gaurav92 Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Secularism is probably defined differently in India so there would be no point in trying to read out the dictionary meaning of that word. So what does secularism mean in India? First, it could mean allowing the Muslim citizens to practise their religious laws while citizens practising other religions follow the uniform civil code. Is this justified? In a sense it is. Because you are allowing a particular group to feel comfortable, at times even at the disagreement of other groups. Many of us, irrespective of our religious faith, feel good when Muslims are given subsidies to go to Haj. Muslim women wearing Hijab is another example for such tolerance shown in India. Second, take Sikhs for example. While men from other groups may be asked to shave/cut their hair, no one asks a Sikh to do that. The Sikh beliefs are respected by everyone no matter what religion he/she belongs to. Forcing a Sikh to cut his hair can make everyone (irrespective of his religious beliefs) upset. Similarly, a large portion of Ind's population consider cows as holy. And therefore, beef is banned. This move should be respected by all in the spirit of Indian Secularism. In India, Secularism is about giving different group the comfort and freedom to practise their beliefs in a way that is supported by everyone. In that spirit, banning beef because a large section of Ind's population see cows as holy can be justified. Let's not go by what dictionary says about secularism as in India's context that may be off the mark. Agree :hatsoff:
jalebi_bhai Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Depends on how you define secularism. While you can question and do a cost-benefit analysis on the decision, you cannot question its constitutional validity. 48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. http://www.lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf (Pg 51) Article 48 is part of the directive principles of the constitution. Clearly, the eminent personalities who drafted the constitution of our country didn't think that including article 48 would undermine the secular fabric of our nation. Hence why, it is part of our directive principles. The validity of the ban cannot be questioned on technical grounds. I believe both the BJP and the SS included the ban as part of their manifestos. People voted them into power based on their manifestos. They have only done what they promised. Now, is ensuring secularism a part of the directive principles? If one goes by the true meaning of secularism, that is 'to be devoid of religion', then it is part of the principles, because the directive principles mention that states should strive to have a UCC. If you want to go by the sadak-chap definition of secularism that our politicians and progressives use, which is a synonym for minority appeasement, then it is definitely not mentioned in our directive principles, for the above mentioned reason. So please, first let's define secularism, then let's discuss about the degrees of secularism.
someone Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Secularism is probably defined differently in India so there would be no point in trying to read out the dictionary meaning of that word. So what does secularism mean in India? First, it could mean allowing the Muslim citizens to practise their religious laws while citizens practising other religions follow the uniform civil code. Is this justified? In a sense it is. Because you are allowing a particular group to feel comfortable, at times even at the disagreement of other groups. Many of us, irrespective of our religious faith, feel good when Muslims are given subsidies to go to Haj. Muslim women wearing Hijab is another example for such tolerance shown in India. Second, take Sikhs for example. While men from other groups may be asked to shave/cut their hair, no one asks a Sikh to do that. The Sikh beliefs are respected by everyone no matter what religion he/she belongs to. Forcing a Sikh to cut his hair can make everyone (irrespective of his religious beliefs) upset. Similarly, a large portion of Ind's population consider cows as holy. And therefore, beef is banned. This move should be respected by all in the spirit of Indian Secularism. In India, Secularism is about giving different group the comfort and freedom to practise their beliefs in a way that is supported by everyone. In that spirit, banning beef because a large section of Ind's population see cows as holy can be justified. Let's not go by what dictionary says about secularism as in India's context that may be off the mark. Absolutely spot on. In India, everybody talks about tolerance, but remember, it works in two ways. You need to be tolerant of others and others must tolerant your beliefs. In the last 8 months, there is a lot of panicking from our #adarshliberal because they can't tolerant some particular beliefs and people's rights.
Precambrian Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Text from Supreme Court judgement State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab ... on 26 October, 2005 India, as a nation and its population, its economy and its prosperity as of today are not suffering the conditions as were prevalent in 50s and 60s. The country has achieved self- sufficiency in food production. Some of the states such as State of Gujarat have achieved self-sufficiency in cattle-feed and fodder as well. Amongst the people there is an increasing awareness of the need for protein rich food and nutrient diet. Plenty of such food is available from sources other than cow/cow progeny meat. Advancements in the field of Science, including Veterinary Science, have strengthened the health and longetivity of cattle (including cow progeny). But the country's economy continues to be based on agriculture. The majority of the agricultural holdings are small units. The country needs bulls and bullocks. For multiple reasons which we have stated in very many details while dealing with Question-6 in Part II of the judgment, we have found that bulls and bullocks do not become useless merely by crossing a particular age. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, apart from other evidence available, clearly conveys that cow and her progeny constitute the backbone of Indian agriculture and economy. Protection of cow progeny will help them in carrying out their several agricultural operations and related activities smoothly and conveniently.
Texan Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Last week, the western Indian state of Maharashtra banned beef consumption. The state government has barred possession or sales of the meat. Hindu groups welcomed the ban. But many Muslims in western India have criticized it. They say it will make tens of thousands of people jobless. Hindus consider cows holy. The animals are already protected in India. But, the new law extends the ban to slaughtering bulls, bullocks, and calves. The ban took effect on March 5. On that day, many slaughter houses in Maharashtra suddenly closed. Beef disappeared from the menus of restaurants, including those in the state capital, Mumbai. Under the new law, having or selling beef could lead to fines or prison terms of up to five years. The Bharatiya Janata Party passed the law. The BJP won control of the state government last year. The party attempted to ban beef 20 years ago when it was also in power. But the ban was never passed because the BJP lost power soon after. Mohammad Ali Qureshi is president of the Mumbai Suburban Beef Dealers Association. He said the ban will have a bad effect on tens of thousands of butchers, beef retailers, and others involved in the trade. He said many of those affected are among the poorest people in the area. They have little or no education, and cannot easily get other jobs. He said people have become jobless without notice. Beef consumption in India is limited to non-Hindus. But the country has become the world’s second-biggest exporter of beef. Most of the meat comes from buffaloes. Hindu groups do not like that India is a major exporter of beef. They say many cows are being illegally killed. Muslims control most of the beef trade. Banning beef has become a major issue between India’s Hindus and Muslims. Venkatesh Abdev is with the World Hindu Council. He says his group will fight for a nationwide ban on beef consumption. Mr. Abdev agrees that the ban will affect people working in the beef trade. But he says it is a price to be paid. He notes the killing of cows is a very emotional issue for Hindus. Mohammad Shahid Sheikh is president of a beef transporters group in Deonar, where one can find India’s biggest slaughterhouse. He says more and more trucks with cattle are being attacked. The attacks are blamed on Hindu activists. Mr. Sheikh says those in the beef trade tell protesters that they are following all of the rules. But the protesters say they will do everything they can to prevent the animals from being killed. The beef ban also became a top trend on Twitter last week. Some Twitter users supported the move, but thousands criticized the ban. Some users compared the progress made on protecting cows to the lack of progress on safety for women. http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/maharastra-beef-ban-hindus-muslim-meat/2679264.html Beef ban is a misnomer. Beef, by definition, is the meat of an adult bovine. Buffalo meat is still permitted to be eaten, which qualifies as beef. So, there is no "beef ban" as such. Yes, consumption of bull or cow meat has now been banned. Cow slaughter was banned long long ago by the then Congress government. The current state BJP government extended the ban on slaughter to bulls and calves as well. Gender equality, perhaps? So, now the butcher does not have to bend and look for udders when presented with a bovine creature. And no, there should be no ban on eating beef in my opinion. Whoever wants to eat should be allowed to eat. But we hardly live in a truly secular country. So such policies keep coming up from time to time. But the hullabaloo created by some sections of society over this issue seemed like the government banned the most popular meat in the country or so. Nothing of that sort happened.
Texan Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Aren't Buffaloes responsible for helping yamraj? Yamraj by definition is responsible for taking soul out of people. I think we should all eat Buffaloes for this crime :finger: Bhai, do you know what the World's population would be like if Yamraj wasn't doing his work :facepalm:
Yoda-esque Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Beef ban is a misnomer. Beef, by definition, is the meat of an adult bovine. Buffalo meat is still permitted to be eaten, which qualifies as beef. So, there is no "beef ban" as such. Yes, consumption of bull or cow meat has now been banned. Cow slaughter was banned long long ago by the then Congress government. The current state BJP government extended the ban on slaughter to bulls and calves as well. Gender equality, perhaps? So, now the butcher does not have to bend and look for udders when presented with a bovine creature. And no, there should be no ban on eating beef in my opinion. Whoever wants to eat should be allowed to eat. But we hardly live in a truly secular country. So such policies keep coming up from time to time. But the hullabaloo created by some sections of society over this issue seemed like the government banned the most popular meat in the country or so. Nothing of that sort happened. Restaurants served buffalo meat anyways, just media hype
Texan Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt beef (cow meat) already banned . I think current MH govt has brought in an amendment to now prohibits bullock meat as well. Buffalo meat can still be consumed. I think cow slaughter was banned in 1976. I don't think consumption of the meat was banned as such. I am not really sure though on that part.
Tiger80 Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Haryana makes sale of beef a non-bailable offence http://www.meragrocer.com
G_B_ Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 We are not discussing cow slaughtering' date=' it's about beef being banned in Maharashtra[/quote'] for the nth time Beef is not banned in maharashtra. Just because these dumb as feck media outlets in india and west print it in the headline does not make it so. Buffalo meat is also beef. Buffalo beef is the most widely consumed meat in the bovine segment in India.
Yoda-esque Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 for the nth time Beef is not banned in maharashtra. Just because these dumb as feck media outlets in india and west print it in the headline does not make it so. Buffalo meat is also beef. Buffalo beef is the most widely consumed meat in the bovine segment in India. yep,restaurants serve mostly buffalo meat.Media making it seem like beef eaters suddenly have no option when they were mostly consuming buffalo meat anyways. But then what can you expect from media
Temujin Khaghan Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 if you read books about the early vedic civilization, it is very clear that cow-meat was banned for economic purposes. its about time, we go back on it. the main reason hindus wont let the ban go off is not even superstition, its ego. they feel it will be some kind of a defeat in front of the muslims. ---
G_B_ Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 yep,restaurants serve mostly buffalo meat.Media making it seem like beef eaters suddenly have no option when they were mostly consuming buffalo meat anyways. But then what can you expect from media the bjp need to break the back of the media through any legal means possible.
CSK Fan Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Not talking about right or wrong. For the record, I completely disagree with this. But is it truly the upholding of secular values. It is highly debated with friends who eat and who don't.But truly speaking, cow is holy animal for lot of hindus. So,appeasing or upholding their feelings should be secular, no ? Atleast thats what has been happening in this country. People still do not get the difference between minority appeasement and majority appeasement Both are wrong. However 1) Minority appeasement at worst causes inconvenience to the majority and at best helps minority not go extinct. Even the most secular of countries including the US has some form of minority appeasement or has had in the past 2) The day any country goes the part of majority appeasement, the day it starts the path of destruction. Example of such countries are many Islamic countries. Because majority are already greater in number, are in powerful positions, are among the richest, these laws can and will be completely misused. Minorities will be completely sidelined and marginalized, leading to much radicalization. That is the day we become another Pakistan
CSK Fan Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 for the nth time Beef is not banned in maharashtra. Just because these dumb as feck media outlets in india and west print it in the headline does not make it so. Buffalo meat is also beef. Buffalo beef is the most widely consumed meat in the bovine segment in India. You are intentionally missing the point. If even one single person wants to eat cow beef, is it banned or not? No the media is not the idiot here, it is people pretending to be one on this thread. It is clear to everyone that cow beef is what is meant here and the topic of discussion. What was available or what people prefer is not the point
Texan Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 People still do not get the difference between minority appeasement and majority appeasement Both are wrong. However 1) Minority appeasement at worst causes inconvenience to the majority and at best helps minority not go extinct. Even the most secular of countries including the US has some form of minority appeasement or has had in the past 2) The day any country goes the part of majority appeasement, the day it starts the path of destruction. Example of such countries are many Islamic countries. Because majority are already greater in number, are in powerful positions, are among the richest, these laws can and will be completely misused. Minorities will be completely sidelined and marginalized, leading to much radicalization. That is the day we become another Pakistan Minority becoming extinct? I didn't know that minority in India, which increased its presence from 16% in 1951 to 24% in 2011 was going to go extinct :hmmm: Which country are we talking about again,..... India? Or Pakistan or Bangladesh? I agree 100% that US is probably the most secular country in this World. Please provide an example of minority appeasement as you have stated to me. I can provide you an example of majority appeasement in the US.
Texan Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 People still do not get the difference between minority appeasement and majority appeasement Both are wrong. However 1) Minority appeasement at worst causes inconvenience to the majority and at best helps minority not go extinct. Even the most secular of countries including the US has some form of minority appeasement or has had in the past 2) The day any country goes the part of majority appeasement, the day it starts the path of destruction. Example of such countries are many Islamic countries. Because majority are already greater in number, are in powerful positions, are among the richest, these laws can and will be completely misused. Minorities will be completely sidelined and marginalized, leading to much radicalization. That is the day we become another Pakistan And how does minority appeasement only inconvenience the majority? You think that a husband who divorces his wife just by saying one word thrice and then washes his hands off his responsibility towards her is inconveniencing majority?
RedFever Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 People still do not get the difference between minority appeasement and majority appeasement Both are wrong. However 1) Minority appeasement at worst causes inconvenience to the majority and at best helps minority not go extinct. Even the most secular of countries including the US has some form of minority appeasement or has had in the past 2) The day any country goes the part of majority appeasement, the day it starts the path of destruction. Example of such countries are many Islamic countries. Because majority are already greater in number, are in powerful positions, are among the richest, these laws can and will be completely misused. Minorities will be completely sidelined and marginalized, leading to much radicalization. That is the day we become another Pakistan This is exactly the argument Adarsh Liberals use to propagate their minority appeasement agenda.
Recommended Posts