Tripura HC bans animal sacrifice in all temples with immediate effect

[maniac]

47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because both are done for the purpose of eating the said meat. I respect the one who butchers the meat more, because that person isn’t hiding behind some lame concept of not being responsible for death etc.

It is the same thing if they hunt for food. 

Who r u to judge what is barbaric in their culture ? As far as hygiene goes, it’s been that way for millennias and last I checked nobody is dying of hygiene related issues there. Clearly they know what they are doing .

It is for THEM to get rid of, not for the judiciary or outsiders to impose on.

The difference is we have no linear one doctrine custom. 

The custom is ceremony before eating it. 

No it is not. A douchebag having all amenities available to him actually going out of his way to kill animals for pleasure is not the same as a guy who has no other option but to hunt to survive. What next a guy who has sex with his wife is the same as a guy who pays to have sex with a prostitute because the final act is that they are having sex?

 

Look. I am not trying to impose my sensibilities .I can't watch an animal being slaughtered. I do not have the stomach for it and I think it is barbaric. Hence, I think the judgement is justified regardless of which religion is involved. Similarly, if they ban hunting I will welcome that judgement too. I am sure there are 100 justifications of that as well as how they are maintaining a balance in ecosystem,nature etc by shooting down defenseless animals etc. It doesn't match with my sensibilities so I think hunting is a barbaric pastime/sport as well.

 

I am sure there are traditions out there that indulge in cannibalism and find it totally normal. 

 

You opine on things the way you see things, not everything has to be about picking a team or a side. I thought banning this was in tune with my sensibilities and I support it. I do agree with people who brought up uniformity in such decision making. Absolutely, However 2 wrongs don't make 1 right (is that how the saying goes or is it the other way around?)

[BlackMamba]

As a temple goer, who wants a peaceful, serene and divine environment, I do not want animals to be hacked to death there inside a temple.  I don't think the god I offer my prayers will approve of that either.  Just because this tradition was picked up somewhere along the line, does not mean it has to continue.  Let us stop it.  We are far logical than our ancestors have been.

 

Do they hack goats inside a mosque during Bakrid? I do not think so.  And if they are doing, that is wrong as well.  ROP calls out gods every time an animal is hacked to make it "halal".

 

For meat consumption purposes - all animals should be killed at approved, hygenic locations just like they do this in western countries.  You could do it in your home, and i will not bother you.

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

No it is not. A douchebag having all amenities available to him actually going out of his way to kill animals for pleasure is not the same as a guy who has no other option but to hunt to survive.

I am sorry but that’s nonsense. Your point is valid if the hunting is for trophy hunting. But just because I have money, doesn’t make it any less valid for me to go kill an animal so I can eat it. It is not invalid to be what you are as a species and we are an omnivorous species. 

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

What next a guy who has sex with his wife is the same as a guy who pays to have sex with a prostitute because the final act is that they are having sex?

False equivalency. And I’d say that if the wife is okay with it and they follow the proper safe sex procedures, who the heck are we to question it ?? Jab mian biwi raazi to kya karega kaazi??

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

 

Look. I am not trying to impose my sensibilities .I can't watch an animal being slaughtered. I do not have the stomach for it and I think it is barbaric. Hence, I think the judgement is justified regardless of which religion is involved.

And that is called imposing your sensibilities. Something you find bad, so supporting it being banned for other people, when there is no victim, is textbook imposition of sensibilities.

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

Similarly, if they ban hunting I will welcome that judgement too. I am sure there are 100 justifications of that as well as how they are maintaining a balance in ecosystem,nature etc by shooting down defenseless animals etc. It doesn't match with my sensibilities so I think hunting is a barbaric pastime/sport as well.

And that is called lacking tolerance and imposing sensibilities from your part.

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

I am sure there are traditions out there that indulge in cannibalism and find it totally normal. 

False equivalency. cannibalism is objectively not present in nature outside of extreme stress to food systems or dominance behaviour. It’s not the same as equating it with omnivory, a valid means of eating and most valid for creatures who are biologically built for it, aka us humans. 

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

You opine on things the way you see things, not everything has to be about picking a team or a side. I thought banning this was in tune with my sensibilities and I support it. I do agree with people who brought up uniformity in such decision making. Absolutely, However 2 wrongs don't make 1 right (is that how the saying goes or is it the other way around?)

It’s not your place to question how others kill animals to eat it. Whether I do it in my home, in a mosque, in a temple or on someone’s clothing shop, it’s between me and them. Whether I kill it reciting a prayer to allah or kalki or whatever, is irrelevant to the point that I am killing it to eat it and it’s my fundamental right to kill and eat animals, in accordance to our biological nature. 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, BlackMamba said:

As a temple goer, who wants a peaceful, serene and divine environment, I do not want animals to be hacked to death there inside a temple.  I don't think the god I offer my prayers will approve of that either.  Just because this tradition was picked up somewhere along the line, does not mean it has to continue.  Let us stop it.  We are far logical than our ancestors have been.

 

Do they hack goats inside a mosque during Bakrid? I do not think so.  And if they are doing, that is wrong as well.  ROP calls out gods every time an animal is hacked to make it "halal".

 

For meat consumption purposes - all animals should be killed at approved, hygenic locations just like they do this in western countries.  You could do it in your home, and i will not bother you.

 

Then don't go to their temple. Why impose your sensibilities on someone who wants to pray in a certain way? As long they are not imposing their way of worship in all temples, you should confine  your worhip to your temple and not f,'in bother how they worship in their temple.

 

This is like a devotee ofa krishna temple in vrindavan going to a kali temple in WB and complaining that devotees offer meat to their god. You should worship in your temple and don't impose your beliefs I n I others.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, BlackMamba said:

As a temple goer, who wants a peaceful, serene and divine environment, I do not want animals to be hacked to death there inside a temple.  I don't think the god I offer my prayers will approve of that either.  Just because this tradition was picked up somewhere along the line, does not mean it has to continue.  Let us stop it.  We are far logical than our ancestors have been.

 

Do they hack goats inside a mosque during Bakrid? I do not think so.  And if they are doing, that is wrong as well.  ROP calls out gods every time an animal is hacked to make it "halal".

 

For meat consumption purposes - all animals should be killed at approved, hygenic locations just like they do this in western countries.  You could do it in your home, and i will not bother you.

 

Clearly you’ve never been to Shakti Peeths and your version of Hinduism is not the Bong-Assamiya-Tripuri and NE variety. There is nothing illogical about keeping an ancient food practice going. Just because we are modern and can have perfectly sanitized surfaces, doesn’t mean it is mandatory. Plenty of people cut and cook stuff on unsterilized surfaces and that too is fine and dandy. Nobody is complaining bout illness from eating there, let alone death, so who the heck are you to question them on how they ritually consume food during their pujas ?? 

[Tibarn]

7 hours ago, Gollum said:

True man, libtard frauds missing. They are generally quite vocal about freedom of choice when it comes to food, diversity etc, sadly nowhere to be seen now.

Even RSS is quiet as is BJP, RW voices aren't generating twitter hashtags either and this indifference is more unpardonable IMO. Despite being a RWer myself, I do agree RSS has natural inclination to homogenize Hinduism...sad to see them misunderstand the religion so badly. A real pity some of our sane friends here too are falling for this farce. 

 

That's the thing about the RSS. People paint them as some sort of Traditionalist organization, but they don't consider themselves such. They are like the Arya Samaj, a reformist organization. Reformists ultimately reform religions based on their own ideals. In fact, during the Pre-Independence Era, the INC was home to the traditionalists in the country. The organizations like HMS, RSS, Arya Samaj weren't considered to be traditionalist by traditionalists themselves. It's only sometime after INC got hijacked by Leftists post-Independence did it become some type of bizarre smear to label them as traditionalists.  I don't think there is anything  wrong with traditionalists, or that it is a smear, but I think people should label groups accurately based off of what they actually say...

 

An example of their reform drive is Saibaramala, which you mentioned earlier. RSS supported women's entry into that temple because it thinks all temple entry restrictions are wrong and compares it to restrictions on SCs from entering temples. In this example, it's not really an attempt of imposition by them on Kerala(I know it was the SC's stupid decision, but RSS initially favored the decision or at least didn't come out against it), as they also supported entry into Shani Shingnapur, in the RSS's home-state of Maharashtra as well. The difference was, after the feedback they received from the protests, they changed their tune. 

 

Ultimately it is feedback from Hindus themselves, particularly at the cost of votes, which will make them see the right way, IMO. 

 

Here is something to let people see the insight into how they were viewed when they were actually born, in context, this is referring to caste relations, which traditionalists would likely see as a key part of Hindu society. 

Dr. Ambedkar and Social Justice    by MG Chitrika

 

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Tibarn

[coffee_rules]

As a believer in animal rights, I am for the judgment. But it is against my belief in human rights and religious rights as protected by constitution which vetoes my belief in animal rights. 

 

RSS/BJP was silent on Sabarimala as well, and after the public sentiment was against the judgement, they gave out a statement. Same here, they will guage the public sentiment, seek mainstream approval and maneuver. chickens. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by coffee_rules

[zen]

Good. But why just temples, ban such sacrifices everywhere

[mishra]

14 hours ago, Gollum said:

Not going to point out names.

This is a Tripura issue, I am sure most of you don't visit Tripura to pray, neither your ancestors, possibly nor will your future generations. You may go as tourists (even then you may avoid the bali walleh temples or those altars) but doubt you will have the same attachment to the deity. Those people have been following those  traditions and rituals for centuries and it is an integral part of the version of Hinduism they follow. Hinduism isn't a homogeneous religion, different rituals in different places and you have to respect that. Hindus in Punjab, Bihar,TN needn't concern themselves with the practices in a far away place.....let all follow their own rituals.

Name pointing was to give you an example that some Hindus also would be offended by this practice. If not offended, they are atleast happy to see the practice stopped. I can understand that rituals and worship procedure is absolutely different to various parts of India and there are "Valid" reasons to it as well. But do you want a situation where a temple of high esteem like Kali Ghat, Kamakhya be only following local practices and should shut the doors to views and opinions of rest of Indians.

14 hours ago, Gollum said:

I am consistent in my stance, doesn't matter which state's Hindus get affected, be it Sabarimala (Kerala), Rajasthan, NE or Bihar (say chhath puja). As long the rituals are reasonable I am ok with that, some regulation will be understandable but ban? The bali meat is fed to many homeless people, likewise the coconuts they break in Bengaluru's temples are donated to the hungry...as I asked in other post will they next ban smashing of coconuts citing noise pollution? I will have more issues with pouring milk, honey, curd on idols...that is wasteful because it goes to the drain...that warrants reform but still devotees should take the initiative. Here the decision has been imposed by the milords, against the wish of devotees...straightaway ban. 

I don't understand, please elaborate, will help if you talk in context of this decision.

Who said inclusivity is a problem in these kind of temples? I lived in Bengal for most of my life, been to these temples thousands of times, inclusivity never a concern. If you have concerns/questions, ask me.

 

There is a local temple in state of UP. I ensure that no matter what, Each time I visit India, I go there. But I remember one incidence as a kid. My family ventured into Bali zone inadvertently. And immediately my mother was almost "sick" seeing the sight. Now do you think temple premises to be used in a practice like butchering , which actully requires license to do be ignored.

14 hours ago, Gollum said:

Who said inclusivity is a problem in these kind of temples? I lived in Bengal for most of my life, been to these temples thousands of times, inclusivity never a concern. If you have concerns/questions, ask me.

Of course we have to blame the judges. Who the hell are they to decide what is essential or non-essential in Hinduism? Are they experts on these matters? Do they know all scriptures and every tradition and ritual there is in all sects? Is either of them a greater authority on Hinduism than Adi Sankara, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda? Banning bali has infringed the way those folks practice their version of this giant umbrella religion called Hinduism. If you can't empathize with your fellow Hindus just because they practice it differently I don't know what to say man. Not often that I disagree with your viewpoints but here it appears we see it differently. 

offcourse incusivity is a problem due to this ritual, its infringement of some peoples right to to visit the temple in spiritual manner as sighit disturbs them.

IMO, In final part you are making some serious issue. Should Hindu priest themselves decide it or should it be left on court? Problem is someone took it to court. Now courts took a decision based on various articles of constitution and prevailing legal system. Should there been a consultation of whether it is right or wrong to do from various Hindu Heads? I will say, both Yes and NO. A debate must be done, but court shouldn't be bound by the outcome of the consultation similar to Muslims heads viewed that Tripple Talaq is valid but Court over ruled it.

14 hours ago, Gollum said:

Where is the equivalence? 

Treatment of Dalits is a discrimination problem. No one is being discriminated in these handful of shakti temples. Pray the way you want, whenever you want, whichever caste you are...even non-Hindus, foreigners are allowed in all these places. It is your personal business with the deity, you don't even have to be at the place (or time) where bali happens, neither do you have to eat the meat if that's what you are thinking . Go once to Kamakhya and see for yourself, enjoy the atmosphere and seek her blessings...you'll understand there is more than one path. 

Fortunately, Unfortunately, I have lived in Kolkata and North East as my Dad was entrusted with surveying of the soil of whole North East and appreciate that there is massive difference between Kamakhya Kalighat, Vidhyachal or Maihar. However 30 years back, practices,rituals werent far off.  Practices got changed over the period and priests themselves took the oenership of those changes in places like Maihar and Vindhyachal. So they still had the right/place/option to do the Bali but they stopped doing it.

 

The problem here as I see it is Court doing a blanket ban instead of sending a advisory to get rid of the practices as Indian Constitution has two articles which are exactly against each other on this and Judge is forced to take a "Personal" call based on what he think is "more" Correct.

 

 

BTW, practice of Bakarid has been put a a exception just like right to life to Cows within constitution. In a ideal world, I would like "right to life" for cows be extended to all animals of India.

[coffee_rules]

People get offended by PDA on Valentines Day and go thrash couples are called fascists. But people getting offended by a temple ritual in some remote state where local people pray and got it banned are champion activists. they are also forcing their views on others and should be called fascists.

[Moochad]

9 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Ultimately it is feedback from Hindus themselves, particularly at the cost of votes, which will make them see the right way, IMO. 

 

I don't expect BJP RSS to do anything useful for Hindus. If 5+ years in power doesn't convince people, I don't know what will. 

 

They get my vote because they are nationalist, but for Hindus, it feels like they have done nothing to protect the culture

 

 

[Moochad]

I personally am all for animal rights and would prefer animal sacrifice to be stopped, but that is a decision Hindus themselves have to make in my eyes. 

 

These courts are filled with radicals. 

 

There are such few places these things happen and they are parts of local traditions. There are plenty of temples where you don't have to see such things if it bothers you.

 

If they don't do the same thing during Eid, it will be naked hypocrisy. 

[mishra]

41 minutes ago, Moochad said:

I personally am all for animal rights and would prefer animal sacrifice to be stopped, but that is a decision Hindus themselves have to make in my eyes. 

 

These courts are filled with radicals. 

 

There are such few places these things happen and they are parts of local traditions. There are plenty of temples where you don't have to see such things if it bothers you.

 

If they don't do the same thing during Eid, it will be naked hypocrisy. 

Why. Constitution gives right to hold Kripan to Sikh.

Constitution gives right to Muslims to slaughter animals on Eid.

Constitution states that States have right to ban slaughter of Cows on Eid, Nothing more than that. Hoewever in past a observation was made that slaughter is not fundamental to Eid Uld Adha and the ritual can be considered non obligatory.

 

Quote

Mr. Das, C.J., who issued the judgment of the Court in the Quareshi case,

stated that

the Islamic law sanctioned cow sacrifice on the Bakr

-

Id day but did not

enjoin it as an obligatory overt act in the practice and profession of Islamic faith and

therefore, cow sacrifice was not essential. He said: We have, however, no material on

the reco

rd before us which will enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing facts, that

the sacrifice of a cow on that day is an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman to exhibit

his religious belief and idea.

32

In examining this case, the Court acknowledged that

Islam sanctioned cow sacrifice. Nevertheless, Mr. Chief Justice Das ascertained that it

was not “an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief”

33

because Islamic law provides alternatives. The Supreme Court noted that instead of a

cow, Muslims could sacrifice a camel or do acts of charity on the day of Bakr

-

Id. The

petitioners of the instant case pleaded that the impugned laws, if enforced, would

affect adversely their trade and, therefore, violated the constitutional protection

gua

ranteed under article 19(1) (g). The Court ruled that the laws only regulated and

restricted these occupations, but did not deprive the petitioners of their right to

practice them because butchers could still slaughter certain classes of bulls, bullocks,

b

uffaloes, as well as sheep and goats.

34

Question is, Whether a "non-obligatory ritual" have precedence over below laws

https://www.thebetterindia.com/46721/humane-society-india-animal-laws-prevention-of-cruelty-act/

[Moochad]

8 minutes ago, mishra said:

Hoewever in past a observation was made that slaughter is not fundamental to Eid Uld Adha and the ritual can be considered non obligatory.

 

Question is, Whether a "non-obligatory ritual" have precedence over below laws

https://www.thebetterindia.com/46721/humane-society-india-animal-laws-prevention-of-cruelty-act/

That is ideally from your side assuming the laws will be applied the same to all. The court will be hypocritical until they actually make this a judgement rather than just an observation and call for its enforcement on Eid. They will not. The court like all libtards go mute with the special minority class is involved.

 

Even if they do so. The court has no business interfering in Hindu Dharma. 

[mishra]

33 minutes ago, Moochad said:

That is ideally from your side assuming the laws will be applied the same to all. The court will be hypocritical until they actually make this a judgement rather than just an observation and call for its enforcement on Eid. They will not. The court like all libtards go mute with the special minority class is involved.

 

Even if they do so. The court has no business interfering in Hindu Dharma. 

I agree about double standard by Muslims and our courts. Quarbani as in the way its done in India is not acceptable even in West and considered barabaric act hence they must get the cattle slaughtered  in a abettoir.

 

IMO, laws of land should and must prevail over rituals and traditions because laws are generally progressive (its very relative) and are only measure of humane nature of a society on global platform.

[coffee_rules]

22 hours ago, mishra said:

^ You are making it a theological discussion. One can ask which verse of Gita says sacrificing animals will please god when it’s exactly the opposite mentioned in most places.

 

Anyhow, its about infringement of rights of Hindus who cant tolerate practice that is carried out by few locals. Its similar to Right of Dalits having access to temple.

In our culture, every ritual is not based on some one scripture - Gita. Rigveda has a section on rituals, which were developed in various aagama shastras and puranas. So, not every practice is based on what is written in Gita. Apart from these vaidika shastras, there is tantra siddhanta which is what is followed in Shaiva siddanta and in some temple rituals like kamakhya and this tripureshwari temple as well. So, it was all adopted, allowed, respected for 1000s of years, who are these neo-colonial judicial activists trying to homogenize Hinduism.

[Tibarn]

4 hours ago, mishra said:

I agree about double standard by Muslims and our courts. Quarbani as in the way its done in India is not acceptable even in West and considered barabaric act hence they must get the cattle slaughtered  in a abettoir.

 

IMO, laws of land should and must prevail over rituals and traditions because laws are generally progressive (its very relative) and are only measure of humane nature of a society on global platform.

The problem with this is who are the courts to decide what is "humane" and what is "essential" to Hinduism.

 

When the court decides what is essential to Hinduism, what do they base if off of. If they choose to look at a certain text of Hinduism, who are they to decide which texts are valid and which aren't; which are up to date and which aren't. Since when has Hinduism been only about texts. Do the courts have people trained in the entire corpus of Hindu texts? Hinduism has always evolved and adapted on its own, it doesn't need self-important do-gooders like the unelected judges to drive change in it. 

 

If we allow the courts to interfere in Hinduism they will reduce it to function like Islam/Christianity. In the latter two, anything they have written down in their texts will be essential practices. Everything outside of that is not truly part of those religions. 

 

In Hinduism, so much of the culture and practices have no textual basis. They developed organically around different parts of the nation. 

If there is no textual support for Garba Raas during Navratri = non-essential = can be banned by court

If there is no textual support for Raksha bandhan,  = non-essential = can be banned by court

There is no textual support for Holi or Diwali  = non-essential = can be banned by court

The list can go on and on, especially for more local or regional customs. 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

10 hours ago, mishra said:

Name pointing was to give you an example that some Hindus also would be offended by this practice. If not offended, they are atleast happy to see the practice stopped. I can understand that rituals and worship procedure is absolutely different to various parts of India and there are "Valid" reasons to it as well. But do you want a situation where a temple of high esteem like Kali Ghat, Kamakhya be only following local practices and should shut the doors to views and opinions of rest of Indians.

They always have. Kalighat or Kamakhaya didn’t care 200 years ago what Tamils or Bhils or Gujjus think of our rituals, we didn’t 1000 years ago, so why should we care now ?? You see us telling u to serve fish in tirupati or kannauj ?? No. You come to our culture, you follow our rituals. Shakta traditions are already at threat from hindistani Patit pavan Sita tam veggie eaters, this only proves my point.

 

[Tibarn]

@ anyone who supports this judgement look up the Edict of Thessaloneca 

 

This IndiaFacts article is good as well

http://indiafacts.org/dahi-handi-debacle-edict-thessalonica-attack-hindu-traditions/

Edited October 1, 2019 by Tibarn

[mishra]

^ All agreed. But India of today is easily accessible from people of various parts of India. So North Indians are living in Sout, South Indians are living in North, Rajasthanis are living in Assam and vice versa and its going to further improve. India is better of with a identity of Gandhi and non violence. As a nation , we can not give verdicts or go to a path which is against Gandhi's basic teaching.

 

This applies to people of every religion and region in India. As I said, Judge had a option of issuing a advisory to do a internal debate and then enbsure if and how this practice can be discontinued as this ritual is not obligatory to Hindus i.e. Not every one living in Tripura does the "Bali" to maintain his Hindu faith.