muslim idea.
But the moment the debate shifts into the realm of religion, where dietary laws are used to establish moral superiority over others, it becomes a completely different ball game. If you tell me that you are better than me just because you eat ghas-phus then there is nothing better than chicken drumsticks in oyster sauce, non-vegetarians say.
For a brief moment in September it had seemed as if the debate would finally shift away from the Hindu-Muslim construct after Shiv Sena challenged BJP’s right to impose a meat ban in Mumbai. The Sainiks were only pandering to their vote bank, but their posturing put the debate in the realm of individual freedom and away from religion.
But then Akhlaq was beaten to death by a Hindu mob and the debate shifted back to pure vegetarian Hindus and impure non-vegetarian Muslims.
Akhlaq was killed at a time when scientists have developed laboratory alternatives to meat. Perhaps it is time that we as a nation start debating faux meat and move away from faux morals that see killing an animal as sacrilege and killing a man as just “saddening and unfortunate”.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatime...&utm_campaign=TOInewHP&utm_medium=Widget_Stry
Had the beef debate been over ethical issues involved in killing animals and not just one particular divine species, more people from across all religions would have sided with vegetarians. But now, many people will think twice before crossing that sharp divide between Hindus and others. The lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq has ensured that vegetarianism remains a Hindu idea and non-vegetarianism a Muslim idea.
But the moment the debate shifts into the realm of religion, where dietary laws are used to establish moral superiority over others, it becomes a completely different ball game. If you tell me that you are better than me just because you eat ghas-phus then there is nothing better than chicken drumsticks in oyster sauce, non-vegetarians say.
For a brief moment in September it had seemed as if the debate would finally shift away from the Hindu-Muslim construct after Shiv Sena challenged BJP’s right to impose a meat ban in Mumbai. The Sainiks were only pandering to their vote bank, but their posturing put the debate in the realm of individual freedom and away from religion.
But then Akhlaq was beaten to death by a Hindu mob and the debate shifted back to pure vegetarian Hindus and impure non-vegetarian Muslims.
Akhlaq was killed at a time when scientists have developed laboratory alternatives to meat. Perhaps it is time that we as a nation start debating faux meat and move away from faux morals that see killing an animal as sacrilege and killing a man as just “saddening and unfortunate”.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatime...&utm_campaign=TOInewHP&utm_medium=Widget_Stry
