Excellent. Thanks On 10 Mar 2015 22:51, "Subhash Gatade" <[email protected]> wrote:
> *Goodbye Secularism! Enter Theocracy!!* > > *Understanding the yet unfolding ‘Dietary Fascism’ * > > - subhash gatade > > > > To the question whether the Hindus ever ate beef, every Touchable Hindu, > whether he is a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin, will say ‘no, never’. In a > certain sense, he is right. From times no Hindu has eaten beef. If this is > all that the Touchable Hindu wants to convey by his answer there need be no > quarrel over it. But when the learned Brahmins argue that the Hindus not > only never ate beef but they always held the cow to be sacred and were > always opposed to the killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their > view... > > - B. R. Ambedkar*1* > > > > > > "Did the Hindus never eat Beef?" Dr Ambedkar has dealt with this specific > issue holistically in his various writings and has also tried to link it > with emergence of 'untouchable' castes. > > At a time when the saffrons are keen to appropriate Ambedkar - who had > time and again cautioned his followers about the dangers of Hindu Raj*2 *and > appealed to them to fight the twin enemies of Brahminism and Capitalism - > and present him as someone who not only endorsed the Hindutva project but > also opposed beef eating as cow was sacred to Hinduism, it would be > opportune to pose this question afresh before them. > > You may encounter either complete silence or sudden eruption supposedly to > 'drown' the question itself. Either way they would demonstrate that they > very well understand that getting into debate over this issue has the > possibility and potential of subverting the very edifice built by them > which blames 'outsiders' especially Islam or Muslim rulers for many of the > ills of our society. They very well know that there is a world of > difference between the idea of Hindutva promoted by them and what Ambedkar > thought. > > Taking into consideration this complete dissonance in both viewpoints and > keen to lure Dalit masses in their dubious project of Hindu consolidation, > the saffrons have devised a clever strategy of carving out a sanitised > version of Ambedkar devoid of his revolutionary vision and bracketing him > in its pantheon of leaders - comprising of Hedgewar, Savarkar, Golwalkar > etc – whom it considers as '*Pratah Smaraniya*' (worth remembering in the > morning) . And glossing over his direct attacks on Hinduism and his > declaration in mid-thirties that 'he may be born a Hindu but would not die > a Hindu' and implementing it ultimately by accepting Buddhism along with > lakhs of his followers few months before his death, they are keen to > project him as a Hindu social reformer to befool the Dalit masses. > > For a politics which is based on exclusion and hatred of 'others' one > cannot expect anything better. Selective amnesia vis-a-vis his > contributions is an integral part of their project of adopting or > assimilating Ambedkar to suit needs of their divisive politics. > > Interestingly this approach of selective appropriation or remembrance of > leaders who were not quite amenable to the project of Hindu Rashtra is not > limited to them only. It is extended even to those personalities/leaders > also whose worldview largely converges with the saffrons themselves. > > Take the case of Swami Vivekanand, who is much celebrated and glorified in > the Hindutva circles as one of their own. Not a day passes when Sangh and > the plethora of affiliated organisations forget to lay claim to his legacy. > While the RSS shies away from probing the past Vivekanand is more objective > in revisiting it and thus one discovers that he is also not on the same > page on the issue of beef eating with them. > > While speaking to a large gathering at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, > California, USA (2 February 1900) on the theme of "Buddhistic India" he is > reported to have said: > > “You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to old ceremonials, > he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must > sacrifice a bull and eat it.” *3* > > Ram Puniyani tells us in his write-up "Beef, Pink Revolution and Identity > Politics" ( > http://www.carvaka4india.com/2014/05/beef-pink-revolution-and-identity.html) > that this is corroborated by other research works sponsored by the > Ramakrishna Mission established by Swami Vivekananda himself. One of these > reads: > > “The Vedic Aryans, including the Brahmanas, ate fish, meat and even beef. > A distinguished guest was honoured with beef served at a meal. Although the > Vedic Aryans ate beef, milch cows were not killed. One of the words that > designated cow was aghnya (what shall not be killed). But a guest was a > goghna (one for whom a cow is killed). It is only bulls, barren cows and > calves that were killed.” *4* > > Savarkar, Pioneer of the concept of 'Hindutva' seems more blunt where he > emphasises ‘the cow is neither God nor mother but purely a useful animal. > We should not worship it but we must breed and nurture the animal because > we can reap the best advantages from it’.*5* In his Marathi book 'X > kirane' he also lambasts cow worship by saying that if someone from the > animal kingdom is worth worshipping, then why not start worshipping pig > also as among the nine lives/avatar of Vishnu , there is one which is > *Varahvatar* (Varah stands for pig) also. He also mentions that there are > references even in 'Vedas when cow was slaughtered' (..'*gomedhhi > vedadikat turalakpane ullekhile aahet'* X- kirane,(Savarkar,Marathi book, > Page 16) Interestingly he also hints that at its 'destruction' when it > 'ceases to be worthy of sustenance' > > Animals such as the cow and buffalo and trees such as banyan and peepal > are useful to man, hence we are fond of them; to that extent we might even > consider them worthy of worship;!.. Does it not follow then that when under > certain circumstances, that animal or tree becomes a source of trouble to > mankind, it *ceases to be worthy of sustenance* or protection and as such > its *destruction is in humanitarian or national interests *and becomes a > human or national dharma?*6* (emphasis mine) > > It is an open secret that the saffrons while eulogising Vivekanand, > Savarkar etc prefer to keep mum about many such aspects of their > 'explosive' observations. > > For them '*Maunam sarvatra sadhanam*' (Silence serves the purpose) > > 0 0 > > “My brief was to prevent any ban on cow slaughter. It was important for > us in the dairy business to keep weeding out the unhealthy cows so that > available resources could be utilised for healthy and productive cattle. I > was prepared to go as far as to allow that no useful cow should be killed. > This was the point on which the Shankaracharya and I invariably locked > horns and got into heated arguments. I constantly asked him, ‘Your > Holiness, are you going to take all the useless cows which are not > producing anything and look after them and feed them till they die? You > know that cannot work.’ He never had any answer to my query.” > > (V Kurien, 'Father of White Revolution,' in his autobiography) > > A valid question at this juncture could be why does one wants to 'rake up' > such uncomfortable questions, which can provoke the band of > 'self-proclaimed defenders of faith and culture' rather the 'brigade of > hurt sentiments'. > > The immediate context to look into this aspect has to do with the > Presidential assent to a bill lying with his office for around twenty years > which pertained to banning beef. It was mid-nineties when Shiv Sena-BJP > government was holding reins of power in the state of Maharashtra for the > first time, when it had passed this bill called 'Maharashtra Animal > Preservation (Amendment) Bill, 1995 which proposed blanket ban on the > slaughter of bulls, bullocks and calves, in addition to cows. With the > changed dispensation at the centre and state, the Phadanvis government lost > no time in pursuing the bill, which has finally got clearance. > > Definitely Maharashtra does not happen to be the first state to issue a > ban. Many Indian states have already passed laws which ban or regulate > slaughter of cows but the Maharashtra bill has gone one step further than > them. It has also banned sale of beef products also. And the punishment > suggested for violation of this law is draconian to say the least. Mere > possession of beef or beef products will then be punishable by a fine of > Rs10,000 ($160) or five years in prison. In other states such meat can be > consumed if it is brought in from other states where there is no such ban > but there is no such possibility in Maharashtra. > > With the passage of the bill Maharashtra has become a state where eating > beef is more dangerous than sexually harassing a woman. A perpetrator of > sexual harassment would get a maximum sentence of two years whereas if the > police spot you holding piece of beef in your hand, then you can be > interned for five years. One rather discovers that there seems to be a > competition for more stringent punishment especially among BJP ruled states > when it comes to banning cow slaughter. Few years back M.P. government had > passed *Gauvansh Vadh Pratishedh ( Sanshodhit*) Act which had duly > received Presidential nod where the punishment for 'slaughtering cow or its > progeny, transporting them for slaughter or storing beef was up to seven > years in jail. > > This move to 'criminalise food habits of people' has been rightly > criticised for its economic, social and dietary impact. Perhaps the hardest > hitting comment about the ban came in from rather unexpected quarters. > Famous writer Salman Rushdie tweeted to say: > > 'Congratulations Maharashtra: it is now safer to be a cow than a woman, > Dalit, Muslim in the state.' > > One can easily imagine the economic impact this move may have on the lives > of lakhs of people engaged in this work at various levels. According to a > report which appeared in 'Mint' > > '[3]0,000-35,000 animals (buffaloes and bulls) are slaughtered in > Maharashtra every day and on average each animal gives 150kg of meat. > Around 1.5 million people are directly employed by the industry and are > involved in transportation of animals, butchering them, processing meat and > transporting beef to either domestic or international markets.*7* > > Looking at the fact that the state plays a pivotal role in supplying hide > to tanneries in Kolkata and Chennai it would spell a doom for leather trade > in the state as well. e.g. The Deonar slaughterhouse based in Mumbai > supplies 450 animal hides a day, mainly buffaloes to these tanneries. > > This move would also adversely impact the farmer community as it will have > to continue spend water and fodder for bullocks that are useless for farm > work. In a country where we are still far away from meeting the basic > hunger of people, the upkeep of bullocks, buffaloes that cannot be sent to > slaughterhouses will fell on the farmer, which will further impoverish > them. As can be envisaged it will have a negative impact on the economies > of poor households and would also affect milk production. > > An important fallout of this move would be its negative impact on the > intake of cheap proteins by a vast majority of people - dalits, adivasis, > Muslims, Christians etc - for whom beef happens to be the cheapest source > of protein as it costs nearly one-third of mutton or *gosht* and forms > important part of traditional food habits of people. As of now the overall > per capita consumption of meat in India is among the lowest in the world. > According to a FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United > Nations) report in in 2007, India logged in last in a total of 177 > countries. Its annual consumption of meat per person was just 3.2 kg at a > time when Americans were eating as much as 125 kg per head and the world > average was 38. 7 kg. *8* > > If we go for further break-up of the meat consumed, another FAO report > titled 'Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Police branch'*9* > tells us that the 'largest consumed meat in India is beef. The per capita > consumption of beef is 26 lakh tonnes as compared to 6 lakh tonnes mutton > and 14 lakh tonnes of pork. > > The low consumption of meat has nothing to do with the fact that majority > of Indians are vegetarian. In fact, as the well-known 'People of India > project' undertaken by late Kumar Suresh Singh had demonstrated that nearly > 88 per cent of India's communities count themselves among the meat-eaters, > though they are not particular about the type. (1993) This mammoth project > involving over 500 sociologists and 3,000 researchers studied more than > 4,000 communities over eight years, which produced a report which had > exploded the stereotype of every community. > > 0 0 > > Perhaps a first step to galvanise resistance to this motivated move by the > people in power which directly impinges on the food habits of people, > impacts the availability of cheap proteins to them, burdens the farmers > further with livestock which is practically useless for them, severely > attacks livelihoods of lakhs of people, has the possibility of furthering > inter-communal divide and is an attempt to force-feed Brahminical ideas > about diet to the broad masses of people would be to explain the great > hiatus which exists between what the BJP led NDA government seems to preach > and practice. > > People very well remember when Narendra Modi was leading the campaign of > BJP against UPA II government last year he had made speeches that the > government was subsidising slaugherhouses and was engaged in promoting meat > exports. He had used the word "pink revolution" alluding to beef exports in > his speech supposedly to exploit majoritarian sentiments. In one of his > meetings in Bihar in April 2014 he had said : > > “This country wants a Green Revolution but those at the Centre want a Pink > Revolution,” .. “When animals are slaughtered, the colour of their flesh is > pink.” ( > http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2015/1/06_01_15-metro1c.jpg) > > At another pre-parliamentary poll meeting he said : > > “The (UPA) government is not willing to provide subsidy to a person who > keeps a cow but if a person wants to set up a slaughterhouse, he gets > assistance,”(-do-) > > One of his blog entry shared his ‘agony’: > > “It saddens me, that present UPA Government led by Congress is promoting > slaughtering of cows and exporting beef to bring ‘Pink Revolution’”. > > Women and child development minister Maneka Gandhi in her election > meetings in September 14 even alleged that illegal slaughter and export of > animals in the country was funding terrorist activities. > > It is a different matter that once they were in power choosing 'pragmatism > over politics' was their *mantra*. It was not for nothing that during the > first eight months of this fiscal one witnessed quantum jump in meat > exports. > > India sold meat and meat products worth $3.3 billion during April-November > 2014 compared to $2.8 billion in the same period the previous year, > registering a 16.74% jump. Buffalo meat constituted about 97% of the total > livestock products exported from the country as the export of cow meat is > banned in India. (do) > > According to the reporter who filed the above story, neither Nirmala > Seetharaman, Cabinet minister in Modi government was available for comment, > nor four spokespersons of the BJP bothered to respond to 'explain' this > quantum jump. And it was left to Congres leader Manish Tewari to 'expose > their duplicity and sanctimoniousness'. He said : > > “While in Opposition the Prime Minister is at the forefront of slamming > the purported pink revolution and when in government he is at the forefront > of promoting it as evidenced by the rise in export figures,”..“This nation > needs to know where the PM and his government stand on it. If they were so > against it, why has it not been banned? .. > > Discussing this issue of how 'politicians manipulate Hindu sentiments > around cow slaughter' Shoib Daniyal rightly concludes : *10* > > This contradictory approach to the issue of cow protection shows that it > is treated more as a political rather than religious matter. Cow protection > sentiments are exploited by the state and politicians to mobilise people > and catch votes, targeting poor Muslims and Dalits by accusing them of cow > slaughter. Of course, since other factors are clean ignored (as a result of > economic considerations), these laws do nothing to actually improve the lot > of cattle in the country. > > 0 0 > > My question is, how can the state impose a certain food culture on people? > The state has nothing to do with food. They can give certain food to people > depending on the market, but cannot impose that you can or cannot eat > certain food items. If beef eating is bad for Brahmins or Baniyas or > certain upper castes, then the state is imposing that on the rest of the > society. So the state is actually becoming a theocratic state. This is how > the RSS ideology is being pushed. *11* > > This move by Maharashtra government about banning beef evoked strong > protest in different universities of Hyderabad - EFLU (English and Foreign > Languages University), Central and Osmania Universities of Hyderabad - > where a ‘Beef Festival’ was organized as indication of protest. The > students marked it as a protest against the attempts of 'the RSS driven NDA > Government to impose its Hindutva cults and the Manu culture', express > 'their freedom to eat food of their choice'. Terming it a 'suppression of > the food culture by the "fascist forces" of India', it was emphasised that > it is a mode of discrimination against the already marginalized communities > and would badly impact the livelihood of communities whose economy is > associated with leather and meat.*12* > > One also witnessed protest against the ban on beef in Maharashtra in > Chennai also where a group of lawyers held a beef eating protest. There is > no law banning cow slaughter in Tamil Nadu, there is fear that Tamil Nadu > may also clamp down on beef. > > According to newspaper reports The Democratic Youth Federation of India, > the youth wing of the Communist Party of India Marxist, has decided to hold > a nationwide ‘Beef Festival’ to protest the ban in Maharashtra, DYFI > national president, M.B. Rajesh said in Kozhikode. He called the decision a > “fascist move” and also resolved to join hands with all pro-democracy > forces to hold protest programmes against the ban on beef. > > Few years back when then the BJP led government in Karnataka had enacted > similar law the state had witnessed widespread protests which saw coming > together of different groups including Rajya Raitha Sangha (state farmer > organisation), Komu Souharda Vedike (Communal Amity Forum), the Dalit > Sangharsha Samiti, which fights for the rights of Dalits, and the Beef > Merchants Association and many civil liberty activists and intellectuals. > One rally in Bengaluru drew more than 20,000 people where the late U R > Ananthmurthy, well known Kannad author and professor, tore up a copy of the > bill and lambasted the then state government for a communally motivated > bill. In his brief speech he emphasised how this move would make criminals > out of ordinary dalits, Muslims and Christians, and would put farmers in > distress because they would not be able to sell off their cattle. > > One can foresee that we may witness similar 'criminalisation' on the > streets of Maharashtra in the days to come with the Hindutva zealots aiding > the police in their attempts to discipline people. Interested people can > refer to an earlier piece of mine which describes impact of any such > majoritarian move on innocents.*13* > > There are reports that the association of meat traders is planning to move > the courts to challenge the ban, but one does not know whether people, > formations, organisations who are working for the betterment of different > sections of society or political parties are coming together to challenge > this 'communally motivated' move on streets or not. Looking at the fact > that an ally of the ruling dispensation in the state - Swambhimaani > Shetkari Sangathana - which has base among peasants and farmers has > expressed apprehensions over this law, it would not be out of place to plan > some intervention and slowly gather voices of opposition. > > It should be kept in mind that other BJP ruled states - which have not yet > passed similar laws e.g. Haryana- are also contemplating similar moves and > it is of key importance that Maharashtra which wears its ‘progressive’ tag > on its sleeves should break new grounds in resisting this move and create > such an ambience that the people in power in the state are compelled to > revisit the decision. > > We should bear in mind that it is not a question of those thousands of > traders and their associates who are engaged in meat trade, it is a > question which touches every cross-section of society. It is therefore high > time that right from nutrition experts, right to food activists, civil > liberty activists and intellectuals to dalit, farmer as well as > anti-communal organisations everybody should join hands to oppose this move > which is essentially a very organised albeit concealed attack on people’s > right to food under the specious argument that their choice of food > supposedly hurts sentiments of a privileged few. > > It is high time that India, which yearns to become an economic superpower > in the 21st century, took a radical rupture from all such remnants of > ‘jurassic park’ mentality centering around the logic of ‘purity’ and > ‘pollution’ which have proved to be its bane all these years. > > > > (References : > > 1. ‘Did the Hindus never eat beef?’ in The Untouchables: Who Were > They and Why They Became Untouchables? in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings > and Speeches, vol. 7, (Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990, first > edition 1948) pp. 323-328.) > http://www.countercurrents.org/ambedkar050315.htm > > 2. “If Hindu Raj does becomes a fact, it will no doubt, be the > greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism > is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is > incompatible with democracy. > > Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.” > > Ambedkar B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India, in Vasant Moon > (compiled), Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol 8, Education > Deptt, Govt of Maharashtra, Mumbai, 1990 p. 358 > > > > 3. Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. > 3, Calcutta: Advaita Ashram, 1997, p. 536. > > > > 4. C. Kunhan Raja, ‘Vedic Culture’, cited in the series, Suniti > Kumar Chatterji and others (eds.), The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol 1 > (Calcutta: The Ramakrishna Mission, 1993), 217. > > 5. Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. *Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya*, Vol. VI, > p. 107. 37 Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. *Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya*, Vol. > VI, p. 37 > > 6. Veer Savarkar *(Samaj Chitre* or portraits of society, Samagra > Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 2, p.678, > http://www.savarkar.org/en/rationalism/cow-protection-and-cow-worship) > > 7. > http://www.livemint.com/Politics/WKpEtRGyTi3G19LXKKR2OM/Maharashtra-beef-ban-stokes-debate.html?utm_source=copy > > 8. > http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/meaty-tales-vegetarian-india > > 9. quoted in 'Cow on Indian Political Chessboard' Ed. Ram Puniyani, > Page 93, Black Pepper, Jan 2014 > > 10. > http://scroll.in/article/711064/Maharashtra%E2%80%99s-beef-ban-shows-how-politicians-manipulate-Hindu-sentiments-around-cow-slaughter > > 11. 'Maharashtra's beef ban is not merely communal, it is theocratic' : > Kancha Ilaiah, DNA, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 - 9:55pm IST | Agency: dna > > 12. > http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2015-03-05/Why-is-our-*beef* > -targeted-by-Modi-ask-students-135523 > > 13. > http://caravandaily.com/portal/what-gujarat-does-today-subhash-gatade > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "humanrights movement" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "humanrights movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
