> > questioning whether it is property ownership that makes people conservative > (protecting the sanctity of property by not allowing non-veg to be cooked) > or whether the conservative attitudes of society add on to the attitudes of > property owners.
I'll wager that it's the latter. The former is merely an excuse to put their foot down, IMO. My problems are the following: > > 1). Stereotyping - that if your name is so and so, then you are more likely > to be non-veg than veg. This completely shuts off the possibility of any > kind of engagement/interaction which is precisely what is required for > creating an open society. Agreed, but you will also find that any restrictive behaviours come from those who have little or no interest in creating an open society. If they did, they wouldn't care what your name was, or what you cooked, or whatever else you might do in the privacy of your home. However, we're a society that believes that your home is as accessible to your neighbours as to your family, and those that have issues with one kind of home are willing to preclude it from participating in their social behaviours. 2). Where is this sanctity of property coming from - that if I cook meat or > my friends bring non-veg home, then it violates the purity of my property > and of my ancestoral traditions? Is property frozen in tradition? Brokers > and agents clearly tell us, "you eat outside but don't cook at home". Does > that not violate sanctity of property? No, it doesn't, because as a tenant, you do not have rights to that property. It is up to your landlord to decide what rights he is willing to empower you with. In this case, the freedom to cook meat is not one of them. The purity issue is very, very rarely used as a primary reason for this restriction. Moreover, eating pesticide laden vegetables is as ecologically damaging and > kills lives of bacteria, worms and insects in the process of growing more > veggies and catering to the needs of the market. Also, I do not necessarily > agree that cooking non-veg gives foul smell. For that matter, when the > neighbours and folks from opposite building cook sambhar, I get the odour. > There are ways of cooking non-veg. The smell argument is what most people > have given to me and even Bengalis are discriminated in the rental markets > on the smell issue. I didn't say the smell was foul, just that it makes vegetarians extremely uncomfortable. This is undeniably true. I have seen people throw up in restaurants because of fried fish served to a neighbouring table. Bengalis are associated with fish, and are quite unapologetic about it. The smell factor applies to them and Mallus with a vigour generally reserved only for Muslims. :) 3). If the market is so biased towards vegetarian tenants, then where is the > freedom of choice? Can I not have the choice to choose my own preferences > just because I won't get a house for choosing to be single/non-veg/hippie, > etc etc? I disagree with the fact that only a competitive market will > resolve these deep seated prejudices. But then I am not advocating for more > regulations. That is an even more terrible thing to do. You can choose not to consider the restricted use properties in your hunt for a home. Those who are restrictive will lose out on rental income, and may eventually be forced to raise those restrictions. Basic economics, no? -- Sumant Srivathsan http://sumants.blogspot.com
