Cattle protection legislation that selectively criminalises the possession and consumption of one among the several key products derived from cattle - most notably dairy - as reason for the slaughter ban reflects a flawed policy heavily influenced by human identity politics. The silence around dairy's role in cattle slaughter shows how phenomenally off-the-mark the ostensible protectionist aims of the beef ban are. India is the world's largest producer of milk, and in India in particular; it is dairy that keeps the entire life cycle of cattle lucrative, much more than beef does.

Cattle experience unimaginable misery to serve human dairy needs: female cattle no older than children are forced in what is for them, a forced sex routine of repeated pregnancies to produce milk till they are slaughtered for being 'useless'. Female cattle suffer severe abuse to increase milk production, and agonise each time they are separated from their calves after birth so humans can consume their milk.

Male-calf infanticide is rampant to support lifelong human dairy wants. In the end, all 'spent' cattle, regardless of age, gender, health or species, are transported in unthinkably cruel conditions to inhumane slaughterhouses throughout the country once their utility for dairy is exhausted.

All human communities, regardless of caste or religion consume copious amounts of dairy, everyday, and usually for the entirety of their life from birth to death. Aside from dietary consumption, even Hindu, Jain and Buddhist religions centrally rely on dairy. Major Shiva and Krishna temples of North India for instance each pour over 45,000 litres of milk per week on their deities during peak festival months. The smallest and most innocuous of Hindu rituals, from marriage to simple blessings, cannot proceed without milk or ghee as sacred offerings. Any meaningful cattle protection legislation must address the sheer and increasing scale of dairy consumption throughout India, regardless of communities.

The protection selectively extended to only cows, bulls and their progeny - excluding buffaloes from its ambit - exposes the extent to which cattle protection, a sacred Hindu ethic is misunderstood or even strategically abused. Mahatma Gandhi interpreted cow-protection as 'protection of the whole dumb creation of God'. The cow to him represented 'the entire sub-human world'. Cow protection is not about protecting only the cow.

To pretend that the buffalo is up for exploitation - an animal that is used, almost part-by-part in identical ways to the cow (with the glaring prohibition of buffalo dairy use in Hindu rituals as s/he is perceived to be a lower-caste bovine) - while the cow is not, is a convenient delusion that is rooted in religious hypocrisy and customer convenience. Rather, cow protection is a means for humans to transcend our limiting and illusory anthropocentrism, to take 'the human being beyond his species'.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Sikularization has destroyed old Indian ways.

In traditional India, rural folks believed that if the cows and buffaloes become unhappy, prosperity will abandon that family. If they shed a tear, misery falls on the family. Calves are treated with affection and care. A fixed proportion of the milk is left for the calf whether it drinks it or not. On the streets, when calves run from one end to the other, villagers felt that there is prosperity.

These days, since rural India is using tractors, cows and she-buffaloes are kept for milk but bulls and he-buffaloes are sold off for meat and hyde. Why don't Sikularists do the same to humans - keep a couple of studs in each village and shoot all lazy, bimaru men?

truthbetold wrote:CD
It is a loser's argument to pose development  as against environment. 

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Sikularization has destroyed old Indian ways.

In traditional India, rural folks believed that if the cows and buffaloes become unhappy, prosperity will abandon that family. If they shed a tear, misery falls on the family. Calves are treated with affection and care. A fixed proportion of the milk is left for the calf whether it drinks it or not. On the streets, when calves run from one end to the other, villagers felt that there is prosperity.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Sikularization has destroyed old Indian ways.

In traditional India, rural folks believed that if the cows and buffaloes become unhappy, prosperity will abandon that family. If they shed a tear, misery falls on the family. Calves are treated with affection and care. A fixed proportion of the milk is left for the calf whether it drinks it or not. On the streets, when calves run from one end to the other, villagers felt that there is prosperity.

True Unkil. And when cows and buffaloes aged and turned barren, they were lovingly let free in senior-citizen pastures full of lush grass where they could feed themselves and romp around till their dying days. My eyes tear up from visualizing that glorious bovine utopia from a fictional past.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Sikularization has destroyed old Indian ways.

In traditional India, rural folks believed that if the cows and buffaloes become unhappy, prosperity will abandon that family. If they shed a tear, misery falls on the family. Calves are treated with affection and care. A fixed proportion of the milk is left for the calf whether it drinks it or not. On the streets, when calves run from one end to the other, villagers felt that there is prosperity.

True Unkil. And when cows and buffaloes aged and turned barren, they were lovingly let free in senior-citizen pastures full of lush grass where they could feed themselves and romp around till their dying days. My eyes tear up from visualizing that glorious bovine utopia from a fictional past.

May be fictional where you come from. Explains your Sikular outlook!

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

didn't the vedic era sages eat beef?

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

didn't the vedic era sages eat beef?

Post the name of a "Vedic era" sage that ate beef.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

didn't the vedic era sages eat beef?

Post the name of a "Vedic era" sage that ate beef.

http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/beef_in_ancient_india.pdf

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

didn't the vedic era sages eat beef?

Post the name of a "Vedic era" sage that ate beef.

http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/beef_in_ancient_india.pdf

Animal sacrifice at some yagas and the associated eating of some parts are not same as gorging on the meat every day. A Somayaji may eat meat at a special yajna but he doesn't on a daily basis. Also, metaphorical references to some "Gods" "eating" do not translate into eating meat as a habit by people. For example, Indra the bull-eater or Agni the beef eater are metaphorical statements. Aurabindo Ghosh has done some work on this. Perhaps you would like to read his work with an open mind. If Purusha sooktam says, "paadosya viswaabhootaani", it doesn't mean that the universe came out of feet. When metaphorical meaning is lost, DKheadish explanations come out (that is how Ravana became a Dravidian).

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

didn't the vedic era sages eat beef?

Post the name of a "Vedic era" sage that ate beef.

http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/beef_in_ancient_india.pdf

Animal sacrifice at some yagas and the associated eating of some parts are not same as gorging on the meat every day. A Somayaji may eat meat at a special yajna but he doesn't on a daily basis. Also, metaphorical references to some "Gods" "eating" do not translate into eating meat as a habit by people. For example, Indra the bull-eater or Agni the beef eater are metaphorical statements. Aurabindo Ghosh has done some work on this. Perhaps you would like to read his work with an open mind. If Purusha sooktam says, "paadosya viswaabhootaani", it doesn't mean that the universe came out of feet. When metaphorical meaning is lost, DKheadish explanations come out (that is how Ravana became a Dravidian).

i have no particular interest in this and have no strong opinions. i was raised in a vegetarian family and continue to be a vegetarian for the most part with rare forays into sea food. i mentioned it because i remember reading somewhere that the vedic sages were beef eaters and that it is sankara who turned the hindu population against beef eating.

Kinnera wrote:Adi Sankara was a reformist. Hinduism had turned too ritualistic, with a lot of animal sacrifices, blind idol worship and rampant caste system before he brought out the latent Advaita philosophy which propounds oneness and omnipresence of god/That. There was such decadence in Hinduism that without him, it would've gone extinct. (That explains Rashmun's acrimony for Sankara).

Anyway, it is a rashmunishtic logic to argue that since some sages ate beef (in whatever situation) back in the vedic era, hindus should also eat beef. Hinduism is not an organized religion which has standard set of rules and regulations (as can be seen in the 'thali' thread). Its traditions and values are simply followed from one generation to the other. Not eating beef is a value that has been followed by a majority through generations and it probably continues to be so.

That said, banning beef in india is a ridiculous thing to do. Who is anyone to dictate terms to others on what they should eat or not eat? Why should the govt control the food choices of its people?

The other countries which control the food choices of its people are probably muslim countries where one can't get ham or bacon or any of the pork products. But they are the last role models that India should follow.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Kinnera wrote:Adi Sankara was a reformist. Hinduism had turned too ritualistic, with a lot of animal sacrifices, blind idol worship and rampant caste system before he brought out the latent Advaita philosophy which propounds oneness and omnipresence of god/That. There was such decadence in Hinduism that without him, it would've gone extinct. (That explains Rashmun's acrimony for Sankara).

Anyway, it is a rashmunishtic logic to argue that since some sages ate beef (in whatever situation) back in the vedic era, hindus should also eat beef. Hinduism is not an organized religion which has standard set of rules and regulations (as can be seen in the 'thali' thread). Its traditions and values are simply followed from one generation to the other. Not eating beef is a value that has been followed by a majority through generations and it probably continues to be so.

That said, banning beef in india is a ridiculous thing to do. Who is anyone to dictate terms to others on what they should eat or not eat? Why should the govt control the food choices of its people?

The other countries which control the food choices of its people are probably muslim countries where one can't get ham or bacon or any of the pork products. But they are the last role models that India should follow.

You are ignoring Rashmun's brilliant analysis of India's history. If Babar didn't come to India, Indians would have been like cavemen. Speaking of beef, if Humayun's wife didn't practice bitila asana with him on a daly basis, India wouldn't have an emperor. If Aurangazeb didn't worship Shiva lingam, Hindus would have become veera vaishnavaites. If there is no H-M systhesis, India will be swallowed by the ocean......

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Sankara did contribute to banning animal sacrifices at temples. However, his main intent was to minimize tamasik religious practices. Killing animals, getting high on alcohol and dancing (as is done at jataras for "grama devatas") don't lead to calming down of vasanas.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Sankara did contribute to banning animal sacrifices at temples. However, his main intent was to minimize tamasik religious practices. Killing animals, getting high on alcohol and dancing (as is done at jataras for "grama devatas") don't lead to calming down of vasanas.

Aha! Sankara was the one who turned Hindus into wusses who in turn let monomaniacs run over them & takeover the Hindu-Desh. You guys should be mad at Sankara not at monomaniacs

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Sankara did contribute to banning animal sacrifices at temples. However, his main intent was to minimize tamasik religious practices. Killing animals, getting high on alcohol and dancing (as is done at jataras for "grama devatas") don't lead to calming down of vasanas.

Aha! Sankara was the one who turned Hindus into wusses who in turn let monomaniacs run over them & takeover the Hindu-Desh. You guys should be mad at Sankara not at monomaniacs

truthbetold wrote:It does not matter what one ate 2000 years ago.  What matters is today's habits. If only muslims eat beef, they still should have the right to eat beef.  They are 15% of indian population. Regulate but not ban.

It is irritating to see some RSS guy become CM and announces to rest of population what can they eat or not. If I were in India, that is good enough for me to get rid of his govt.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

truthbetold wrote:It does not matter what one ate 2000 years ago.  What matters is today's habits. If only muslims eat beef, they still should have the right to eat beef.  They are 15% of indian population. Regulate but not ban.

It is irritating to see some RSS guy become CM and announces to rest of population what can they eat or not. If I were in India, that is good enough for me to get rid of his govt.

That is fine.

Can a kafir living next to a Muslim family keep pigs and dogs as pets and allow them to wag their tails and become friendly when a Muslim guy meets him?