One-stop shop to make India 20 times richer

Baba Ramdev’s irrational demand to prohibit cow slaughter

Here's a conversation with Harsh Vora which is worth posting as a separate blog post, given it is a separate topic and raises fundamental issues in relation to liberty in India, and puts to question the capacity or knowledge of Baba Ramdev to elevate India to a major superpower. He does need to learn some basic economics. Yoga is not good enough to run a modern nation successfully.

HARSH

Hmm, what do you think about banning cow-slaughter in India? Swami Ramdev has been consistently rallying against cow-slaughter in India. He explains it well, "These politicians have no limit of wickedness. They ban the slaughter of tigers (which are carnivore), and allow free killing of cow (which are herbivore, and which have been considered as mother since ages). No animal should be allowed to be killed in Bharat Varsha, for all of them have the right to live."

He emphasizes the importance of cow not merely on the religious basis, but on moral and well as scientific grounds. Moral ground: They provide us milk. Until we are a certain age old, our biological mother breast-feeds us. And after that age, our cow feeds us with milk. So, they are are second-mother, and deserve to be respected. Scientific ground: Cow manure has been used as a beneficial fertilizer in farms. Cow urine helps us cure many diseases of the body. For example, the pH value of cow urine is 8-10 so it is a sure shot medicine for indigestion. Cow urine is anti-neoplastic which helps to cure cancer. These are just a few of the many benefits. Thus, cow should be given better if not less importance. 

This, I strongly believe, is a legitimate reason raised by Swamiji. I fear we might not be on the same page, so far as this matter is concerned. Note that this has to do least with "organized religion," for conscience surely dictates that ALL beings have the right to live.

MY RESPONSE

Dear Harsh

My view is very simple. The cow is food in all parts of the world (except for a few Hindus and Jains in India), and Hindus ate the cow for thousands of years till the influence of the Jains made them change their mind. 

Regardless of that, I don't expect the state to dictate what food a person may or may not eat. I don't expect it to create a law that you SHOULD eat beef, for instance.

The ONLY reason the state can impose its views on such matters is if you harm others in this process, or if doing so will harm the environment.

The cow is not a scarce animal. Plenty of cows exist and plenty more can be produced as needed. The tiger is a genuine scarce animal and being at the top of the ecological food chain of the jungle, the dying out of tigers can severely damage the natural environment. For instance if tigers die then all forests will be ravaged and destroyed by plant eating animals. Hence for tigers a different policy applies.

But the policy on tigers (see my article on the environment) does not ask that you don't kill tigers. It asks for tigers (indeed jungles) to be privatised and reared just like any other animal. Wherever wildlife has been privatised (Coase theorem will show you how it works), it has flourished.

There are innumerable instances of the truth of this theorem. There is, for instance, no threat of extinction of crocodiles in Australia since crocodile farms are licensed to grow them and sell their meat and skin. It is a highly profitable business. Eg. see this.

I respect yours or Baba Ramdev's right NOT to eat beef IF you so feel (on any ground, call it moral if you wish), but I REFUSE to have you impose your will through the state on this matter. That involves the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of freedom.

You will first have to prove to me that eating beef is harmful. The entire world except a few Hindus in India eats beef, and they haven't died. Note that Indians ate beef for thousands of years till the Jain influence grew strong. They didn't die. And I know of MANY MANY Indians who eat beef outside India. They aren't dying. So what's the problem? Food is supposed to nourish. What you or I or anyone else puts into our own mouths is none of the business of others.

If eating beef is not lethal and it doesn't kill others, then there is no cause to interfere in the freedoms of others to eat beef. I think Baba Ramdev is trying to impose HIS version of morality on the rest of the world. That amounts to dictatorship. Let him learn to respect others. 

He is welcome not to kill cows for food. But let him please learn the basics of freedom.

Regards

Sanjeev

ADDENDUM

1) That Indians ate beef in the past is well documented, e.g. by Gandhi, Nehru, and also in a detailed book: Jha's Myth of the Holy Cow.

2) I believe animals must be treated respectfully and have clarified in detail in Chapter 4 of DOF. That does not mean that we elevate them to a pedestal equal to us.

3) It is a huge disincentive for farmers to raising cows in India (and hence most are KILLED UPON BIRTH) because they can't sell them freely in the market, except for milk, which they hardly produce any. What the Baba Ramdev policy will do is to ensure that MORE COWS ARE KILLED AT BIRTH. Is that what he wants? And why does he want to harm the Indian farmer who may well earn a decent livelihood by selling cows for meat? 

4) Do you want to see how a cow should be treated and respected? Then visit Australian farms. You'll find cows allowed to roam freely and widely over a vast expanse of grass; their needs catered to carefully; their health monitored by veterinarians (who are paid MORE than doctors). And when they are taken to abbatoirs, the regulations require a very specific and humane way of killing them for meat. Compare with the way cows are often treated in India – with the GREATEST DISRESPECT, driven from one garbage heap to another, forced to live a sad and tragic life before finally being sold in underhand ways to people who will kill them without the slightest mercy and without access to modern machines. Want to show respect for something? Then privatise it. The owner will show it respect if it becomes an economic good. 

ADDENDUM

I wasn't aware that this is a hot topic in India. E.g. http://www.mynews.in/Blog/Anti_Cow_Slaughter_Legislation_B942.htmlC

Chanced upon this: http://www.agriculturalproductsindia.com/meat-poultry-food/meat-poultry-food-beef.html

Facebook discussion: https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2212358147&topic=12702

View more posts from this author
65 thoughts on “Baba Ramdev’s irrational demand to prohibit cow slaughter
  1. Harsh Vora

    Sanjeev — I am glad you wrote this as a separate blog entry. This will create a proper ground for further discussion.
     
    Let me first humbly point out that you are misdirected. Let me start with this point you made: The cow is food in all parts of the world (except for a few Hindus and Jains in India), and Hindus ate the cow for thousands of years till the influence of the Jains made them change their mind.
     
    Here's where you are misinformed. Mr. Jha's Myth of the Holy Cow has been in controversy since it was published. After then, there have been numerous books countering the arguments that Mr. Jha has made. One such book is Steven Rosen's Holy Cow. While it is true that a few Brahmins (mainly, those who were worshippers of Kali) sought to animal sacrifices, most of them were strong adherents of vegetarianism.
     
    To write in brief, Mr. Rosen explains that in Satya Yuga, there were no animal sacrifices. Slaughter of animals began by a few Brahmins from Treta Yuga onwards. Even then, sacrifices were done ONLY after certain mantras were chanted to ensure near-painless death and after life (Rig Veda, 1.162.21)
     
    Kausheetaki Brahmana, 11.3; Shatapatha Brahmana, 11.6.1; and Jaimaniya Brahmana, 1.42-44; The Laws of Manu, 5.55 — all echo the fact that "the creature whose flesh I am eating here and now will eat me in next life."
     
    Hence, the notion that Hindus ate beef is entirely misinterpreted or misinformed. While a few Brahmins (and other demonic beings) sacrificed animals in Treta Yuga (after chanting mantras), most sattvic (in the mode of goodness) beings abstained from it. We must keep in mind that the Mogul and British invasions have increased slaughter in India. Before 9th CE, it was much, much less.
     
    Having quoted a few references, let me humbly ask you: Should freedom be limited to a certain part of creation only? Research shows that mother-cow feel the same psychological pain as humans when their calves are separated from them. They feel the same physical pain  as humans when they are slaughtered. While plants are living-being as well, their structural built-up is much more different. One cannot deny the fact that there is a vast difference between slitting the throat of a cow (or goat or chicken) and chopping a tomato. Let me ask you a simple, logical question: If you can allow the slaughter of animals, then why don't you allow the murder of a man? As I said, most pains that we, as humans feel, are known to animals. Again, let me ask you: If you are willing to eat a cow, why not eat a dog, and other animals as well? Just because a dog is a domestic, pet animal in Australia and America, and a cow is not? This points out to the problem of Carnism: The inherent psychological behavior that allows us to eat some animals and not the rest.
     
    ANY meat is ultimately harmful for health — this, any doctor knows. Let me talk about one specific reason: When we kill an animal, it dies in fear. The subtle vibrations that emanate from the slaughtered animal when it dies in fear, enter our bodies when we eat them. This influences our mental and psychological structure. As a result, non-vegetarians are usually more violent in nature — they are much more short-tempered and restless in mind. It takes time for them to evolve in spirituality. (Please read Steven Rosen's Holy Cow for more such arguments)
     
    Before striving to make ANY policies for India, one should consider what the basis of Indian heart is (and has been). One must consider what the basis of Indian humanity and culture is. Our basis has been, and still is, non-violence. This non-violence, we prefer to extend not only to humans, but to ALL possible creatures, to the MOST possible extent. Only a person who understand this, truly deserves to transform India's map. If a policy-maker will not consider these points, then he will make India into another Australia, or America, or Japan. We want to progress, but by keeping our ancient culture (of peace and tolerance through non-violence) intact and thriving, not by dwindling them. For our Vedic culture is what makes us unique. And to ensure that these principles (essence of India) do not dwindle completely in a few hundred years, we have to formulate policies that protect them.
     
    That tigers need to be protected from extinction is an obvious fact, we all understand. But my point is, we, as Indians, shouldn't allow ANY slaughter — be it of tigers, or cows. We have stood as an example for the entire world — as epitomes of non-violence. And making policies that allow violence (for no valid reason but self-pleasure) is a grave mistake. This type of freedom is called "limited freedom" — limited only to humans, and not to ALL beings, for ALL have the right to live.
     

     
  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Harsh

    I won't go into the debate whether Jha is right or wrong. That will take me off into a tangent that doesn't interest me except at the most cursory level.

    Let me ASSURE YOU that I know of a VERY LARGE NUMBER OF HINDUS outside India (including Brahmins) who eat beef. If there was a fundamental issue with eating beef, they would have not done so. Yes, there are a FEW (very few) Indian non-vegetarians outside India who strictly avoid beef. But among the non-vegetarians MOST eat beef. I have lived for 16 years outside India and know this for a fact.

    Second, a VAST number of Brahmins in India eat meat, such as in Kashmir, Bengal, or the North East. Millions of Brahmins. What you are saying is that everyone must become vegetarian. Sure. You can propagate that view, but it does not apply to a VAST majority of Indians. I don't distinguish between a fish, chicken, goat, pig, or cow. All are different kinds of animals and if you are concerned about them then you ought to preach your message but you are not entitled to prohibit others from choosing to eat whatever animal or plant they wish.

    You obviously have not read the DOF reference I gave you. Let me quote from it:

    Proposition 1. Life is the yardstick of ultimate value

    I spend about 3,400 words explaining what this means to the liberal. I won't repeat it here. Just the bit about animals. I'm afraid I can't debate the cow slaughter issue further. The key is to note that I am not asking you or Baba Ramdev to eat beef! All I am saying is that the free society government has NO BUSINESS to tell people what to put in their mouth or not. Any compulsion in such matters will lead to (in case you didn't read the Addendum to the post above) DRAMATIC CRUELTY to animals. The cow leads a very pathetic life in India. Please look around you and you'll find out the truth of what I am saying.  

    =====

                Proposition 1 implies a level of concern for animal and plant life, noting that some animal and plant life is our food. The use of other life forms as sources of energy to keep us alive is fully consistent with the value of human life, provided we don’t eat an entire species into extinction.[1] It can be argued that treating animals that we will consume as food should not be treated with unnecessary cruelty. No justification exists for inflicting undue pain on any creature. Killing pests and creatures that inadvertently harm us must also be done with due regard to this principle. Having said this, it is clearly inappropriate to give animals or plants similar ‘rights’ to ours, although it may be useful for practical purposes to legally specify animal ‘rights’ in order to avoid needless misinterpretation or confusion about the implications of proposition 1.



    [1] Morell, Virginia, ‘Island Ark: A Threatened Treasure’, National Geographic, August 2008, p.82. This article discusses how drills (a rare monkey) are potentially being eaten to extinction in Boko Island, Equatorial Guinea.

     
  3. Mayank Mishra

    Sanjeev
     
    Cows have always been revered and worshipped in India.Out of the billion about 860m are Hindus(hindus+sikhs+jain+buddhists etc).MOST Hindus consider cows as holy even today.In  1860 Queen Victoria wrote to Viceroy of India prompting him to hurt the Indian sentiments towards cows.Cow slaughter was institutionalized and legitimised in 1760 for the first time by a pervert named Robert Clive by establishing the first abattoir of the country in kolkata.Swami Ramdev is not preaching whether to eat beef or not to anyone.What he is saying is that cow slaughter be banned in India and such cow slaughtering abattoirs be closed down thus dismantling the legalized cow slaughtering machine.I find that demand to be very normal.Governments in India have maintained status quo on whatever rules Robert Clive passed on cow slaughter in spirit.I carefully analyzed your response to Harsh along with some basic fact checks.
     
    >>The cow is food in all parts of the world (except for a few Hindus and Jains in India)
    –MOST(read ALMOST ALL) hindus do not eat beef.In India about 400 million(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism  link#179) people are lacto vegetarians.That's more than population of Australia!!Then there are those who come into category of non vegetarians because they eat chicken,eggs etc.I am sure you are aware of how much pork and beef  is despised in India.So your argument "except for a few Hindus and Jains in India" is not correct.
     
     
    >>Hindus ate the cow for thousands of years till the influence of the Jains made them change their mind. 
    –Can you please provide a proof for your comment.Beef eating Hindus have been a "rarity" in India.Yes SOME people have been doing this from ancient times but their percentage is very small.You make it sound like MOST of Hindus originally were beef eaters and Jainism taught them not to eat meat(btw Ahinsa is one of the yamas in the yoga tradition which forms basis of hinduism and predates Jainism.Jainism is a 599 BC phenomenon) 
     
    >>I don't expect the state to dictate what food a person may or may not eat. 
    –Swami Ramdev never dictated what people should eat or not eat.What he said was that cow is  a revered and holy thing for most Hindus and the legitimization of cow slaughter started by Robert Clive in India be reversed.
     
    >>The ONLY reason the state can impose its views on such matters is if you harm others in this process,or if doing so will harm the environment.
    –Banning cow slaughter will affect SOME..Maintaining status quo affects sentiments of MOST.
     
    >>The cow is not a scarce animal.Plenty of cows exist and plenty more can be produced as needed.  
    –You have an assumption that whatever is not scarce can be butchered.Human beings are most abundant social animals in India. Anyways this policy works great in a nation like USA,Australia,UK where majority people do not have a sentiment attached with cows.We are talking about sentiments of majority of Indian population here.
     
    >>I respect yours or Baba Ramdev's right NOT to eat beef IF you so feel (on any ground, call it moral is you wish),but I REFUSE to have you impose your will through the state on this matter. That involves the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of freedom.
    –The issue was banning cow slaughter in India and did not have anything to do with eating beef or not eating beef.This is a misunderstanding that Swami Ramdev dictates people what to eat or not to eat. 
     
    >>You will first have to prove to me that eating beef is harmful.
    –Nothing harmful from the physical that is immediately observable.But it's a question of beliefs.Some believe it's good some believe it's bad.I don't want to get in whether beef is good or bad but since you asked :)
        -numerous studies in the last 40 years have indicated a relationship between beef consumption and a host of diseases, including heart disease,cancer, arthritis, colitis and gout(http://www.alive.com/1340a4a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=168).
    -See other problems linked with health,environment,economics etc listed here(http://www.globalissues.org/article/240/beef)
    -Ten reasons not to eat beef(http://www.cqs.com/beef.htm)
    And none of this articles is written by a hindu mystic, they are written by western people in western media who are beginning to understand the problems associated.
    -In our hindi language there is a proverb "???? ???? ???? ?? "
    which has a very deep meaning….but let's leave that since it delves deep into yoga and requires a level of understanding of yoga.Hybrid of Yoga that is taught in yoga studios that have mushroomed around the globe  less than 12.5% of Ashtang yoga by the virtue of what is taught there.But lets not digress.  
     
    >>The entire world except a few Hindus in India eats beef, and they haven't died.
    –Incorrect.Most Hindus do not eat beef.See above.
     
    >>Note that Indians ate beef for thousands of years till the Jain influence grew strong.
    –I would agree with this statement if you added "some".You have generalized what should have been specialized case.
     
    >>And I know of MANY MANY Indians who eat beef outside India.They aren't dying. So what's the problem? Food is supposed to nourish. What you or I or anyone else puts into our own mouths is none of the business of others.
    –Nobody has no problem in eating or not eating beef..One is free to eat whatever they want.But cow butchery in India has to be banned.I think you have made a link in your mind between "abolishing cow slaughter" and diktat "don't eat beef".The fact is that There is no diktat!!
     
     
    >>If eating beef is not lethal and it doesn't kill others, then there is no cause to interfere in the freedoms of others to eat beef. I think Baba Ramdev is trying to impose HIS version of morality on the rest of the world. That amounts to dictatorship. Let him learn to respect others. 
    –No.It's not about morality.I think it's just your misunderstanding of what he said.
     
    >>He is welcome not to kill cows for food. But let him please learn the basics of freedom.
    –IMHO your last comment is not fair.That's very un-liberal.
     
    regards
    Mayank  Mishra
     

     
  4. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    For both Harsh and Mayank, let me cite Vivekananda and move on to working on DOF. I really don't have time to discuss this issue further. Everyone is entitled to their own views. All I say is that the state can't force anyone to eat/not eat. Re; treating cows with dignity in an abbatoir I have already written enough. There is no point is saying that cow slaughter and beef eating are not the same thing. Why would anyone slaughter a cow if not to eat it? The liberal doesn't really care what you choose to do. Just don't impose it on others.

    Just by the way, note that even if we decide that Jha is a lunatic (despite his EXTENSIVE and very scholarly book which I have read, but I guess you haven't), let me cite no less than SWAMI VIVEKANANDA. This is 100% authentic:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_3/Lectures_from_Colombo_to_Almora/Reply_to_the_Address_of_Welcome_at_Madura

    "but the Smritis speak generally of local circumstances, of duties arising from different environments, and they change in the course of time. This you have always to remember that because a little social custom is going to be changed you are not going to lose your religion, not at all. Remember these customs have already been changed. There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed; how in time it was found that as we were an agricultural race, killing the best bulls meant annihilation of the race. Therefore the practice was stopped, and a voice was raised against the killing of cows. Sometimes we find existing then what we now consider the most horrible customs. In course of time other laws had to be made. These in turn will have to go, and other Smritis will come."

    This should now close the topic of Hindus eating beef in Vedic times. If you dispute that you are still welcome to. But if you wish to impose your food preferences on others, I think you can persuade (and I'm happy to listen!) but you can't use the state to prohibit cow (or chicken) slaughter .

    Regards

    Sanjeev

     
  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Just one last thing (I hope!). Do those who object to cow slaughter also object to mosquito slaughter?

    Remember, in DOF I have written: "Killing pests and creatures that inadvertently harm us must also be done with due regard to this principle."

    In my view a mosquito does not deliberately harm us, yet I don't know of ANY Hindu or Indian who has not killed a mosquito. I do believe that even pests (like rats) ought to be killed with some respect. I basically don't see any consistent argument that protects one kind of animal but not another. All animals should be treated with the respect they deserve. Even snakes don't kill people needlessly, and should not be killed unnecessarily.

    Please don't think I am displaying any disrespect for Baba Ramdev or any Hindu believer. I fully understand where they come from, and in some ways I am sympathetic to the vegetarianism argument (I have myself considered the benefits of vegetarianism but haven't firmed up my views yet).

    But regardless of whether I become a vegetarian or not, I am firm on one thing: that human freedom must be protected UNLESS the concerned human being harms another. Freedom of choice, freedom to eat (and in eating an animal, the freedom to kill the animal), is an integral part of this logic.

    I trust we will agree to this basic rule for India: that people should be free to choose. Without such freedom there is no thinking, there is no experience, there is no wisdom, there is no progress. As Vivekananda wrote:

    Liberty in thought and action is the only condition of life, growth and well-being: Where it does not exist, the man, the race, and the nation must go down.’

    Don't push India further down. The socialists destroyed liberty. Now don't let anyone else do that. Recover your freedom to think, freedom to choose, freedom to learn.

    Regards

    Sanjeev 

     
  6. Harsh Vora

    Sanjeev — I am sorry to say that if you are striving to establish TRUE freedom in India (or for that matter, in the entire world), then you will have to take into account ALL creatures — which involved ALL animals as well. It is not a question of "religious belief." What makes us human? Of all other things, most important is our ability to discriminate the right from wrong. It is our ability of developing viveka. As a leader of FTI, you should sincerely re-think your definition of freedom: Freedom, in the truest sense, is when ALL creatures are provided their right to live.
     
    Now, one might argue as to why do we even eat plants? This question may require us to understand what dharma is. As I explained you earlier, Dharma can be loosely translated as that which our conscience dictates — this involves qualities such as tolerance, peace, compassion, non-violence, friendliness, etc. Dharma also involves each creature's inherent duty. For example, the dharma of a mango seed is to grow into a mango tree and provide us mangoes. The dharma of water is to quench our thirst. Similarly, the dharma of a carnivorous animal (in terms of eating) is to eat herbivores (or other carnivores). Our dharma, as expressed in Mahabharata is to eat vegetarian. If a tiger eats a rabbit, he does not commit sin — for it is his dharma. If we kill a tiger (for no reason but self-pleasure), it is our sin. If we eat plants, we do not commit sin — for it is our dharma, as humans. REMEMBER, we are to take special care that we do not tear flowers or plants for our self-pleasure/entertainment. In other words, we commit as less violence as possible. Non-violence cannot be followed to 100 percent (for we kill thousands of bacteria while breathing). In short, the crux is that we should try to be as less violent as possible.
     
    Since you quoted Vivekananda, let me quote the Mahabharata, which written ages before Vivekananda was born. This is not to say that I am against Vivekananda. In Mahabharata (Shanti, 109.10), it says:
     
    Dharma exists for the general welfare (abhyudaya) of all living beings. Thus, that by which the welfare of the greatest number of living beings is sustained, that for certain is Dharma.

     
    You said, "Let me ASSURE YOU that I know of a VERY LARGE NUMBER OF HINDUS outside India (including Brahmins) who eat beef. If there was a fundamental issue with eating beef, they would have not done so."
     
    I have been studying in America, and what I have noticed is that MOST Hindus were vegetarians when they were in India. However, after migrating, due to the fear of embarrassment and seclusion by American friends, these Hindus gave in. They gradually began eating beef and other meat. It is also possible that they weren't educated well in Dharma since childhood. Hence, they became meat-eaters. If you ponder or research over it, you will realize this as well.
     
    Let me humbly reiterate that you (and the FTI team) rethink the definition of freedom. As I said, freedom, in its truest and the broadest sense, is to allow ALL creatures the right to live and survive. If our idea of freedom is only limited to humans, then such freedom, in actuality, is called "restricted freedom." And India will not be able to bear the burden of "restricted freedom," especially since we Indians have always been a tolerant and non-violent race. If you wish to proceed with FTI and its goal of effective policy-execution in India, then it is imperative that you consider this broad idea of freedom — allowing ALL creatures the right to live. FTI SHOULD NOT bypass this opportunity. Otherwise, it could be an injustice to "existence" itself!
     
    P.S. Some question for FTI to ponder over are as follows:
    1. Should freedom be limited to a certain part of creation only?
    2. If you can allow the slaughter of animals, then why don't you allow the murder of a man? As I said, most pains that we, as humans feel, are known to animals. Research shows that mother-cow feels the same psychological pain as humans when their calves are separated from them. They feel the same physical pain  as humans when they are slaughtered.
    3. If you are willing to eat a cow, why not eat a dog, and other animals as well? Just because a dog is a domestic, pet animal in Australia and America, and a cow is not?

     
  7. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Harsh

    Thanks for this.

    I disagree with this: "Freedom, in the truest sense, is when ALL creatures are provided their right to live." I'm sorry I don't agree with any 'right to live' even for humans. As I clarify clearly in DOF, a murder has no right to live. Please do read DOF when you get some time, at least chapters 2-4.

    Re: eating dog, cat, (even rats) etc. – I trust you are aware that these are eaten in India. When I was SDO of Guwahati, I was in charge of the circuit house. About 4-5 stray dogs used to loiter around. One day a Minister from Nagaland came and asked me if he could take the dogs. These were stray dogs so I had nothing to say. These dogs were then taken in the back of the jeep to Nagaland. I gather that dog meat is more tasty (for those who like meat) than even deer meat. 

    In Nagaland virtually no animal is found because literally everything that moves is eaten. In China even snakes and scorpions are eaten. Monkey meat is commonly eaten in Africa. I already cited a National Geographic article above on this matter. In human history there is NOTHING (INCLUDING HUMANS) that has not been eaten. In the past, many cultures even used to eat the bodies of enemy soldiers after war.

    In principle, if someone is hungry and there is nothing else available, then virtually anything becomes food. It is stupid to starve. There are known instances when plane wrecked people ate the bodies of those who had died, in order to survive.

    My children had a rabbit as a pet. When it died they buried it with great care. They did not eat it. But rabbit meat is readily available on sale and is eaten. So the issue you raise, why are domestic pets not eaten, is to do with sentiment, not biology. 

    Like I said, I'm indifferent to your choices and preferences. You are most welcome NOT to eat anything you don't like. But you have to eat something! Similarly let others eat what they wish (except human beings – save in dire emergencies).

    Do not make a fetish out of food. It is NOT what we live for. We live to think and gain knowledge and to be. As the Buddha said, take the middle path. Meat is not forbidden, but gluttony is. 

    When you cite the Mahabharata remember its FUNDAMENTAL message is that life (in a form we don't understand) is ETERNAL. What you see is not necessarily life. Do not regret killing your enemies, Krishna says. They are all part of the energy of the creator. So don't obsess about an animal. Let good sense prevail. 

    Let us focus on ensuring that each child in India gets outstanding education, that each household in India can afford a 4 bedroom house with 2 cars. Let us work to make life happier and better for everyone. Bothering about meat/vegetable is not worth our time and effort.

    I would ask Baba Ramdev to focus on the key things India needs and end the needless activity and effort on distractions of no consequence to India's future.

     
  8. Harsh Vora

    Sanjeev — When I said that "freedom, in its truest and broadest sense, is when ALL creatures have the right to live," I intended to make it obvious that there are certain exceptions, such as in the case of proven criminals. We all would agree that murderers (including terrorists) have no right to live. I guess I should have clearly mentioned this exception.
     
    Speaking along these lines, Swami Ramdev is also working to bring about speedy law-enforcement and punishment in India. One of the main arguments he makes is that people who commit particular crimes such as rape, murder, etc. should be given capital punishment. He regrets the fact that Kasab (a "proven" terrorist) is still not executed, a year after the court declared to "hang him till death." Swami Ramdev argues that any such big criminal should be hanged within 3 months, at the most.
     
    Your explanations regarding food habits are valid. But, I guess you didn't catch my point properly: I intended to ask why most meat-eaters are biased? Why, for example, do you (or your children) choose not to eat that rabbit, but instead, eat chicken? The reason is that you are psychologically biased. This may have deep, old roots. Maybe, since childhood, you have been living in an environment that has always encouraged people to "love" rabbits and dogs. This so-called love or affection is only for some animals, and not ALL. This is where the problem lies. The affectionate sentiment should be all-embracing — for all creatures (as far as possible), not just a select few.
     
    I encourage you to read Melanie Joy's book Why We Eat Pigs, Love Dogs, and Wear Cows. It talks about Carnism, a break-through topic on animal psychology.
     
    You said, "What you see is not necessarily life. Do not regret killing your enemies, Krishna says. They are all part of the energy of the creator. So don't obsess about an animal."
     
    If you are talking in terms of body, it is correct. Body, in itself, has no life. However, every living being has life WITHIN it. According to the Gita, it is only because every creature has a soul (life) that it moves. If soul (in Vedantic language, it is called Self) withdraws itself, the body dies. Note that since the soul is ETERNAL, it does not allow us to kill anything as we wish. Murder, for the wrong reasons, is unpardonable. Only certain class, like the military, has the moral right to kill his enemies. You or I should not kill anything except for the purpose of self-defense (for example, when a thief breaks into our house and threatens our life), or in case of  dire needs (like in cold places like aAntartica, or during famine).
     
    Please know that Swami Ramdev is working toward this purpose, not because he wants to impose anything on us, but because he wants to ensure freedom and the "right to live" for ALL creatures, not just for humans. This of course has its roots in yogic principle (rishi-parampara) of non-violence and tolerance.
     
    About the fetish thing, please also know that Swami Ramdev is not only obsessed with this single issue. This is one of the many issues. Since you do not seem to be following Swamiji's works regularly, let me kindly point out that he consistently works, day and night, to educate people in villages. Perhaps, he is one of the strongest proponents of education in rural India. Obviously, he not only lectures, but acts upon his words. He is a doer — he sleeps only 4-5 hours a day, and works rest of the hours visiting villages and spreading awareness among people. To ascertain how he is a doer in real sense, you will have to follow his activities closely. With Bharat Swabhiman, he plans to reform our medical practices, encourage R&D (look at his Yogpeeth for proof of the use of latest technology), sports, language, and many other things. Whether his strategies (which I am sure he has already consulted with experts in respected fields) will work or not, time will prove.
     
    In the meantime, I would encourage you to rethink FTI's concept of freedom — to make it broader and all-embracing. If you choose not to, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But India needs a team that is connected to (and understands) its blood source. To its heritage. To its culture. And to its spiritual principles.
     
    Thanks,

     
  9. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Harsh, your definition of freedom is NOT acceptable to me, nor to the entire political philosophy literature.

    ""freedom, in its truest and broadest sense, is when ALL creatures have the right to live,"

    This is not a workable or sensible definition.

    Pl. read chapter 2 of DOF at least.  

     
  10. Pavan Choudary

    Baba Ramdev's intention to contribute to the rise of India can not be doubted. The quantum of his contribution too is significant. I admire him. Why sometimes he goes overboard is I think because he is not exposed to the counter arguments like these. Which is why I think he campaigns against cow slaughter or banning MNCs in India. Hope he reads this blog. Good rational, progressive thinking here.

     
  11. Harsh Vora

    Pavan — I am sure Swami Ramdev is very well informed of all counter-arguments. He presents his views with candor and frankness on television channels (like Aastha, Sanskar, and all news channels) and in his shibirs. In addition, he even holds conferences with specialists at places like AIIMS and IIM. My comments above largely reflect his (and Acharya Balkrishnaji's) views.

     
  12. Sandeep S

    read The British Origin of Cow-Slaughter in India, with some British Documents on the Anti-Kine-Killing movement, 1880-1894 along with T.M. Mukundan. Published by SIDH, Mussoorie, 2002.

     
  13. Vijay Mohan

    Dear Sanjeev,
    You are only inviting a Mangal Pandey here..
    for the liberal views … Eating Cow for food is ..like using a super computer for checking e mails.If you will find the importance of Cow .. then you will have certain different views
    If i enlist , what Baba is doing .. that would take lots of space… and I dont know about FTI..
    You are not near to the Indian Society , its actual needs ..Most of us dont want mere a 4 room house two cars .. this is not the aim  for freedom.. I am not sure which policy will work which will not .. But to me , whatever my experience is .. I think Ramdev's policies will work for the betterment of he real country..
    TO us , Indian is not independent even it was transfer of Power…. First let us have Independence
    then We can look for Freedom..
     
    Bye the Way , Keep writing about him , as you mentioned ..You are gaining popularity
    and he needs critics to make his work better..
    Jai Hind

     
  14. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Vijay,

    Re: You are not near to the Indian Society , its actual needs ..Most of us dont want mere a 4 room house two cars .. this is not the aim for freedom.

    You are entitled NOT to have your 4 bedroom house with 2 cars and all other modern amenities. Freedom doesn’t deny you the choice of poverty.

    But do me a favour. Just go out and do an experiment with 100 Indians you meet. Ask them whether they will prefer to take Rs.10 or Rs.100.

    Just do that for me please.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  15. Vijay Mohan

    Hi Sanjeev,
    "Thanks for the reply , I dont expect any reply from Ramdev and senior leaders in Bharat Swabhiman , Infact I do write there for no reply.
    So your Team has space for good discussions and good Team Work , BS is lagging this as of now , But we are trying our best for this."
    Just let FTI team members go to Villages , where lives close to 70% of India , Ask them What they need You will get my answer. The answer will not be even close to 4 Bed room house and two cars..
    The answer can be "The food they grow" ..
    What BS feels now , DAAL ROTI is the most imminent need of most of the country..
    BS is making it happen even before the election happens, others also ,like I really appreciate "Navdanya" by Dr Vandana Shiva
    According to Arjun Sen Gupta Report ,  84 Million people live less then Rs 20 Per Day..
    Any way this debate is getting away from "Cow Slaughter". WHich will only invite Mangal Pandey.
    Thanks!

     
  16. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    “Ask them What they need You will get my answer. The answer will not be even close to 4 Bed room house and two cars..
    The answer can be “The food they grow” ..
    What BS feels now , DAAL ROTI is the most imminent need of most of the country.”

    Dear Vijay, With due respect, do you honestly believe that any rich man with 4 bedrooms and 2 cars won’t be able to buy dal roti?

    I have detailed the policies India needs to BECOME RICH, not merely to provide dal roti.

    No amount of bad policies will give dal roti to everyone. But good policies will give dal roti AND a lot, lot more.

     
  17. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Vijay
    I am desperately trying to get Hindi fonts to work on this blog, since I’d rather write in Hindi than in English on many issues, but for some reason I can’t figure it out. Hence your post showed up as ????? marks. Please avoid Hindi on this blog for a while. Something technical is not working.
    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  18. Vijay Mohan

    Sanjeev Ji ,
    Good to know that , You also wish to write in Hindi. 
    BS is working fro Dal Roti even before the elections .. as we cant do any change in policies before election.. hence we counter bad policies by using "Zero Technology Swadeshi"  in daily life products.. like .. Tea , tooth paste , soap , shampoo ,Floor , SALT,Veg Oil,Cosmetics , CLOTHES, shoes , water,  etc..and normal products , where are are not gaining but only loosing the money as well as employment
    we are working for Organic farming for farmers and opening 1000 shops in the country where they can directly sell there products .. this is a huge step in development of country
    we feel that consuming fresh fruit juice in place of pepsi cola is healthy as well as wealthy.
    We are waiting for elections but by that time , we are also gaining weight. :)
    Rest  by removing corruption/bringing back the Swiss money (All prep done) we are fighting in Supreme court with the help of Ram Jeth Malani .. so that it may happen even before we are in power … The first step is declaring the Indian Money in Swiss Bank as National Property.
    So when we gain power .. We remove high denomination notes by recalling them only small currency notes shall be allowed .. This is simple logic ..that balck money will decrease ..and this is not babas idea , this has been one of the most prominent suggestions by all the reports prepared by committes to check the Black Money..
    95% of population will not have any problem .. as we dont have that many big notes with us .. we get it from banks when required..
    Conterfeits will automaticaly be expired..  where will the corrupt people keep the notes with max denomination of "50" ..this will help in reduction of black money…
    So we have good ideas to be implemented so that we get everything we need ..not everything we greed..  
    Yet again I will request you to Please listen to this guy .. the same way you request people to read your book "BFN"
    I am sure , if you both work together .. 2020 India will be economic Superpower ..
    Jai Hind

     
  19. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    “Yet again I will request you to Please listen to this guy .. the same way you request people to read your book “BFN”.

    Dear Vijay,

    I prefer to read Baba Ramdev’s work. Pl. send me the policy writings directly written by Baba Ramdev, not by his interpretors.

    So far as I can see, all the policies that Harsh and you have mentioned to me will harm India and increase poverty. They unfortunately display very poor understanding of basic economics. Sorry to be a bit blunt now but I’d rather read Baba Ramdev directly now. I trust you will understand.

     
  20. Vijay Mohan

    Dear Sanjeev,
    I think there isnt any pulished policy writings as of now .. I think I am going to join his mission when I reach India , I will sure let you know his work done on policy making .
    I would like the policies to be improved wherever there is a chance ,for better sake of the country.
    Till then , If you can also try reaching him directly , Should not be difficult for you. It will be the best.
    Anyways .. Thanks for a great communications , Had a good time.

     
  21. Vijay Mohan

    Hi FTI ,
    After this long arguments of huge advantages of COW , Does FTI think that  that Cow has something special in it , And if other parts of the world use it as food because of ignorance , We will not do "BHED CHAAL"   .If its Govt policy to save TIgers because they are important , Cow is no less IMportant…
    Organic Farming is the MOST IMMINANT  need of whole World  as of now.. (Pls dont apply economics here) .. Cow never Stops giving Urine & Dung ..   Only Organic Farming Can help the world from Global Warming in the most effective manner at free of cost …
    Cow has many proven and many unproven (For modern Science) medicinal values for many acute diseases .
    Shayad tabhi Cow ko bhagwaan ka darja dete hai hum log ..  
    Thanks!!

     
  22. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Vijay

    This is my PERSONAL blog. It is NOT the FTI blog, although I am a member (honorary) of FTI. FTI has so far produced only one policy (draft) on religious tolerance. No policy on cows, goats, etc. It probably will never get to the stage of producing animal-specific policies.

    So please don’t mix up my views with FTI views. Also, FTI views will be finalised only after 1500 outstanding leaders join and work through all policy matters. It will take time.

    My views on food are very clear. It is none of the business of the state to tell people what to eat/not eat. That is totally improper. Remember also what Vivekananda, the great Vedantin said? “Just as man must have liberty to think and speak, so he must have liberty in food, dress, and marriage, and in every other thing, so long as he does not injure others.”

    He also clarified that “There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed; how in time it was found that as we were an agricultural race, killing the best bulls meant annihilation of the race. Therefore the practice was stopped, and a voice was raised against the killing of cows. Sometimes we find existing then what we now consider the most horrible customs. In course of time other laws had to be made. These in turn will have to go, and other Smritis will come.”

    Personally, I am not a Hindu or anything for that matter, just a simple ordinary human. But I find it reassuring that India’s GREATEST communicator of the Advaita philosophy, Vivekananda, would support my views. Each time I read him I am surprised at how modern his views are, and how powerfully mind-opening. The tragedy is that people in India have not read Vivekananda. Indians are not book lovers, and barely read any book apart from text books.

    I’m not sure how competent Baba Ramdev is in the Vedas and Upanishads, but clearly he is no match in clarity of thought with Vivekananda. (I am also impressed by Swami Suddhananda.) Baba Ramdev has only impressed me in terms of his physical yoga expertise, not for his intellectual prowess. His seems to be a lower order expertise. I may be wrong, and will change my mind once suitable evidence is found.

    But IF he now wants to form government, then he must stop picking up issues like cow slaughter which are NOT the business of a government to get involved. He must rule for ALL Indians, not just for a few fanatic Hindus. The job of government is quite DIFFERENT to the job of a religious preacher. To run a country successfully is no trivial matter.

    So let us focus on the science of governance, not on distractions that are not going to educate, feed, or provide health facilities to our people.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  23. Vijay Mohan

    Dear Sanjeev,
    My Question was simple , And i still didnt get the answer .. I am not asking this Question as a Hindu and as a Baba Ramdev Fan . I am asking this question for the logic  
    I just asked , If you agree to the importance of Cow for the society ?? Do you feel she is different.. and must be protected the Way Tigers are .
    I think , you dont see Cow anything more than food . You are a great explorer , I am astonished by your knowledge in various fields.. I am really enjoying your material , So just asked you.. 
    I tried to find something about this in Mr Sharad Joshi's article , hasnt found as yet ..
    May be he can make you understand the benefits of Cow to the society..
    Thanks Again for your time..

     
  24. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Vijay

    Re: “If you agree to the importance of Cow for the society ?? Do you feel she is different.. and must be protected the Way Tigers are”.

    My answer is self-evident, I’ve repeated it endlessly. Will do so once more (last time).

    The answer is that all animals are to be duly regarded, but not beyond humans. Human life must come FIRST and foremost.

    I do not believe the cow is so different to other animals that the state must interfere in people’s choices re: whether to eat (or not eat) cow meat. I can’t be clearer than that. The choice of what food people eat must be entirely theirs. Let’s not impose our ideas on such a basic human freedom.

    Sure, you can persuade others about your views so they will not eat beef. That is perfectly legitimate. Having done that, let the people choose. There is no moral authority for the state – with its armed might – to impose the views of a group of Indians on others. Baba Ramdev should not threaten to jail or kill (capital punishment) someone for something that doesn’t harm anyone else. That violates basic liberty and human dignity. It also violates EVERYTHING that (as I understand) Hinduism stands for: tolerance, liberty, individual choice, salvation, ahimsa. To argue illiberal things like this let him prove Vivekananda wrong. Let him prove that Hindus NEVER ate beef and NEVER eat it even today. Even then that won’t give him the right to ban cow slaughter, but at least let him start by proving these two points.

    By all means if cow urine provides anti-cancer drugs, use it! But the cow also provides meat (food) to at least 80% of the world’s population. And what can be more medicinal than food?

    Plus, there are hundreds of animals which we use for medicinal purposes. Indeed, I gather that the ancient Aurvedic texts Charaka Samhita and Susruta Samhita catalouge the medicinal properties of the meat of 28 animals and 168 animals respectively. I recall seeing a detailed list somewhere but I don’t have ready access at the moment.

    The point is that just because cow urine is potentially prophylactic for cancer (yet to be conclusively proven), doesn’t mean cow slaughter has to be banned. There are already 1.3 billion (i.e. 130 crore) cattle in the world today. That is plenty of urine for everyone on the world! Indeed, if cow urine proves useful, a huge industry will immediately come up, producing cows and harvesting urine. Currently, cow urine has no takers (close to zero demand), hence excess supply. Hence it is wasted (spilled) on the streets of India. If you think cow urine is good, then please start a cow urine industry and you may become a crore-pati. Then you can propagate your message even more.

    Organic farming: it is getting more popular. I have nothing against it, so long as no one forces it down others’ throat. Let those who want to pay more for organic food pay more; Others (like me) can eat cheaper chemical laden food. Let the people choose. So far as I am aware, there is practically no difference in the nutritional content of ordinary and organic food. That doesn’t mean that pesticides should not be minimised or fertilisers not reduced.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  25. Vijay Mohan

    Thanks Sanjeev..
    I got the answer ..  What I know is Nutritional value of organic food is high .. 
    Now Organic food is expensive because of Demand/Supply .. But actually it reduces the cost of production for farmers , So if done abundantly it will be similar in cost.
    Nobody forces it to farmers , Once done , we leave for next villages ..and every farmer might not understand economics ad you do … but he knows relation between Cost price , sales price and profit..  So id Farmer didnt like it .. He is free to use chemicals back..
    Rest time will tell .. 
    THanks

     
  26. vivek

    We should consult the cows for their opinion. My own research shows that Indian cows converted to Christianity in the Nineteenth Century. However due to persistence of Hindutva sanskara they continued to consider themselves to be sacred and holy. Since, body and blood of Christ are consumed during Holy Communion, Indian cows have long wished to be consumed in the same way by Hindus rather than being smuggled to Bangladesh or done to death at birth.
    The problem with projecting one's own emotions onto animals or plants, inanimate objects or mere abstractions, is that it leads to absurd conclusions. In England there is an absurd worship of the fox- which lead to the ban on fox hunting- and in U.S they get very excited about embryos.
    The message of the Geeta is that to suffer violence, disease or death IS the natural order of things.  The ban on killing cows made a sort of redistributive sense if, once the cow died, it immediately became the property of the leather tanning caste whose output was vital to the community. This is no longer the case. On the other hand there can be no objection- except on environmental grounds (methane gas and global warming) to the establishment of goshalas supported by private donations. I believe some scientist is working on a new type of feed which would reduce methane emission so even that aspect is covered.
    The ground level reality is that cruel treatment of animals can have a dehumanizing effect on the poor people who tend them. If this cruel treatment occurs behind a veil of hypocrisy then it is only paakhandi dharma- not anukrosha dharma- that is benefited. Temple Grandin, the autistic savant, 'the woman who thinks like a cow' has a very interesting essay on the origin of her own theory of karma and how it connects with her work as a designer of slaughter-houses in Texas.

     
  27. ANSHUMAN RAJ gurjar

    Dear Sanjeev,
    I have read all discussion carefully and i just want to take note that your childerns have not ate their pet rabbit after his death because they have sentiments attached to it than what about millions of hindus who have sentiments attached with their so called mother cow. I am sure that your childrens will not allow anybody to ate dead body of their rabbit to anybody than how hindus allow the same thing to their mother cow in their own country.
    it's just about moral values which are more essential to build a nation than just getting a car or big flat. even gandhiji the man of millenium has lived without car and house but changed the core thinking of millions by moral values.

     
  28. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Anshuman

    I don’t deny one word of what you are saying. I never said that people in India MUST eat cows! Far from it. I respect the choices of vegetarians (my mother is vegetarian) but also of others.

    I expect equal respect for others’ choices that I give to vegetarians. Vegetarians can’t impose their choices on me. That’s where this gets really bad – the dictatorship of the so-called “morally” superior.

    Let there be freedom.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  29. Sankalpa

    Hi,
    I read all the comments and thankful to all of you for living up this discussion. I personally love cow and its utility so, I would never kill it but I really can not control the choices of others, it is a matter of freedom. We should not force our choices on others, because on this earth no one knows what is right or wrong!
    Baba Ramdev has passion, but he needs to be explicit in his arguments and also try to answer counter arguments. For example even if you take out all big currency notes people can still bribe in gold and diamond. Second point: peer reviewed verification of claims regarding cure of diseases like cancer and other things is extremely necessary. I tend to believe it, but many wouldn't until such studies are accepted in the international Journals. To be very honest, I have seen his goals, he is gem of a person, but many of his goals are restriction on civil liberties and he needs to be clear over them.
    Thanks and regards,
    Sankala

     
  30. Ganesh J. Acharya

    Doing things just because it is written or not written in Vedas and putting your sins on the them same is a very common thing we all are observing now days. There are many school of thoughts in India for this, and from my observation many of us interpret things the way we want it. The pronunciation of the verses varies from one school to another. So, what is exactly written down should not be interpreted literally. Again, it is universally accepted that our heart says it all. It always points out to us if we do things the right way or not. It is clearly written in the Bhagwat Geeta that the Pranava is the complete veda. 
    So, ones who say it is "ok" to kill animals and plants for the matter for satisfying your hunger, should look into themselves and answer "why?"
    Isn't eating food just about a mode of living? Agreed our body this world and the universe that we see is all maya, but don't ever forget that this maya gives us the feeling of pain and pleasure equally. The feeling is same with you and me, with the plant and the animal equally.
    So, when I should not be hurt why is it "ok" to hurt anyone else?

     
  31. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Ganesh

    You ask an interesting question: “So, ones who say it is “ok” to kill animals and plants for the matter for satisfying your hunger, should look into themselves and answer “why?””

    I trust you are aware that for the past 4 billion years, life has evolved on earth from less complex to more complex organisms. Man’s brain is the most complex thing designed by nature so far on earth. We are made up of trillions of cells, each of which needs to be fed, given water, and waste removed. The brain coordinates this bio-chemical activity.

    Evolution has ensured that a wide range of creatures have been created on earth, including carnivores and vegetarians. Humans are a particular kind of animal that is able to eat both plants and animals. We are (biologically) omnivores. That is one key reason why humans have survived and succeeded – because they can adjust to virtually any environment. Our ancestors ate whatever they could find, to survive. Had they not survived, we could not have existed! So it is important that we eat food! Human existence comes first and foremost.

    Now, since our body is FULLY CAPABLE of digesting all kinds of food, the next question is: which is the most beneficial and economical food? The answer to that varies from place to place and from poor to rich.

    Where there is nothing but animals available (e.g. Tibetan plateau), people are by necessity meat-eaters, regardless of their religion. Where vegetable resources are in plenty (as in most of India), eating animals is not critical to survival.

    But note that the richer people get the greater, on average, becomes their ability to afford animal protein. That is the trend all over the world. And in the past almost all kings and nobles ate meat. Wealth enables meat eating, on average.

    In England, for instance, cheap grain (not even wheat) and potato was standard food for the common people. Meat was a delicacy they got once in a month if they were lucky. But today, with prosperity, meat is part of virtually every meal in the West. So also in China and definitely in India. I recall that meat was a rarity in our house when I was young because it was very expensive compared to vegetables. However, it is now very common among many members of the upper middle classes today simply because it is affordable. I have visited many houses in India, and meat is always served to guests (at least in Assam where I’ve spent many years of my life).

    The idea of causing pain at the time of killing an animal does raise moral issues, but these are best resolved through modern technology. Abattoirs in the West specialise in painless killing of animals for food.

    All animals have to die. Killing them humanely ensures that they die quickly and painlessly. I’m happy for these laws to be enacted and vigorously enforced in India. Indeed laws exist in the West to prevent even rats (pests) from being killed inhumanely. Your point is generally well taken – that we ought to care for the pain we cause animals.

    If, after this discussion, you still strongly feel that you should not eat animal food, by all means do not do so! I have a number of vegetarians within my direct family (such as my mother) and first cousins, and I wouldn’t dream of asking them to eat meat.

    However, equally, if mankind can produce vast quantities of animals in a scientific manner, and kill them humanely, I see no reason to deprive those humans who are meat-eaters, of their protein. After all, our body is designed to absorb all kinds of food.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  32. Mahesha

    Dear Sanjeev,
     
    After all these discussions, let me put my views. I do NOT agree with banning cow slaughter right now, just because it is not practical (I will explain why). Otherwise, I do NOT agree with you that Cow is not special compared to any other animal. For understanding this difference, you should read literature about natural farming techniques (examples – Bhaskar Save, Subhash palekar). If you do so, you will realize the importance of Cow, even after it stops milking. Believe me, if you have enough number of committed and informed farmers, you can green thousands of hectares of arid and waste land in India using cow as a facilitator. And more over, your view that Vedic people ate meat is highly controversial, so lets not risk ourselves by basing our views on these arguments. And coming to the practicality issue I mentioned earlier, the problem is, if you ban cow slaughter immediately, you are left with so many hungry cows. Do we have enough grazing land to feed them? Can we provide fodder for them? No. We have lost so much of top soil and hence greenery in this country, so unless you create sufficient supporting eco system for large number of cows, you will be left with cows dying slow death due to hunger. That is even worse than killing them.
     
    And one last point about your "right to food" and the counter arguments supporting "forced ban on food" – If you make sure Cow is really good for your farming and hence for your country, no one will kill them. That makes both parties happy. Isn't it?
     

    Regards,
    Mahesha

     
  33. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Mahesha

    Cows may be “special” but that does not mean their dead body is to be buried without extracting value – that value makes the cow (as any other cattle or animal used in animal husbandry) even more special. Any renewable natural resource (e.g. cow) has an optimal cycle of investment and harvesting. By all means extract full value from a cow during this cycle. In general, though, there is always an optimal point (or cost) to use the cow as a productive resource.

    And if someone’s investment plans require feeding a barren cow till the end of its life, so be it. I’m happy for such farmers to choose not to kill cows but to feed them till their old age! All I’m saying is let’s not make a fetish of a cow and allow farmers to choose whatever they wish to do with the resource that they own!

    You and I have not paid for a single cow (at least I have not). I have business to say that if someone else buys a cow then he/she can or cannot use it in particular ways. It would be like saying that you can buy a tractor but you can’t sell it for its iron to after it stops working!

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  34. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    I’ve scanned through the article. Very poorly referenced and shows absolutely no understanding of the huge diversity of opinion and expression on this subject in India through the ages. And bringing in Robert Clive is very convenient (!)

    Such shallow presentations of a complex reality do not add any value to the discussion. In any case, whatever happened in the past is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the state has no authority to impose the will of some of its members on others who don’t agree with that view. The mere fact that something is in the Directive Principles means nothing. I have long argued for the abolition of these principles which are totally irrelevant in a Constitution (see details in BFN).

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  35. P. K. KAUL

    someone has stated above that:
    Hindu Brahmins of Kashmir eat beef.Pray From where did did this ignorant bufoon get this nugget of MISINFORMATION. ?
     
    P. K. KAUL
     
     

     
  36. Abhishek Vaishnava

    Enough !! All the blaw-blaw against the hindu belief only. Leave the history aprt; today's fact is that all hindus regard the cow as a mother. Dear sir, would you ever dare to write why muslims hate to slaughter & eat an useless creature like pig? And why can't you have the freedom to have pork in all 50 muslim countries?
    Cow is an important link between the Human & the Nature. India had been a prosperous country unless we respected cow and  now during last 50 years only more than 2.5 lac farmers have commited suicide.
    It seems the aruthor has witten the artical from his air conditioned study room. To understand the utility of cow first go to the villages, farms & meet the farmers & then opine whether cow should be slaughtered or not.
    I born & brought-up in a city but after completing my masters I coose farming in a remote village of my forefathers, I do not have any modern machine like tractor, disel pump etc. eccept some modified traditional agriculture instrments. I do farming thrugh bulls only. We never sell cow or bull even it has gone very old and is not capable for producing milk or doing work in the form fields. We make enough fertilizer though their waste that justify the utility of these oldies till their natural death.
    I am proud to day say I am a much wealthier farmer & the credit goes to cows only.
    I strongly believe cow should never be slaughtered even though we are a pure utilarian & do not have any trust in religion.
    Abhishek Vaishnava

     
  37. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Abhishek

    I have NO INTENTION of asking YOU to slaughter a cow. Please don’t! Never have I imposed anything on anyone.

    All I say is that is it IMPROPER to impose that condition on the whole country. Let each Indian decide for himself. Please let people be free to choose.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  38. avanish

     
    Hello to everyone here,
    I’m too young (barely 14) to interfere into this sensitive discussion of you all highly talented intellectuals which requires a great deal of experience to utter any single word but as everyone is talking about “freedom” so let me take my chances here :-P if it isn't too late yet.
    Anyway, coming to the point, Sir
    I too have a little question and I shall be highly grateful if you could care to answer.
    I’ve been told and read in texts about many stories on unity which preach that “united we stand and divided we fall”. I very much adore your open-mindedness and I equally respect Baba Ramdev’s initiatives for the prosperity of this country.  You both are ultimately working towards the same goal then what in the world makes you argue with each other. Why not try to understand each other’s sentiments?
    Everything that you have said throughout this discussion has a valid reason but so does is the case with Baba Ramdev’s thoughts. You (Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeev) seem like a great policy maker and he (Swami Ramdev) is a true Yogi, trying the best he knows to uplift OUR country. I wonder, why on earth you can’t form an alliance with mutual consent and cooperation.
    WHAT IS “BETTER ECONOMICS” WITHOUT ETHICS & MORAL VALUES AND WHAT IS THE USE OF THOSE PRINCIPALS (MORALS) WHICH FORBID GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT.
    I plea to both the parties to work in collaboration and mutual understanding for the benefit of my India and your India and try to set a good example for people like me who will eventually learn from our elder’s deeds.
    “A single stick can be easily broken but the same is very difficult if you hold a bunch of them together!”
    P.S. I’m extremely sorry if my views or language has offended any of you dignitaries and caused disrespect by any means. I apologize for the same and make a humble request to kindly excuse me [considering my age :-) ]
    Thanks 
    with warm regards,
    avanish

     
  39. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Avanish

    Your sentiments are excellent and on the right track. The debate here is not between me and Baba Ramdev who surely has not even heard of me, but between me and some followers of Baba Ramdev. So I can’t join hands with Baba Ramdev since I’m not discussing anything with him. That opportunity may well arise in the future.

    The question of cooperation only arises when the goals and methods are agreed. Please read BFN to get an idea of how different ideas have different impacts on society. Socialism, capitalism, and religious fanaticism have different impacts.

    The most moral system of all is capitalism. All others are far lower in morality. It was the philosophers of capitalism who propounded equal rights, liberation of slaves, equal rights for women, democracy, and ALL the good things you see in the modern world. Capitalist societies also have the least corruption in government. So on the question of morality, I suggest that classical liberalism stands on a FAR HIGHER pedestal than what Baba Ramdev stands for.

    The good thing about Baba Ramdev is that he wants to eliminate corruption. I agree with that, but in my case that will AUTOMATICALLY go, once capitalism (i.e. freedom) is introduced into India. So yes, I agree with him, but I also suggest that his methods WON’T remove corruption, but possibly create the kind of nightmare that the French experienced after the French revolution – mass beheadings without trial.

    He is a very violent man at heart: continuously talks about killing this and that person for their crime (particularly corruption, but even cow slaughter). He doesn’t understand why a particular crime might be taking place (noting that cow slaughter is not a crime), and what can be done to prevent it from happening.

    Being a good man is not enough. Being able to see through people, and their incentives, is vital. That is what the science of economics does.

    I’m afraid despite your best intentions he is not going to listen to my ideas, but should he do so, then yes, we can cooperate.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  40. Nidhi

    Hello All,
    I think we need to rethink and consider all aspects when we put our ideas and thoughts.
    If we look at the history of capital punishment methods we see that a lot of research was done to make punishment painless but later found that each methods caused considerable sufferings to the person in question.
    It is  very painful to know that most of these methods that was advocated, suggested and implemented had a selfish motivation. This was very apparent when it was found the methods was inadequate to make the punishment painless.
    Now, to the point new discoveries and methods implemented to slaughter animals for food or otherwise is also the result of selfish motivation and will also lead to the same result. Moreover what is the crime committed by these innocent animals.
    We need to remember that we are also animals by nature. Remember we yes we are only animals on earth that call ourselves "The Social Animals (superior than another animals)" but this does not change anything.
    If really we are superior we need to be more responsible.
    So, Please be responsible..

     
  41. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Nidhi

    Eating food is not a crime!

    Animals are HUMAN FOOD. They have been for a very long time, and that is why our bodies are fully adapted to eat animals. We are omnivores and hence better adapted to life on earth than any other animal. Even carnivores eat animals. Does that mean they are committing a crime?

    Clearly we are inventing a lot of arguments inside our head to imagine that killing animals is a crime. We have a fertile sense of logic. But nature DOES NOT CARE for our logic. It has designed us to be omnivores and no amount of arguing will change that.

    However, you are most welcome to practice vegetarianism. All I’m saying is that it is wrong to stop others from their choice of food.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  42. Abhishek Vaishnava

    Dear Sir,
    Animals are HUMAN FOOD……….srange !!! don't they have any sentiments ? Don't they love to live ? don't they have the right to live ?
    I am a 35 old male, hight 6 Ft., weight 75 kg, I had been in swimming at state level, I never had any medicine in life accept twice for malaria. I don't have any health related problem, I am 100% fit and am a vigiterian by birth. I hope your vegitarial mother is also enjoying good health without any complaint caused by vegitarian food.
    People eat animals just for the taste, its not thier need.  To kill any any creature for a mean purpose of taste is a crime, it is violance and is not human at all. Eating food is not a crime but to kill a creature for a mean perpose is certainly.
    You present yourself as a great supporter of freedom but you don't have any sentiments for animals. Please visit a chicken shop or a slaughter house & closely watch that bird's\animal's struggle for the life, see it's eyes, listen it's cry.
    Now I challenge you to live only on  100% animal flash for just one week. ( if  "animals are our food" is the fact then nothing wrong should happen to you? Are you ready sir ?
    Let's watch a match between " human mind's fertile sense of logic" and your so called nature's law.
    Best wishes.
    Abhishek Vaishnava

     
  43. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Abhishek

    You’ll need to start studying biology, else your emotion-driven views will take you astray. Humans have a brain. Please use it.

    The question was: Are animals human food? The answer is YES. That is a basic biological truth of evolution. No amount of emotional concern will change that fact. The concern is well-founded, given our sentiments, but that means we should (a) kill with the least pain and (b) avoid meat if we wish. So you are welcome to be a vegetarian.

    Re: “I challenge you to live only on 100% animal flash for just one week”. Indeed, the Eskimos live almost PURELY on meat. Since the eat a lot of sea food, that is perfectly fine. Indeed, there are diets (e.g. Atkins) which use PURE meat. I don’t recommend that, though. I believe in a balanced diet.

    Some SCIENTIFIC (not emotional) advice on a balanced diet:

    Heart Foundation: http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/sites/HealthyEating/SiteCollectionDocuments/Dietary%20fats%20healthy%20eating%20messages.pdf

    UK Food standards agency: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/bghbooklet.pdf

    etc. Even a BASIC good (scientific!) book on food will teach you these basic facts.

    Good luck with your learning of biology, our evolutionary history, and the consumption of a balanced diet.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  44. Abhishek Vaishnava

    I really appreciate your concern to prevent me from dumping in a astray. I should strat reading some books, your suggested sites.  Humans got brain;  I should start using it………………..don't you think its getting personal ? Rather reacting on my views you are commenting on me.
    I had also seen you earlier asking a doctor the subject of his study. Later you commented despite being highly qualified his approach is not sceintific.
    Please don't get annoyed, irritate; prove if you do have logic yet.
    It seems you have closed your mind and living in your own world with strange fancies. Amzing theoris " capitalization will reduce corruption", " Swami Ramdeo's mind is very violant as he wants ban on cow's slaughter & you yourself is a non-violant person advocating cow's killing".
    1. In july I had my MER; my lipid profile, BP, BMI, eyesight, tryglycerides, kretanin, body flexibility – all are perfectly allright. From generations we are vegitarians and healthy as well, I don't need to take lessions on what to eat.
    2. It was before the advant of capitalization when science was exploring secrets of the nature in a  true scientific manner. Post capitalization it is the market that is regulating the direction of the science. Watch today's science – " egg is a vegitable" ( it comes from plants !!). Market corrupted today's science.
    Please come out of the community of the book worms & experience the ground realities beforing aruing any theory on a vast level.
    "श्रद्धा का अर्थ अन्धविश्वास नहीं है. किसी ग्रन्थ में कुछ लिखा हुआ या किसी व्यक्ति का कुछ कहा हुआ अपने अनुभव के बिना सच मानना श्रद्धा नहीं है". – स्वामी विवेकानंद.  
    Wish you happy ventilation of your mind.
    Best wishes.
    Abhishek Vaishnav

     
  45. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Abhishek

    Re: “From generations we are vegitarians and healthy as well, I don’t need to take lessions on what to eat.”

    Did I EVER ask you to become a non-vegetarian? I have not only many (!) vegetarian friends but also many (!) vegetarian relatives. I don’t ask them to change their personal choices.

    This is not about health, either. Health is determined by too many factors. Vegetarians can be happily as healthy (or more) than non-vegetarians.

    This is about scientific facts: (a) acknowledging that our ancient ancestors were GUARANTEED to be meat eaters (that’s why those who eat meat can digest it); that (b) about 80% of the world’s humans eat meat; that (c) animal milk products (e.g. cow milk) are PURELY NON-VEGETARIAN, etc. etc.

    Then this is about choice. All I say is that Baba Ramdev has no business imposing his religious and other dietary preferences on India. He should work to reform governance, not create a policy on what someone can eat in India. That’s not relevant to India’s prosperity.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  46. Abhishek Vaishnava

    Dear Sir,
     
    I am observing you are adamant for supporting cow’s killing not because of any logic but it is just because you think so. Since you are highly qualified you try to share your information as logic. (It is said brain with overloaded information looses its natural creativity. Scientists have observed a five year old child does 105 creative things in a day while a 40 years old only 5.)  Whenever one raises any valid point you overlook the same & try to put your own point whether not aptly related.
     
    Just referring a funny T-shirt quotation, “I was born intelligent but education spoiled me”. Sometimes unknowingly people become victim of these kinds of irony.
     
    Winning an argument is not a solution to any problem. Let’s try to conclude the debate. Can’t we restart the debate point wise and pick the next one only after the previous is concluded.  You may add points of your choice as well.
     

    Animals are human food.
    Animal flesh is inevitable in human diet.
    Animal flesh is inevitable for maintaining good health.
    Killing for food is nature’s law.
    There is no significance of human sentiments/religion/tradition against the utility.
    Killing an animal is not violence.
    Killing an animal with less painful method is not violence.
    Animal do not have the basic right to live.
    Ban on cow’s slaughter will be interference into the basic right of freedom of the people.
    Ban on cow’s slaughter should be taken as entire interruption on one’s freedom of what he/she wants to eat.
    Since Hindus of Vedic times had been eating beef (so called history) they can’t ask for a ban now.
    State can not interfere in people’s personal life.
    Since 80% of the world population is non vegetarian we should follow them.
    Since we drink cow’s milk hence we can kill her for flesh also.
    Since our ancestors of primitive ages were guaranteed non vegetarians, civilized should continue the same habit. 

     
    Eagerly waiting your affirmation.
     
    Regards,
     
    Abhishek Vaishnav

     
  47. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Abhishek

    A number of things you’re suggesting have been invented. I never said nor even remotely suggested them. You are welcome to your views, but don’t distort what I say, please. I trust that you will do me that much favour, even if you don’t agree with me.

    At this point the discussion is going at cross purposes. You are starting to get personal, making false claims about me and about what I said, etc.

    Do you think it is worthwhile discussing this further with you? Would you like to have a discussion where people start saying false things about you, and about what you never said? How you would feel?

    Can we please revert to a discussion based on what I have said, not what you imagine I’ve said? And leave aside my “qualifications” and all that. That has nothing to do with this issue (or indeed any other).

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  48. Abhishek Vaishnava

    Dear Sir,
    I am not against any individual. I am against the thought. A thought that is causing killing of millions of innocent animals. The points is raised seem to be personal because thoughts belong to you.
    Compation is human and I am not ashamed of beinng sensitive towards others pain. My humanity includes all creatures.
    If one is not reday to understand others point of view; thinking stops progressing.
    I offered you to debate on clear cut points.
    Anyway I got the answer, I was expecting the same your side.  Now no need waste my time here any more .
    You are going to see complete ban on cow's slaughter  very soon.
    Regards.
    Abhishek Vaishnav
     

     
  49. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Abhishek

    Foolish Indians have done worse. If this is what India wants – to remain a desperately poor nation – so be it. At every point, the idea of reason is trashed, and “belief” raised to the pedestal.

    Sure a ban can be imposed on cow slaughter or anything else, but the underlying idea – of opposing human freedom – will continue to take India down the drain of deep poverty.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  50. Radhika

    Hi everyone,

    I was reading comments on this thread and I got interested in the topic. Yes its a controversial matter, whether or not non-vegetarianism is Humane. I agree upto a certain extent that food is subject matter of personal interest. I am not really much into radicalism and I feel that personal freedom should be respected.

    I loved eating meat and sea foods. Nonveg wasnt any taboo in our family so I enjoyed it. I usually ate outside but sometimes enjoyed cooking it myself. Once I showed up a little early at the butcher’s place. He asked me to wait. I was a little impatient but still decided to wait. As he was taking the animal (goat) out for the job, I saw that the animal was braying out loudly and trying helplessly to escape. Butcher had to forcefully drag him. His feets were brushing against the soil, creating lines. Somehow, butcher’s hand slipped and the animal was released for a fraction of a second. Dont know if it was any coincidence, but he started to run in my direction. Almost immediately, the butcher grabbed him again from his hind legs. I could see his eyes glaring at me and blinking while butcher was dragging him back (I know they have kinda short eyesight that too b/w but it really felt as if he was staring me). Butcher soon finished the job and asked us to take-pay-and-leave. I did. While walking back I was slightly disturbed… It was a very awkward feeling. I mean I ate and cooked meat several times before and never felt a thing… Probably coz it was just served onto the plate without me caring for background details.

    While preparing meat this time, I just couldn’t stop reckoning that incident… His eyes were so real… Dont know if I was being sentimental, but somehow I felt guilty when I saw the meat lying in front of me. It was kinda strange feeling that this meat was alive a few hours back and trying helplessly to escape. I asked myself a simple question that day “Can I live without eating nonveg to avoid that guilty feeling that an animal was butchered because of me?” I felt I could… Its been over 5 years now since I left nonveg. Yes there were cravings at first but really switchover wasn’t like too difficult.

    I dont know if carnivores or eskimos are doing the wrong thing by eating nonveg, especially considering the fact that possibly they dont have any other option. Thankfully, I am not in that position, and I have plenty of vegetarian substitutes. I am leading quite healthy and peaceful life.

    Not sure if my version is any relevant here in this discussion, but it was just my experience…

     
  51. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks, Radhika

    In 1980 or 1981 I personally raised about a dozen chicken at home and after they were grown up, slaughtered and ate them. A Kashmiri friend from Deccan College showed me how to cook them in the Kashmiri style. And indeed, that is the only thing I know how to cook, so far (apart from an omelette and cup of tea).

    Later, I bought chicken in Assam from shops where they freshly kill chicken before your eyes to ensure its freshness and quality. And I have taken it home and eaten the chicken.

    I do not feel any negative emotion about food. I am 100% aware that chicken meat is not a vegetable, but comes from a real, living, breathing bird that has been killed before the end of its natural life. But I know that this is highly beneficial to the chicken species. Because we eat chicken, therefore we breed more chicken, and chicken population (as a species) has therefore sky-rocketed by a thousand-fold. It is therefore a win-win situation for the species and for mankind. That is how nature works. We need to avoid getting emotional about the ways of nature.

    As part of the government funded IRDP and other programs, I have gone about establishing small chicken farms, pig farms, etc. in households in villages. We funded people to rear livestock. That is government policy even today.

    Note that I’m perfectly happy with each of us having the freedom to choose, and to learn the way we do. You have “learnt” something based on India’s terrible regulatory framework for animals, but also on the basis of your lack of awareness that meat comes from animals. So the idea that something is actually killed before you eat its meat came as a shock to you (In the West, no one ever sees the actual animal slaughter which is highly regulated. All you get are packets of meat, so perhaps you’d not have thought this way, but that would have been a shame, because we disrespect the animal that feeds us if we imagine it was magically produced on our plate). Yes, animals are KILLED before we eat them. We are not scavengers. We don’t eat dead animals.

    Note also that we are all different. Some of us can’t stomach blood and gore, but others can. Only someone who understands the real nature of reality can take up the challenge of becoming a soldier, butcher, or even doctor (surgeon). The higher one’s knowledge of reality the less we devote emotional energy to such things. I come from a science background (mentally) and see the world as a bunch of energy, in its different forms and shapes. We don’t control nor own this world: it owns us. We are part of it, not sitting in judgement over its rules and laws.

    What are you doing to do about the major religions like Judaism (kosher) and Islam (halal) where animals (including cows) are required to be killed with great brutality (by today’s standards)? Are you going to re-write their scriptures for them? And what are you going to do about animal sports (e.g. bullfighting/cock-fighting, etc.) that involve great cruelty? You’ve got a lifelong task cut out for you, trying to change 80% of the world, and fighting reality.

    It is true that on many of these thing the world is changing. We demand less cruelty and more stringent regulatory standards today (that are not found in India). And that is what I recommend. I advocate increasing the regulatory standards for animal slaughter, and eliminating brutal animal “sports”, while leaving the option of eating whatever they wish, to the people.

    I would suggest that unless you are God yourself with the power to completely change (a) nature, and (b) major non-Hindu religions, you ought to be happy with choosing your way of life, while encouraging others to see the world your way. Be a Jaini monk, if that’s your wont, and persuade others. But no imposition, please! That’s all I’m saying, no more.

    I’m NOT writing against vegetarianism, nor am I advocating non-vegetarianism. I’m simply advocating freedom and non-violence. But Baba Ramdev is not using this language of freedom and respect for humans. He talks of killing those who slaughter cows. I find such a thought obnoxious and abhorrent beyond imagination, where someone values human life less than the life of a chicken, fish, or cow.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  52. Pankaj

    Sanjeev Sir 

    I am may be Ignorant here , but I am making some controversial statement and may be some will tag me as a Hindu Fanatic

    But my Question is Why we need to adjust with Migrants ( Muslim , Christian and others ) This is Our Land and we have a First right on this land here We have rights ( Natural) to follow or not to follow something .. being a Migrant sufficient section of people must adjust with us , If they cant they are allowed to leave … Why we need to change and adjust for others .

    Pankaj

     
  53. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Pankaj

    What is a migrant? When does a migrant become a citizen with full rights? And should migrant’s human rights be less important than the rights of a ‘citizen’?

    Christians came to India 2000 years go. Muslims came 1000 years ago. Are they still “migrants”?

    How do you reconcile this with an Italian who doesn’t know a SINGLE India script becoming head of India’s largest political party? In my view it should be important to be BORN in India in order to hold important office (possibly even to become an MP/MLA). But these fellow Indians of various religious belief have been BORN in India for 35 generations or more! Is that not enough, in your opinion?

    s

     
  54. Pankaj

    Dear Sir 
    How come christian come to india 2000 Years Ago and Muslim 1000 Yrs  ( Any Supportive )..  If So The Both Would come to india For Business Purpose ,Otherwsise the Main Reason both came here is to loot us , This is evident When Ghazni and Ghori and the British Dutch and other european country People Came here , They dont came here to Reside  , The both came here With their Military , after seeing the Unlimited Resources they decided to Stay here , 
    But My question is Yes they can get full residential Rights after staying specific time , but only Constitutional Rights ,They Wont get and Moral and cultural Rights on this Land , This only they will get After They calling them self as Hindus ,  They cant Influvence our culture and Tradition , If we Believing  Cow is Sacred Animal and it cant be killed .  then it cant be  be in India ( This will be Included to Eating Beaf Hindu People also ) , Just because some Migrants come and reside here and they got now constitutional rights that doent means that we will let them to kill and eat , First Priority and rights on land will be always with Hindus , And we have every Rights to Decide in our society What we want and not , And i agree we cant influvence Muslim and Christian Culture also , They can lead their way … 

    We Already lost our Own Motherland as pakistan and Bangladesh Afghanistan  .. Why , Why , Why only we need to loose because of Other ………. 

    Just because we are tollerant culture only we need to tolerate everything … dont we have any Responsibilty towards our Sanskriti our culture and society .. 

    and those who elect Sonia Gandhi they are Fool Seculars and intelectuals … 

    Pankaj 

     
  55. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Pankaj, your summary of India’s history leaves much to be desired. Do go and study it a bit more.

    Re: “they can get full residential Rights after staying specific time , but only Constitutional Rights”. Well, liberty is a constitutional right. Must be, else there is no point in having a constitution.

    Finally, re: “First Priority and rights on land will be always with Hindus , And we have every Rights to Decide in our society What we want and not”. This, btw, is called the Hindutva philosophy. It is plain wrong, since in a free society, Hindus MUST have their own right to freedom and belief, but so also must others. There is no “first priority” in a free society. Let everyone be free. That’s India’s message to the world.

    s

     
  56. suresh

    The argument is purely on rational grounds that hindus used to meat before and lacks complete senstive to cruelty and trivializes the species-im that humans have been inflicting on animals for ever , ( which of course had a useful place in our survival of course but no longer necessary ) which is probably the root of the vegan movement all over the world. I will probably agree that the state shouldn’t ban it. And but the animal cruelty is an issue all over the world, that we need to care in the middle of this constant chase of maximizing our gratification.

    I liked the humane treatment part in australia. Maybe rallying for that might be the first course of action here.

     
  57. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    The vegan idea is likely to be fatal to mankind. Human child needs animal food, e.g. mother’s milk.

    Yes, animal cruelty is the key problem here. See https://www.sabhlokcity.com/2014/11/the-barbaric-vegetarians-of-india-and-their-brutal-criminal-treatment-of-cow-mothers-bull-fathers-and-calf-sons/

     

     
  58. alex

    ban.1 ltr cow milk contains 1.5 million white blood cells. blood is the life line of every living thing.even yourself.if christians and muslims must stop eating.then you also have to stop drinking milk. the same hindu aghori bhabas sit on the banks of ganga and eat human meat.we are better than that…why ban beef.ban chicken.mutton fish and fork.arent they souls in your view point.have you forgotten. ..pathetic

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.