The ban on beef in Indian state of Maharashtra has caused a huge uproar on social media. This ban is being hailed as a direct attack on their personal freedom. In this chapter, I am putting various points across in support of the beef ban and prove why the beef ban is completely democratic, legal, most logical, as per constitution and in the best interest of the nation.
The argument of beef lovers is as follows:
“What I eat is my choice. Who is any government or moral police to dictate what I eat or do not eat? Will they ban spinach and lauki also tomorrow if I am offended? This is communal politics of right-winged Hindu fanatics and must be opposed.”
On the surface, it appears so reasonable and logical. But let us scratch the surface and explore how valid is this movement against Beef Ban.
I give 13 ways to silence them. If these beef-lovers try to refute one or more of the arguments, tell them that they must refute all of them to justify their stand. It is like someone who is facing trial for murder of 20 people tries to prove that 3 of them were murdered by someone else. It does not matter. Unless you can prove that not even a single murder charge is valid, you will face death sentence.
1 Why no movement against beef ban in past?
The ban on cow slaughter and most cattle already exists in the majority of states of India. Were these beef lovers sleeping like Rip Van Winkle for last 68 years? What were they eating so far? Were they indulging in illegal activities? Why did they not show their beef love so far? Why could they not raise a movement against the beef ban in last near-seven decades?
2 Ban is not on eating, it is on killing.
No one has any problem with what you eat and what you do not. You are free to eat even from the commode in democracy. But the ban is not on eating. It is on the killing of cattle.
Now people like me have several objections to the killing of a cow (and cattle in general). If you can create beef in the laboratory without killing my mother, I have absolutely no issues with you.
But if you want to kill my mother in the name of democracy then, better explore that democracy in Somalia or ISIS zones. Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
3 Cow is my mother.
Yes, it is true that for the overwhelming majority of India, the cow has sentimental values. They consider cow as mother. Their most popular God – Lord Krishna – is known as Gopal for his love for cows. On every occasion – birth, death, festival, happiness, and sorrow – feeding and worshipping cow are considered a primary duty. There are multiple festivals dedicated primarily to the cow. And this respect is extended to cattle in general. Bull is considered as a companion of another revered God – Lord Shankar.
It does not matter whether you agree with this cow worship or not. But so far the majority of Indians consider cow as a mother, killing of cows cannot be acceptable. Think of it. Say I name an animal on your mother and slaughter it. I write the name of a Hindu God, Prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ on an animal and slaughter it. I desecrate a temple, mosque or church. Will you encourage this kind of behavior?
If yes, I will call you pervert. But that is beside the point. First, dare to perform such acts as above, post videos of same on youtube, put your address in the description and raise a movement to allow you such crazy behavior in the name of democracy. Don’t have double standards in your apparent love for freedom.
If no, then the slaughter of revered mother cow and associated cattle cannot be accepted in a country where the cow is the foundation of the religious and cultural ethos of the majority.
4 Religion doesn’t matter.
Don’t give the sick argument that cows and cattle are mistreated in the country. Don’t prove to me that most cow-sellers for beef production are Hindus. Hence, a ban on beef shows double standards.
If above is indeed the case, tell me instead, what you propose to do to help solve this problem. The reality is also that women are unsafe in many parts of the country because of the attitude of society. That does not mean having punishment for rape shows double standards. Your sick argument mirrors exactly the views of a rapist in Nirbhaya case.
You cannot rape a woman just because women-safety is an issue in the nation! On contrary, tell us whether you are ready to save dignity of woman at any personal cost?
It does not matter what the religion of all beef producers in India is. What matters is that killing of cattle is equivalent to abusing sentiments of the majority and hence must be banned. The day people like you form the majority of India and are comfortable posting youtube video of slaughtering an animal named after their mothers or religious figures; you can repeal the ban. Thankfully, that is not the case today, and hence, the beef ban is justified.
5 Respect the sentiments of majority.
It is true that even if there were no rational basis behind cattle-worship in Indian culture, still beef ban is justified on pure respect for sentiments of the vast majority. But thankfully the truth is that foundations of Indian culture are very rational and scientific. It is not out of jingoism that we consider India as a lighthouse for the entire world. It is because Indian culture stands on the foundation of reason and science.
Coming to matter of cow and cattle worship:
• The cow is the most productive animal known on this planet. It is a living factory cum hospital producing products of utility from its cow dung, urine, milk, sweat and even breath. Its benefit to the economy, environment, fuel generation and healthcare is parallel to none. When bombing a factory or place of productivity attracts a penalty, why not a cow?
• The environmental cost of beef production is highest of all livestock activities. Meat is the most polluting industry in the world. And beef is most polluting of all meat-producing industries. Refer Raising beef creates more pollution than raising pork, poultry, dairy, or eggs for example.
• The water footprint of beef is highest of all food. Estimates range from 441 gallons to 12008 gallons of water per pound of beef. In comparison, rice and wheat are 50 to 100 times more efficient!! Forget about India; there is a global movement to sway people away from beef to ensure our future generations have water to drink and food to eat. Refer Beef: The ”King” of the Big Water Footprints.
• Beef production is the most inefficient use of fossil energy at an energy input to output ratio of 54:1. Compare with chicken 4:1, pork 26:1, eggs 6:1. For Indian food grains, it is around 2:1. The implication is clear: When you eat beef instead of grains, 26 people go hungry to fulfill your so called “personal freedom of tongue indiscipline.” Review U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat. Also review Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Here is another one: Beef – The Global Issue.
We shower our deepest respect to seers who formed foundations of Indian culture. They saw what the world is repenting today for being too late to observe and act upon. We are proud of them.
6 Beef lovers and their double standards.
If one demands permission to kill cow and cattle because of his “personal freedom to eat whatever he or she wants,” then they should first raise their voice against following:
• Ban on the killing of national and endangered animals and birds in most civilized countries of the world. (In India, you cannot poach lions and tigers. In United State, killing bald and a golden eagle in banned through a Special Act. Just possessing feathers lead to a heavy penalty. Killing will give you long prison time and hefty fine.)
• Ban on defacing and damaging heritage and protected buildings. Why be certain buildings considered so special after all? Why “freedom-lovers” do not have freedom to choose what buildings they decide to consider special?
• Ban on insulting and desecration of national symbols like a flag.
• Ban on sale and carrying of unlicensed arms and weapon.
• Ban on roaming naked and having sex in public.
• Ban on mutual cannibalism with consent.
• Ban on sale and consumption of narcotics. And so on….
The same gangs of “liberals” who are crying foul on beef ban have never shown any solidarity with above or any other related aspect of personal freedom. Many Bollywood celebrities are twitting against the beef ban. Shirin Devi – only woman editor of Urdu magazine – was fired, arrested and now forced to live in oblivion for publishing Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the magazine. She published them to criticize the cartoons and yet she had to face unimaginable trauma. The issue made headlines, she hails from Mumbai, but no Bollywood personality or beef-lover dared to stand up to defend her. No one dared to publish Charlie Hebdo cartoons on their own walls and tweets to show solidarity with “freedom of speech”.
This itself shows blatant double standards.
I challenge all “beef-lovers” first to show their solidarity with above bans and restrictions that pre-date beef-ban. Please explain your selective silence on these issues.
One celebrity porn-writer wrote that she is willing to face five years of jail to defend the right of beef-eaters in Maharashtra. Let her post Charlie Hebdo cartoons to defend write of publishers, let her publicly consume narcotics to defend the right of ecstasy-lovers, let her perform nude sex acts in public to defend the right of sex-maniacs and so on. But they will not do so simply because the risks are too high.
Insulting sentiments of the peaceful majority of Indians is a harmless hobby instead. It is harmless because Indian majority will not retaliate, unlike many other groups that are famed for putting a prize on your head.
7 There is no absolute freedom in democracy.
In an enlightened democracy, there can never be absolute freedom. Because your freedom can invade in my zone of freedom. All matters of freedom and restrictions are bound by following:
• Collective wisdom of majority that is witnessed through election process
• Responsibility and maturity with which one can use the freedom
• Respect for harmless sentiments of the public. Your freedom ends where it restricts my freedom.
In the case of a beef ban, that happened through a democratic and legal manner. The government that brought this legislation made their intentions very clear in their election manifesto. They went to voters on a plank of stopping beef production. Voters gave them their support and allowed them to proceed on this legally. Now, if they do not fulfill the promise made to voters, that would amount to cheating. Instead, the government decided to follow the path of honesty, show respect to the process of democracy and fulfill aspirations of people who voted for them.
If someone has objections to democracy, he better relocate to jungles where every animal has full freedom to do whatever it wants. And not complain because a government fulfilled its promise to public.
8 Terrorist mindset of beef protestors.
What these protestors are saying is:
“I don’t care if she is your mother. I don’t care if it destroys the environment. I don’t care if it results in 30 hungry people who die. I don’t care if it results in 20 thirsty dead. I don’t care about culture, economy, environment, poor people, sentiments of others…nothing. I don’t care about law and democracy. I just care about the taste of my tongue. If I enjoy eating your mother – living or dead – let me have that even if it is against law. That is my fundamental right.”
This is exactly the way ISIS terrorists think, rapists think, psychopaths think, criminals think. It only proves something else – that even love for beef has such brutal effect on Indian brains. Only God can imagine its impact when consumed. That is why Gandhi equated cow-protection with Swarajya.
9 No unemployment due to beef ban.
Another lame argument given is that banning beef will lead to unemployment of people in this industry. Beef ban is inhuman. This argument again shows your double standards. Why suddenly this selective love for other people? If you are so sensitive to others, why ignore sensitivities of the vast majority, poverty caused due to beef, hunger caused due to beef.
This lame argument can be used for banning any legal or illegal industry. For example, banning illegal firearms, illegal liquor, narcotics, and opium production will all lead to unemployment of some people. After all, there is no industry that functions without people. Even fighting against ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other terror groups will render many terrorists unemployed! Should we then start promoting terrorism also as a career option instead? Clearly, all this is the mindset of sociopath – for whom self-indulgence supersedes social responsibility.
Those who will be displaced by the ban on the beef industry are free to move to other legal industries. If beef producers start using same resources for grain production, they can cater to 30 to 100 times bigger market. There will be more prosperity and employment. And the environment will also thank them.
Instead of crying hoarse over the beef ban, beef-lovers should instead propose alternatives for the adoption of people in beef-industry in other worthwhile industries. If you have money and commitment to go even to jail, why not allocate some funds for rehabilitation of these people? Why demand legalization of terrorism in the name of safeguarding careers of terrorists?
10 Stop justifying insult of mother.
Don’t impose your moral policing on me. Don’t tell me why I should not worship cow as mother. Don’t ridicule me for electing a government that promises to respect my sentiments for cattle, eliminate hunger, protect the environment and reduce poverty. Don’t threaten me that you would take law in your hands and insult my sentiments for your taste-buds. All this amounts to fanaticism as displayed by ISIS and moral brigade. And if you do so, be prepared to be repaid in the same currency.
If, indeed, you are so passionate about “freedom and liberty”, then raise your voice on more pertinent issues. Do not justify insult of the mother. Do not promote the damage of environment and hunger. Raise voice for the uniform civil code to give equal rights to all women of all communities. Raise voice for Shirin Devi who cannot even move in public because she published Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Raise voice for mute animals whose right to live is jeopardized because of taste-buds of others. Raise voice for hundreds of more pertinent issues than your obsession to eat my mother.
11 There is a correct way to get anything banned.
Another silly argument given by many mentally deprived beef-lovers is as follows:
“I worship lauki and potato. Eating them hurts my religious sentiments. So ban them also.”
Here is the answer. Yes, you have right to get them banned. Follow the following steps:
• First of all, stop eating lauki, potato, roti, pulses – whatever hurts your sentiments.
• Next, form an association of like-minded people who share your worship of potato.
• Third, stand in elections, prepare election manifesto that clearly states your commitment to ban potato, pulses blah blah. Feel free to put death sentence as punishment for potato eaters.
• Fourth, win the elections, prepare a bill, and have it passed in the Assembly to make an act.
• Now thank your voters and be happy.
• If I eat potato after that, lawfully hang me to death.
India believes in this democratic process. Everyone is encouraged to respect and adopt it. But if democracy is not your cup of tea, I recommend asylum in Somalia or ISIS territories or jungles of Africa.
12 Beef ban is completely lawful.
A large number of beef-lovers are threatening to violate the law and satisfy their cravings.
Some say, if beef roams in the night and gets eaten, it’s their fault. One porn-writer says she will eat beef even if she has to go jail for this. Here is our response:
Don’t act like terrorists. By this logic, you can also defend eating children in isolated streets. This mindest is called is psychopath mindset.
Further, if you have right to violate the law to claim your “personal freedom” of eating my mother, then I also have right to violate the law and thrash you for attempting to attack my mother. In other words, don’t complain if illegal beef-activists are brought in control through illegal means by cow-worshippers. So respect the law. Don’t promote anarchy.
13 Beef ban is democratic.
Another breed of beef-lovers is calling this ban anti-democratic and unconstitutional.
What a joke! They forgot Civics lessons of school perhaps. Ban on the slaughter of cattle is clearly documented as a Directive Principle of State Policy in Part IV of Indian Constitution. It has been clearly stated that “it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.” (Para 37)
Para 48 states that: “The State shall endeavor to organize 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.”
So what Maharashtra Government has done is strictly in lines of Constitution and also in a constitutional manner. Those who have objections to it must accuse and abuse the Constitution and its makers instead of those people who respect and follow the Constitution. If you have fundamental issues with Indian Constitution, better relocate to another country because India will continue to run as per its Constitution and celebrate the Republic Day as a promise to abide by the Constitution.
Summary
Let beef-lovers and potato-lovers and culture-haters do whatever they can. We are resolved to counter them democratically, intellectually and legally. And if they resort to the promotion of illegal means – directly and indirectly, then they lose right to complain when they face the same.
Hence, we appeal to them to stop this double standard and join Agniveer in fulfilling aspirations of millions in a democratic manner.
If they do not, please note that we take pride in Veer Shivaji who risked his life to protect the cows. We take pride in Gandhi. And we take pride in our visionary culture that taught us ways to fight poverty, hunger, pollution and live with compassion. We shall protect and nurture it irrespective of anyone’s perverted fetish. And go to any extent for it.
[mybooktable book=”a-hindus-fight-for-mother-cow” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
Wonderful article! We should strongly support across india
1. Complete ban on cow-slaughter across India
2. Construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya
3. Repeal of Article 370 from Jammu & Kashmir (to integrate it with rest of India)
4. Uniform Civil Code across all communities of India (including ban on polygamy, triple talaq for gender equality)
5. Asylum for minorities of Pakistan and Bangladesh and their rehabilitation in India
6. Promotion of Sanskrit – mother of all languages and culture of India
7. Hardline stance on illegal infiltration from across border and…
Please clarify these doubts for me!!
I am Bangladeshi Agniveer.
Do u consider all cows as ur mother or just cows in India???
Do u weep for the cows in Europe and the Americas??
Would u like to have an elected representative for the cows???
How about empowerment and education of the cows??
How about atleat decent homes for ur “mothers”?
How about banning fish since its one of mahavishu’s avatars??
Did someone notice who are those majority of people who are against ban on cow-slaughter? Most of the time, when I read the articles, I found a section of hindus are against ban on cow-slaughter. These hindus are against anything that depicts hinduism. Please try to find the underneath reason why hindus are not united and ignorant of their own culture. Why these people call themselves hindus. Let us do some introspection of our religion.
Rishika ji,
rest assured, that people like us may be increasingly becoming a minority among the so-called ‘educated’. i frequent tech-forums, and most, if not all the comments and sentiments (being) reflected there are against such a ban. infact, utter anything with the word ‘ban’, and people start getting worked up! yes, most of such people comprise of ‘Hindus’, and they are verily ignorant of their own traditions, prostrate in front of the white man and take his word as the gospel, are scientism fanatics, and anything ‘Hindu’ for them is vile am sure!
Hindus please learn ur vedas, muslims the holy Quran and christians the holy bible…analyse and think…the world will be a better place to live….
bahan sheena ji. kuran to mul ki bhul hai ! usko holy kahana galat hoga
dekhe kuran 2/54 jisme sirf bachade ki puja karne valo ki apas me hatya karne ka adesh diya gaya hai !
What is the reason that in spite of our invaluable texts like Darshan, Nyaya Sutra, Vaisheshik Darshan, Sankhya Darshan, Vedanta, Upanishads, Ramayan, Gita do remain untouched by majority of hindu people. It is real shame that majority of hindu people are completely ignorant of their culture and have no clue about anything related to hinduism. Please try to explore the reasons behind these and you will find how and why most of hindus are just hindus for the name sake (just because they were born to hindu parents), they have not read or done anything to learn and understand about hinduism.
(contd.) these people get influenced by the west’s increasing disillusionment from the Church and religion (not much to convince therein already), and since they know almost nothing about our own wealth of knowledge contained in our scriptures (ie, apart from what propagandists like naik are spreading), they easily take to atheism and scientific fanaticism. only the shocks-and-jolts and direct experiences (like meeting a true Yogi) of life may hold chance for SOME of them. IDK whom to blame for this, our system, the western influence through various media, or….don’t know. pray for good!
Rishika,
Most of hindus are the hindus for name sake because they are not action oriented. They do not read any scriptures and even if they read, they just only believe in giving lectures or writing articles. They do not believe in any community work. They go to temple and just do some puja and think that they are clean and pure now. They do not live in real world where they have to do some real contributions to the society. You take care of your home and make sure that everyone in your family is fed and properly taken care of.
Then spread this same love and compassion towards your community and make sure everyone living in your community including birds and animals are also properly taken care of. This is how american people contributes to their community. But Indian people are very quick to follow bad part of westernized culture and feel proud of it. If you want to mimic western culture, then mimc cleanliness, professionalism, respect, social skills, communication, humbleness and selfless. Hindus have big treasures of vedic culture and talk about it all the time but how are they using this knowledge into action
Blunt, in-your-face article!
Agniveer ji, i would like a still more solid rebuttal for the argument that ‘India is a secular country with diversified population, and one community should not/cannot dictate the preferences and habits of others; its a democratic set-up and no one should dictate his terms on others, freedom of this-and-that and blah blah’, if you may, please.
thanks!
Eating beef involves the killing of the cow. That is the reason for the beef ban. After all, the cow is an animal. Is it right to kill it for our own pleasure?
If someone wishes to kill your relative, would you stop them from doing so? Or would you allow it? After all, it is a democracy right, and no one should dictate his terms on others????
What is wrong is wrong. And there is no justification for that.
Agniveer ji…..answr these questions then:
1)Once Muslims attain majority in India (which they will eventually…..unless of course human beings become extinct by that time once the natural resources are consumed…..and I am talking about only a 2 or 3 hundered years here)………..can they impose ban on Hindu’s ways of life and religion……say ban on temples, idols, Hindu festivals, films based on Hinduism and maybe in fact just practising Hinduism!!
2)Should there be a ban on beef in general (cow I can understand….but beef in general?????)
“An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings – Jay Smith”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0&index=11&list=PLlGzaT9GtJ-VSA1tcWL6wooiIQr52sJmx
None of the things you mentioned are a threat to the environment. Nevertheless, I think , if Muslims become the majority, such type of laws will come into existence. But, I don’t think they will become the majority. People are moving away from religion in general, these days.
If somewhat rational and liberal religion like Hinduism can’t attract them, I don’t see religions like Islam attracting them.
I agree with most of the points. But, I don’t agree with the sentiments part. Muslims are critisized for being over sensitive and overreacting to everything. We, Hindus must not be like that. Moreover, cow-slaughter happens in almost every other country. There, it doesn’t hurt the sentiments of the people. So, is it acceptable to you ? In my opinion, most of the laws must be same across the world. But, if you use ‘hurting sentiments’ as an argument, it won’t work for the whole world, because then, we are a minority. The other arguments (like environmental concerns, etc,.) are more…
(contd.) more logical and acceptable in the bigger picture of the whole world and are more likely to convince people of other faiths as well.
I appreciate the ban on cow-slaughter in Maharashtra very much. I see this as the first step towards ban on cow slaughter in the whole country and then, ultimately, in the whole world.
absolutely super article. admire your courage.
watch documentary cowspiracy http://www.cowspiracy.com
environmental impact of beef and animal slaughter beautifully depicted.
Go VEGAN!
I strongly support ban of beef and pork across whole india. If possible, please ban all types of meat. Be vegetarian and enjoy good body and sound mind. It is really easy to become vegetarian.
Dear Abhinav,
Do you know if you ban meat products, then prices of your vegetable and grains will rise sky high. There is a food chain that has followed to prevent excess of things . you may know excess of everything is bad
I have one small problem with this article. All hindus consider cow as their mother then how come they do not take care of these cows. Most of the cows, and bulls are homeless and do not have any food to eat. It is good to read these articles but till there are no actions, these are just thought waves those will be diminished after few days and everyone will forget this topic. Actions are better than simple talks.
“Collective wisdom of majority that is witnessed through election process”
I am a Canadian. But if this is true of India, then it shows the limitations of Indian democracy. India is not a true democracy like the West, but a limited, a flawed democracy like Russia. In a true democracy, fundamental rights are protected by the constitution, and cannot be repealed by the whims of the majority.
The right to eat what one wants would come under the right of freedom of association, freedom of speech. As such in USA or Canada, majority cannot ban eating anything, it would be unconstitutional.
What is theocratic in banning the most polluting activity that increases poverty? There is impetus to eradicate beef production from intellectual agencies across the globe. The ban is not on eating beef. Ban is on killing of cow and cattle. In USA, there is ban on killing bald eagles. There are bans on hundreds of other things – pollutants, poaching, narcotics, cannibalism, public indecency, arms and ammunition, traffic rules and what not? How does is make a state theocratic? By this logic all efforts to protect environment, follow rules, remove poverty are also theocratic! Penalty for not paying taxes is also theocratic! Only fools will consider this as Hindu or religious decision. This is a welcome decision for all who are concerned about environment, poverty-alleviation and of course animals rights.
Please read the Indian Constitution. Ban on Cow Slaughter is a goal of Indian Constitution as documented in Directive Principles. And it has been implemented through a completely democratic process. Refer Part 1V.48: “—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.” 48A states that State must strive to protect the environment.
So Maharashtra Government followed the Indian Constitution’s vision. If someone has objection to it, please democratically engage in changing the constitution. I am surprised why no one ever opposed Directive Principles in last 68 years. Don’t vent anger on the author. Please criticize the constitution. Author is merely elaborating on spirit of constitution.
Disclaimer: This is not to counter argue and debate, but just a personal opinion.
This is selective pick-up of constitutional directives intended to “just prove a point”.
You should seriously go ahead and understand the constitution of India, as against merely reading & subsequently “biased interpretation”.
It is sad that our youth is moving backwards in wisdom and treading towards fanaticism.
Why just cattle? Why not ban all (unnatural) killing?
If you talk about liberalism, we should protect all life (animals, birds, marine life & of course us humans!). “No killing of any species”, would be an unbiased agenda.
A modern progressive civilization cannot be built on the grounds of religious belief system of a particular community. Look at ISIS, Taliban, etc., for what happens when civilization is dictated by religious belief system.
For a country as diverse as India, this sort of religious reasoning is as fanatic as it can be.
I am neither against the ban nor with it. But I do know that we write a lot, but act little or not at all. It’s a pity that humans by far are self-declared and self-obsessed species of this planet. For us, it is all about “my religion, my belief” and so on and so forth. We forgot that we share out planet with other species, we do not own it!
Well, we destroy marine life by injecting all industrial waste into it – Yamuna as prime example.
We destroy a complete ecosystem by religious belief driven actions – Ganga as prime example.
What about that life and it’s impact on ecosystem as a whole? We don’t care about that now, do we?
All said and done, it would have been fantastic if the views presented herein were naturalist & progressive and if the constitutional directives were not interpreted in a biased manner.
However, as said in the first line, these are just personal views. No offense intended and no argument intended.
IndianRealist says :For a country as diverse as India, this sort of religious reasoning is as fanatic as it can be.
Answer: Cow-protection is not a religious thing.
Please read the constitution of India (Part IV–Directive Principles of State Policy) and its interpretation given by the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA as provided by me while answering the comment of “Riyaz” above.
Why are bringing “Religion” into picture yourself?
Cow and bull protection is a POSITIVE thought. Not only is it religious but it is also required for environment. Why should you have any objection for that?
The diversity bullsit excuse is always used when against Hindus, but when it comes to other religions we just say ban. I’m tired of the double standard crap. We ban satanic verses but not PK. We ban divincie code, but not degrading art against Hindus. Even though i am against idol worship i can see the double standard.
We tax Hindu temples, but government gives money to so called minority religious groups and never tax their place of worship. We let one group marry four wives while everone else marry’s one spouce.
What a load of crap your diversity is. I’m sorry but i no longer believe in your diversity. First equality then we will talk about diversity dumbass.
Riyaz said: Don’t mislead the people…. They know the meaning of milch and draught animals.
Answer
(to Riyaz)
Please don’t post irrelevant comments without any tail or head. We know very well the meaning of milch and drought cattle as interpreted by the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
Article 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.
Article 48-A
{Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life}
The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
(ends)
(begins)
Article 51A {Fundamental duties}
It shall be the duty of every citizen of India –
a. …
b. …
c. …
d. …
e. …
f. …
g. to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;
f. …
i. …
j. …
k. …
(ends)
COMMENTS BY
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Article 48 consists of two parts. The first part enjoins the State to “endeavour to organize agricultural and animal husbandry” and that too “on modern and scientific lines”. The emphasis is not only on ‘organization’ but also on ‘modern and scientific lines’. The subject is ‘agricultural and animal husbandry’. India is an agriculture based economy. According to 2001 census, 72.2% of the population still lives in villages (See- India Vision 2020, p.99) and survives for its livelihood on agriculture, animal husbandry and related occupations. The second part of Article 48 enjoins the State, de hors the generality of the mandate contained in its first part, to take steps, in particular, “for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”.
Article 48-A deals with “environment, forests and wild life”. These three subjects have been dealt with in one Article for the simple reason that the three are inter-related. Protection and improvement of environment is necessary for safeguarding forests and wild life, which in turn protects and improves the environment. Forests and wild life are clearly inter-related and inter-dependent. They protect each other. Cow progeny excreta is scientifically recognized as a source of rich organic manure. It enables the farmers avoiding the use of chemicals and inorganic manure. This helps in improving the quality of earth and the environment. The impugned enactment enables the State in its endeavour to protect and improve the environment within the meaning of Article 48A of the Constitution.
COMMENTS BY SUPREME COURT
(cont.)
By enacting clause (g) in Article 51-A and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be achieved by the Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48A is honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen. The Parliament availed the opportunity provided by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 to improve the manifestation of objects contained in Article 48 and 48-A. While Article 48-A speaks of “environment”, Article 51-A(g) employs the expression “the natural environment” and includes therein “forests, lakes, rivers and wild life”. While Article 48 provides for “cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”, Article 51-A(g) enjoins it as a fundamental duty of every citizen “to have compassion for living creatures”, which in its wider fold embraces the category of cattle spoken of specifically in Article 48.
DICTIONARY MEANINGS
I
husbandry (noun)
1. the cultivation or production of plants or animals; agriculture
2. scientific control and management of a branch of farming and especially of domestic animals.
3. the control or judicious use of resources
II
milch (adjective)
Giving milk:
Example: a milch cow
III
draught (adjective)
1. denoting an animal used for pulling heavy loads.
2. British variant of draft
IV
draft (noun)
1. The act of pulling loads; traction.
2. Something that is pulled or drawn; a load.
3. A team of animals used to pull loads.
4. (various other meanings)
V
cattle (plural noun)
1. Any of various chiefly domesticated mammals of the genus Bos, including cows, steers, bulls, and oxen.
2. bovine animals, esp. domesticated members of the genus Bos, as cows and steers.
VI
bovine (adjective)
1. Of, relating to, or resembling a ruminant mammal of the genus Bos, such as an ox, cow, or buffalo.
Dear rameshji,
Pls read this article again…no one is stopping u from eating what you want..we are just against killing cow..if tomorrow someone wants to kill a human for eating..can that be allowed??will u allow that freedom?
What the writer is advocating is a Hindu Theocracy in India. this is nothing unusual, they do have Theocracies in many Islamic countries. Even in USA, the religious right or the Tea Party wants to establish Fundamentalist Christian Theocracy. Fundamentalism of any kind, whether Muslim, Christian or Hindu, is equally dangerous. Whether the author will be able to implement his draconian, extremist agenda depends upon Indian population.
Aptly said Sir.
Eye opening article, great perspective – thank you so much for sharing.
A friend recently argued “Most states in India have financially weak Hindu castes, Muslims and Christians depending upon beef for cheap nutrition. It is elitist it is to say that instead of being able to opt for inexpensive nutrition, they should opt for veg food (which is statistically more expensive for a the same amount of nutrients)?”
I tried searching for Yearly Beef consumption figures bifurcated by strata, and state – couldn’t find much information.
Thoughts?
First of all,India is a Republic,and not a “democracy” as you have so conveniently stated in your arguments.In a pure democracy,the majority has the absolute power and the ultimate say.But unfortunately for you in a republic,the majority is not allowed to overrule the minority.So such a ban can definitely not be imposed in a republic.It could have been possible in a pure democracy/theocracy but for that you need to find some other country which encourages that.I don’t know how you managed to mess up this basic concept being an IIT-IIM graduate…
1. Republic is a form of democracy. India is a republic democracy – that is why people elect representatives who then run the country as per people’s aspirations.
2. Where does the question of majority and minority come here? A practice that is dangerous for environment, economy and culture was eradicated after following the due democratic process. What is wrong there.
3. And who says ban cannot be imposed in democracy? There are already hundreds of bans in all democracies. Poaching of tigers is banned, cannibalism is banned, breeding mosquitoes is banned, growing narcotics is banned.
Using plastic bags is banned, spreading pollution is banned etc etc
Very informative article agniveerji…thanks for what you have done..we support no cow should be killed anywhere…we won’t allow in india.
To add, please review the Directive Principles as per Indian Constitution. Part 4, 48 clearly states that ” prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle” is a directive principle. So is Uniform Civil Code (44). Do you now mean to say that Constitution has problems. If yes, why none of these beef-lovers ever raised voice against constitution in last 68 years? Is it not a pity that people are calling anti-republic/ anti-democratic an act that is clearly documented in Constitution as a goal for the state to achieve and has now been achieved through due democratic process strictly as per same constitution and law of land?
Sautrik,
Why do you need to attack on any person if you do not have enough information “I don’t know how you managed to mess up this basic concept being an IIT-IIM graduate..” It is irrelevant and immature statement.
Moreover, FYI..
These foods are banned in these countries:
1. Pink Slime – meat pulled from the bone – banned in European union
2. Hormone infused american beef – European Union, Japan, Australia, and China
FOR THOSE WORRY ABOUT PEOPLE LOSING THEIR JOB FROM BEEF INDUSTRY:
i have the best solution for that, Start BIOGAS PLANT
Generate FREE ELECTRICITY, FREE FUEL , FREE METHANE.
And SELL THE SLURY
I personally know a person who earns in CRORES anually from his BIOGAS PLANT.
JUST IMAGINE THE money you will save from GAS BILL, ELECTRICITY BILL, + you get slurry the best fertilizer that you can sell and 100s of farmers are ready to buy.
if you want contact no. and address plz reply.
Wonderful solution!
Thanks Rudr
A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion,
By the very definition of secularism, the state cannot ban cow slaughter citing the reason to be: “Banned in Hinduism”. The state has no right to ban cow slaughter simply because it is banned in Hinduism just like it has no right to ban idol worship simply because it’s banned in Christianity/Islam.
more than 50 % of turtles are already extinct and many more species.
270 species of COWs are vanished
5 species of buffalo are extinct
population of cows + buffalo + goat + sheep was more than 150 crore before british government left india.
in 2011
cows + buffalo + goat + sheep are only >15-16crore.
.
After 20 more years meat eaters will only have SHIT to EAT
Rudr, I appreciate your arguments my friend, at least you don’t resort to name calling like some.
All your arguments suggest that humans are destroying the planet… and i agree with that in most parts
But how many species have been rendered extinct due to dietary choices, due to greed… like trading in endangered species parts or tearing down forests to make way for urban development etc is debatable
I dont have any reputed source that verifies your statistics so if you could cite them then it would be most helpful
Thanks for your point of view 🙂 but i know 20 years from now i wont be eating shit. or in the interim period either
satyajit
“But how many species have been rendered extinct due to dietary choices”
—
No species have been vanished due to dietary choices. But with deforestation. Deforestation because of OVER POPULATION and industrialization.
source youtbue: i7xaTCfA7js
i am arya so far so now i ate chicken 3 times and eggs more than 10-15 times
i did it for protein gain and body building i stopped eating all NON VEG food becoz
later on i come to know that protein in moving animals are not in digestible form and myself have experienced the difference.
TO PRODUCE 1 kilogram of WHEAT you need 700 liters of water on your FARM.
TO PRODUCE 1 KILOGRAM OF RICE you need 2100 liters of WATER on your FARMLAND
BUT
IF YOU WANT to Produce 1 KG of MEAT(BEEF, PORK etc) you need 70000 liters- 1 50000 liters of water.(AVERAGE)
SO NON-VEG consumers consumes more WATER.
.
There are lakhs of farmers who got benefited
————–IF YOU ARE MUSLIM AND YOU EAT COW’S MEAT plz beware of hybrid meats—–
jersey , H & F cows ( HUMPLESS COW) are hybrids of PIG + antelope + African bos Taurus
PIG (which is haram in every religious text except Christians)
netherland did this to getting more MILK production. But the milk of these cows are A1.
And natural god made cow and buffalo has A2 milk.
REMEMBER THAT more than 50% cows in slaughter house are HYBRIDS. If you dont believe go yourself and see it
take a picture from google of Hybrid cows and indian humped cows.
if u r not muslim and love meat still it is very unhealthy.
PLZ ALSO Research EINSTEIN PAIN WAVE THEORY.
EPW works because heart is magnetically 5000x stronger and electrically 100x stronger than brain.
.
.
also the veg diets which lack nutrients are the 1 which ar Hybrids most of made by MONSANT0
Hinduism prohibits slaughter of cattle because of other rational reasons cited in article. Constitution has accordingly put it in Directive Principles. Agniveer fully supports fulfillment of constitutional directives.
Hindusim may prohibit cow slaughter, but if you claim India is secular then forcing your viewpoint on non hindus is certainly not being secular. Why dont you then either decide if you are secular or not?
@Satyajeet
——A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion,——–
1. And democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the PEOPLE. And people elected a party that promised to protect cattle in its manifesto.
2. Are you suggesting that BJP had no power to include cattle protection in its manifesto or it was a crime? Or the crores of people that voted for cattle protection are criminals? Or their belief that cattle shouldn’t be killed is a crime? Who are you to judge that? You are too small to judge right or wrongs about my belief, understood, moron?
3. BTW, go to Zakir Naiks and other Islamic fanatics and release your fart about secular state in front of them. They still can marry 4 women at a time and divorce their wives w/o latter’s consent. Same thing can’t be done by Hindus. They will be jailed for this. Now dont give me the shit of ‘if that is happening , its wrong’. Because if you dont know this, you are a fool living in fool’s paradise who is unaware of real issues. So improve your GK first and then come for serious discussions. If you know that and still chose the issue of beef-ban over them, that proves that you are a hypocrite and coward who pisses in pants in front of fanatics but becomes warrior of truth in front of harmless people.
——-By the very definition of secularism, the state cannot ban cow slaughter citing the reason to be: “Banned in Hinduism”. ———
Improve your GK. It was banned because people voted for it. Had it been allowed to continue, it would have been moral crime (of not fulfilling the promise made in manifesto) by the ruling party.
———The state has no right to ban cow slaughter——–
Its done in Maharashtra already. It will be done across all of India by efforts of people like Agniveer.
——-Hindusim may prohibit cow slaughter, but if you claim India is secular then forcing your viewpoint on non hindus is certainly not being secular. ———
Nobody forced voters to vote for a particular party. India voted for cattle protection. Now its law. And law is enforced. This is called rule of law. And those who refuse to obey it are called criminals. You can also choose to hate ‘Hindu viewpoint’ that rapists are criminals. You can also want to legalize rapes because anti-rape law is enforcement of ‘Hindu viewpoint’ on rapists. But rape is still a crime. You cant rape women in this country and you cant kill cattle because majority of people dont want rapes or beef. Now cry about secularism, nobody cares.
——–Why dont you then either decide if you are secular or not?——-
We are a secular democratic nation. Anybody who now kills cow will be jailed for 5 years. No exemption for Hindus. This law applies equally to all. This is true secularism. If you have guts, fight for real issues.
I would ignore most of this particular post as all you seem is to vent.. and that too without fact
I neither hate hindu viewpoints nor do i associate myself with Zakir Naik so please don’t make assumptions
All i would like to say to this comment by you
“We are a secular democratic nation. Anybody who now kills cow will be jailed for 5 years. No exemption for Hindus. This law applies equally to all. ”
So outraging a womens modesty which is a sugar coated way of saying just stopping short of rape is punishable by 2 years of imprisonment under section 354 and under this new law.. not just killing but possessing, transporting or eating cow meat is punishable for 5 years
Ergo eating cow meat is a lesser offense than stopping short of raping a woman??
I fail to see the logic
——–I would ignore most of this particular post as all you seem is to vent.. and that too without fact——–
Vent w/o fact? You couldn’t refute even a single point of this post or my comment.
——–nor do i associate myself with Zakir Naik———
Thats not enough. If beef-ban pinches you, the inhumane polygamy and divorce laws that treat 150 Million Muslim women of this country like dirt should pinch you a thousand times more. Staying neutral on this proves that you are coward of highest order.
——- so please don’t make assumptions——–
Words w/o substance, make no sense.
——–So outraging a womens modesty which is a sugar coated way of saying just stopping short of rape is punishable by 2 years of imprisonment under section 354 and under this new law.. not just killing but possessing, transporting or eating cow meat is punishable for 5 years——-
Why complain about this here? Why not do some concrete things towards having more severe punishments for molesters? Agniveer is already running the movement for death penalty for rapists and stronger punishment for molesters. But if someone believes that we should not have punishment for killing because we have less severe punishment for rapes, he is a psychopath.
——-I fail to see the logic——–
You fail to even apply it. Learn manners, logic will eventually enter your brain.
I don’t know why Satyajit is hyping so much “secular”. India became secular in 1976. And it has Directive Principles since formation of constitution which asks government to make laws prohibiting killing of cows and cattle. So why you have no respect for Constitution? Why no one ever objected to Directive Principles till today and suddenly crying hoarse? Want is anti-secular in implementing a Directive Principle? And if you think so, then start campaigning against constitution. You can’t criticize someone for following the constitution.
Coming to economic arguments, what is the economic benefit of keeping bulls or dried up cows? (If the cows are artificially inseminated and the fields are ploughed by machines, it is a burden on the farmer to feed bulls). The cows slaughtered for beef are not the milk-giving ones. India leads the world in beef export and it fetched India Rs.13725.23 crores in 2012. So in purely economic terms, it is an unsound decision to ban cow slaughter.
There are better ways to utilize same resources. Why should I not kill you and your mother and father and everyone and export their meat in Africa and East Asia where it can fetch great money? Let court allow cannibalism by consent (or even without it), by this logic. You should ask these questions to government and demand for constitutional amendments to remove Directive Principles for Constitution. Agniveer would instead follow the letter and spirit of constitution. Haryana is next state to make stricter laws against cattle slaughter.
“Why should I not kill you and your mother and father and everyone and export their meat in Africa and East Asia where it can fetch great money?” What a ludicrous statement. Either argue from a “hindusim” angle or a logical one. Your last statement certainly isnt logical as without a buyer there cant be any trade and unlike your interpretation of hinduism that cows are sacred which im sure a lot of people agree with, there wont be a single person in civil society who would agree with your cannibalism argument
@Satyajeet
——–India leads the world in beef export and it fetched India Rs.13725.23 crores in 2012. So in purely economic terms, it is an unsound decision to ban cow slaughter.——–
If your mother/sister/wife starts doing prostitution, she can fetch 10 times amount than what she is currently doing. Point is that when I consider a species as holy as my mother, bloody pig, how can you even talk about killing them so easily and relate it to economic benefits?
——–What a ludicrous statement. Either argue from a “hindusim” angle or a logical one. ——–
There is now the third angle also. Which is prostitution option for your mother/sister/wife. Lets discuss everything afresh from this third angle. Right, moron?
——Your last statement certainly isnt logical as without a buyer there cant be any trade———
Ask your mother to start new business I talked earlier. There will be many buyers of your mother, so will be more trade, more people will come to her and more money will come to you. Logical, no?
——–and unlike your interpretation of hinduism that cows are sacred which im sure a lot of people agree with——–
Same goes w/ your interpretation about your mother. Some people including you might consider her a respectable woman but most men would like to be w/ her during her business hours, And there wont be a single man who would reject her.
Feeling bad, very bad? I am too feeling same. When you know that I respect someone as mother and then you go on talking/discussing its killing and trade analysing it from economic angle, I cant control my emotions. You take back your entire words, arguments and discussion, I will take mine.
@Vajra, You seriously need to learn how to debate based on logic without getting personal. Calling me a moron or trying to provoke me by calling my mother/sister/wife/daughter a whore under the veil of some sort of logical argument shows what a shallow person you are. By equating cannibalism to prostitution, you show what little intellect you possess.
If you feel a cow deserves the treatment your mother deserves thats you prerogative, but please read the rest of my arguments, including my comments in another blog post where the author has conveniently posted the last comment as a rejoinder and then conveniently shut comments.
I have posted several arguments from both the angle of secularism, economic viability and that too without being personal.
I’m not an expert on the vedas or scriptures so ive not commented on those “interpretations” by many people where some say Indra and agni used to consume cow flesh and then others who say that it is wrong interpretation of Sanskrit words which have subjective meaning.
So if you can make your point logically and intellectually, please do so. I’m not here to waste my time engaging in a name calling and pissing competition with you.
And my final comment and wonderment is how the character limitation of 500 characters was lifted for you.. your post has 1624 characters.
Any affiliation to the author?
Satyajit, Do not inflate your ego much and accuse the author. This is Agniveer site and not your home turf. It is place where likeminded people come and discuss as per Comment Policy (whose link appears before you post any comment). Comments were shut on No Beef in Vedas article because number of comments became so large that page size exceeded 1MB for a single post! Since ban, thousands are reading the article daily and we have greater obligation towards them than argue with you. Character limit extension has happened for everyone and not just for Vajra. Your this very post where you are putting baseless allegations of character limitation is of 1365 characters. Please read our Comment Policy and Disclaimers carefully. And respect our right to freely promote our views on our site as per our own choice.
Admin
@Satyajeet
Dear, Vajra was correct prostitution is great business and it can fetched a lot of many to improve India’s economy.
@Satyajeet
———- You seriously need to learn how to debate based on logic without getting personal.——–
I dont debate the killers of my mother. If you threaten to kill my mother or side w/ killers or argue on why my mother should be killed, I will return the favor with interest. Its all personal to me, understood?
——–Calling me a moron or trying to provoke me by calling my mother/sister/wife/daughter a whore under the veil of some sort of logical argument shows what a shallow person you are.———
And you can keep discussing about economic benefits of killing and trading my mother’s flesh? Who gave you this right, pig? Are you a human or dog who, despite knowing the feelings and sensitivities of people involved wrt cattle on this page, keeps barking?
——- By equating cannibalism to prostitution, you show what little intellect you possess.——-
I didn’t equate them.
——–If you feel a cow deserves the treatment your mother deserves thats you prerogative, but please read the rest of my arguments,———
I can say same things about your mother. Keep your arguments in your a$$. There can be no debate on mother’s respect and life.
——–my comments in another blog post where the author has conveniently posted the last comment as a rejoinder and then conveniently shut comments.——–
So nice to hear that. This is exactly what should be done with people like you devoid of any sentiments. You go to a page knowing its author considers cow as mother and then start discussing why beef is beneficial. What do you accept in return, moron?
———-I have posted several arguments from both the angle of secularism, economic viability and that too without being personal.———-
Its all personal when you are talking about killing my mother. I also talked about arguments from economic angle of prostitution by your dear ones w/o getting personal. Why are you so offended? Got the point?
——-I’m not an expert on the vedas or scriptures——–
Who cares?
———–I’m not here to waste my time engaging in a name calling and pissing competition with you.———–
Look at you. Talking about killing my mother and blaming me for name calling?
——-And my final comment and wonderment is how the character limitation of 500 characters was lifted for you.. your post has 1624 characters.——–
It was lifted even for you thats why you can see your comments. But someone like you filled with hatred can’t see that. He only finds ways of killing and raping innocents. I requested admin to lift the character limitation so that I can defend my mother against filthy heartless creatures like you. And I thank admin that he/she did it.
——Any affiliation to the author?——-
Yes, he is the source of inspiration for millions including me. He taught millions how to fight fanatics and bigots like you who encroach on someone else’s space, spew hatred, incite violence and get innocents raped and killed. Proud to be his fan.
@All
Please read this new great insightful article of Dr. Ali Sina.
“What is going on in the Other World?”
http://alisina.org/?p=5068
I don’t understand how one can find Vajra’s comment as “personal” when he finds nothing personal in citing economic benefits of killing cows in a site which clearly says that it considers cow as mother. Why are people like Satyajit trolling here? Does Secularism mean that they can enter into anybody’s home and start insulting his sentiments. If you don’t like Agniveer’s articles, go and write against it in your own website. But if you insult feeling of fans of Agniveer, they are bound to reply in same language.
If there is nothing wrong in suggesting killing of mother for economic benefit, how is suggesting prostitution wrong? It is a true fact that prostitution is most successful business of world and never has recession. The economic value of flesh-trading will be hundred times more than flesh-eating. So purely from economic standpoint, if beef-eaters instead start prostitution business with their family members as prostitutes and gigolos, that would be extremely beneficial for nation. It will increase tourism, get foreign exchange and remove poverty. What is so wrong in prostitution? Is it not secular?
There is nothing personal in suggesting prostitution as a lucrative economic option, if killing is also considered the same. Many respectable people today are prostitutes. They are proud of their prostitution. Like Sunny Leone. So are you not insulting sentiments of respectable prostitutes by calling them whores? The punishment for prostitution is less than punishment for murder. In fact it is not criminal at all in most situations. I believe you were being personal here instead of brother Vajra. Just my two cents. In no mood to argue. Am happy that even Digvijay Singh appreciated beef ban. Also even in Kashmir – muslim majority state and not completely integrated with India, cow slaughter has severe punishment. And no one ever called it anti-secular.
@satyajeet.Iam ready to buy that meat for the price you want..it will also be economical for you n for the country…is that okey then??
I request everyone to refrain from casting adverse remarks on mother – be it human or cow. This is a forum for discussions among like-minded people and not debates. Agniveer holds women with highest respect. It also holds cow with highest respect. In fact, human mother, cow, country, earth – are all mothers. And no insult will be tolerated against them. A society that respects mother is heaven. Else it is hell. Let us respect mother. Those who differ or have harsh words for mother are free to leave the site.
Vajra and Shatrupa = the blog owner posting under different names.. a megalomaniac who called himself fire warrior, likes to keep his profile clean so uses aliases to abuse, ( yeah right the owner specially increased the character count for you.. )
So the aliases obviously have to be names like Vajra and Shatrupa… I guess soon Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva too will chime in
No point debating with people whose argument for all logical debate is ‘cow is my mother’ and who when all else fails resort to insults to make up for their poor debating skills
Kerala still serves beef, good luck trying to shut that down. Filet Mignon in God’s own country lol
@Satyajeet/Mohammed Afroze/ Raju/ Shabeer
——-Vajra and Shatrupa = the blog owner posting under different names——-
And you seem to be the juvenile rapist Mohammed Afroz aka Raju of Delhi gang rape case given your constant and brutal defence for rapes and killings. I have heard that that pig Mohammed Afroze has got all facilities including internet and games in his shelter home. I am sure you and him are same man. And probably this Shabeer (hit and run Jihadi on same post pasting copied stuffs like rabid dog) is none but you!
——yeah right the owner specially increased the character count for you.. ——
It was done even for you. But you will never acknowledge that. Because that same rapist mindset of not listening to the other with which you mutilated an innocent has not left you yet.
——So the aliases obviously have to be names like Vajra and Shatrupa… I guess soon Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva too will chime in——-
There you go. It never takes more than 2 minutes for you to start mocking Hinduism. What has my name got to do with Hindu Gods? Why insult them?
—–No point debating with people whose argument for all logical debate is ‘cow is my mother’——
There can be no logical debate with killers of my mother. Will you debate rapists of …….?
———Kerala still serves beef, good luck trying to shut that down. Filet Mignon in God’s own country lol——-
This is exactly how that pig rapist Mohammed Afroze would have reacted- “If you stop me from inserting rod inside an innocent and raping her, someone else will do it in other state. Rapes in God’s own country lol”
But know that the days of rapists and killers are over. You cant go on raping women in buses and killing babies or cows for your taste. Be ready to rot in jail and get thrashed publicly.
HINDUISM & MEAT CONSUMPTION
Khorda Avesta 8.16.58 Ahura Mazda answered: ‘Let the Aryan nations bring libations unto him; let the Aryan nations tie bundles of baresma for him; let the##### Aryan nations cook for him a head of cattle######, either white, or black, or of any other colour, but all of one and the same colour
Rig Veda 10.86.14 [Indra speaks :] The worshippers dress for me fifteen (and) twenty bulls : I eat them and (become) fat, they fill both sides of my belly ;Indra is above all (the world).
Atharva Veda 6.71.1 What food I eat of varied form and nature, food whether horse, sheep, goat, or bullock…
Rig Veda 1.162.2-3 What time they bear before the Courser, covered with trappings and with wealth, the grasped oblation, the dappled goat goeth straightforward, bleating, to the place dear to Indra and to Pūṣan. Dear to all Gods, this goat, the share of Pūṣan, is first led forward with the vigorous Courser, while Tvaṣṭar sends him forward with the Charger, acceptable for sacrifice, to glory.
Rig Veda 5.29.8 When thou [Indra] three hundred buffaloes’ flesh hadst eaten, and drunk, as Maghavan, three lakes of Soma, All the Gods raised as ’twere a shout of triumph to Indra praise because he slew the Dragon.
Rig Veda 1.161.10 One pours the red water, (the blood), upon the ground ; one cuts the flesh, divided into fragments by the chopper; and a third separates the excrement from the other parts f in what manner may the parents (of the sacrifice) render assistance to their sons?
Rig Veda 10.94.3 Loudly they speak, for they have found the savoury meath: they make a humming sound over the meat prepared. As they devour the branch of the Red-coloured Tree, these, the well-pastured Bulls, have uttered bellowings.
Rig Veda 10.86.13 Indra will eat thy bulls…
Now the verses I mentioned clearly speaks about meat consumption, Have a look at what other scriptures says on slaughtering cows
Satapatha Brahman 6:2:2:11. The Karakas slaughter (a he-goat) for Pragâpati, saying, ‘Pragâpati, having built up the fire-altar (agni), became Agni. When he slaughters that [goat] one, then indeed he reaches the end of Agni (the fire-altar).’
Shukla Yajur Veda 2.5.5 On the full moon (the Soma) is pressed for the gods; during this half-month it is pressed forth for them, and a cow for Mitra and Varuna is to be slaughtered for them at the new moon. In that he sacrifices on the day before…In that he sacrifices at the new moon with clotted curds for Mitra and Varuna, the cow which is slaughtered for the gods becomes his also.
MY ADVICE TO AGNIVEER & MAHARASHTRA GOVT FIRST U TRY TO REMOVE THE VERSES (THAT SUPPORT MEAT CONSUMPTION)FROM THE VEDA & I THINK BANNING BEAF MEAT NOT LOVE FOR HINDUISM,IT JUST SHOW THE RACIST BEHAVIOR & HATE AGAINST MUSLIM.
@Shabeer
1. Quoting Zoroastrian text Khodra Avesta to prove that Hindu books sanction beef is like getting slapped on face and rubbing burnol on a$$. I can also prove from Jew/Shia/Ahmadi books that your sect is a sect of pigs? So whats the point?
2. Rest other allegations regarding Vedas have been punctured by Agniveer way back. Irony is that it is the same post in which Agniveer has given links to those rebuttals on which you are claiming beef! You are like that unaware fool mosquito who is in search of a space to hide and finds the top of a plugged in All Out to sit on.
3. Beef has such adverse effect on minds, specially Muslim minds that most of them spell it as ‘BEAF’ (look at your comment). So if you reject beef, it can help you improve your IQ, English Grammar, analytical skills, exam-cracking abilities, competing abilities with normal human beings, hygiene habits and what not.
Good luck.
@Shabeer / Satyajeet
You are welcomed at ali Sina.org to pass your comments. This is Hindu website. Dr. Sina has highest regard for muhammad. He recently posted a great article about Muhammad spiritual knowledge. Please visit the page and get enlightened and spread the truth.
“What is going on in the Other World?”
http://alisina.org/?p=5068
Than stop eating plants as well. You are disturbing nature’s balance. Plants give oxygen and they are living being so you are a murderer killing the creations of GOD 😛
Also ban on milk as well you are molesting HOLY COW’S. You say me what will happen if someone squeeze your breast daily. Will you enjoy it lol
Use a bit of thing which we call brain if you have it………..
–Than stop eating plants as well. —
Then start eating your mother as well —
–You are disturbing nature’s balance. —
You are already mentally disturbed
–Plants give oxygen and they are living being so you are a murderer killing the creations of GOD 😛 —
So stop eating plants if you are so sensitive about it.
–Also ban on milk as well you are molesting HOLY COW’S.–
You grow up molesting your mother since you were born.
— You say me what will happen if someone squeeze your breast daily. Will you enjoy it lol–
Ask your mother how she felt when you did the same immediately after you were born and for several months every few hours.
–Use a bit of thing which we call brain if you have it………..–
Use a bit of thing which we call “respect for mother” if you have it. It looks like you are Mohammad Afroz – the Delhi gang rape chief culprit who has been given internet access in juvenile home. Come out and we will make life hell for you.
we all know all cows will give us milk for only for some period in their life.after that they will just become a burden to farmers.if they are not killed for food cow farmers are forced to abandon them.these cows will wander here and there.at last they will have a miserable death.just like death by starvation,disease,accidents etc.who will protect these old cows and how???farmers can’t give these old cows food and protection if they do that they will not get any profit
So the real issue is how to offer protection and care for old cows in an economically viable manner. This is extremely feasible because even a barren cow offers lots of benefits to environment, health and economy. We need to make right infrastructure and mechanism for this to happen. This is step in right direction. Even apart from that, if state-driven protection for cows is offered, that would still be less expensive compared to value that cow offers to us during its productive period. So slaughter ban is first crucial step in right direction with right intent. It must be followed by other crucial steps of protection and rightful utilization of cow at all life-stages.
Satyajeet had said the following:
—–Coming to economic arguments, what is the economic benefit of keeping bulls or dried up cows? (If the cows are artificially inseminated and the fields are ploughed by machines, it is a burden on the farmer to feed bulls). The cows slaughtered for beef are not the milk-giving ones. India leads the world in beef export and it fetched India Rs.13725.23 crores in 2012. So in purely economic terms, it is an unsound decision to ban cow slaughter——-
Satyajeet’s this argument has already been answered by
Supreme Court of India
State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab … on 26 October, 2005
when it declared that the complete ban on the slaugher of cows and cow-progeny is intra vires the Constitution of India.
The Satyajeet’s arguements are smashed when we read following words from the Supreme Court Judge:
SUPREME COURT JUDGE
QUOTATION BEGINS:
…
Importance of Bovine Dung
The Report of the National Commission on Cattle, ibid, … has highlighted the unique and essential role of bovine and bovine dung in our economy and has pleaded that slaughter of our precious animals should be stopped. He has in extenso dealt with several uses of dung and its significance from the point of view of Indian society. Dung is a cheap and harmless fertilizer in absence whereof the farmers are forced to use costly and harmful chemical fertilizers. Dung also has medicinal value in Ayurved, the Indian system of medicines.
Continuing Utility of Cattle : Even if the utility argument of the Quareshi’s judgment is accepted, it cannot be accepted that bulls and bullocks become useless after the age of 16. It has to be said that bulls and bullocks are not useless to the society because till the end of their lives they yield excreta in the form of urine and dung which are both extremely useful for production of bio-gas and manure. Even after their death, they supply hide and other accessories. Therefore, to call them ‘useless’ is totally devoid of reality. If the expenditure on their maintenance is compared to the return which they give, at the most, it can be said that they become ‘less useful’.(Report of the National Commission on Cattle, July 2002, Volume I, p. 279.)
The Report of the National Commission on Cattle has analyzed the economic viability of cows after they stopped yielding milk and it also came to the conclusion that it shall not be correct to call such cows ‘useless cattle’ as they still continue to have a great deal of utility. Similar is the case with other cattle as well.
“37. Economic aspects:
37.1 The cows are slaughtered in India because the owner of the cow finds it difficult to maintain her after she stops yielding milk. This is because it is generally believed that milk is the only commodity obtained from cows, which is useful and can be sold in exchange of cash. This notion is totally wrong. Cow yields products other than milk, which are valuable and…
“37. Economic aspects:
37.1 The cows are slaughtered in India because the owner of the cow finds it difficult to maintain her after she stops yielding milk. This is because it is generally believed that milk is the only commodity obtained from cows, which is useful and can be sold in exchange of cash. This notion is totally wrong. Cow yields products other than milk, which are valuable and saleable. Thus the dung as well as the urine of cow can be put to use by owner himself or sold to persons or organizations to process them. The Commission noticed that there are a good number of organizations (goshalas) which keep the cows rescued while being carried to slaughter houses. Very few of such cows are milk yielding. Such organizations use the urine and dung produced by these cows to prepare Vermi-compost or any other form of bio manure and urine for preparing pest repellents. The money collected by the sale of such products is normally sufficient to allow maintenance of the cows. In some cases, the urine and dung is used to prepare the medical formulations also. The organizations, which are engaged in such activities, are making profits also.
37.2 Commission examined the balance sheet of some such organizations. The expenditure and income of one such organization is displayed here. In order to make accounts simple the amounts are calculated as average per cow per day.
It is obvious that expenditure per cow is Rs. 15-25 cow/day.
While the income from sale is Rs. 25-35 cow-day.
37.3 These averages make it clear that the belief that cows which do not yield milk are unprofitable and burden for the owner is totally false. In fact it can be said that products of cow are sufficient to maintain them even without milk. The milk in such cases is only a by-product.
37.4 It is obvious that all cow owners do not engage in productions of fertilizers or insect repellents. It can also be understood that such activity may not be feasible for owners of a single or a few cows. In such cases, the cow’s urine and dung may be supplied to such organizations, which utilize these materials for producing finished products required for agricultural or medicinal purpose. Commission has noticed that some organizations which are engaged in production of agricultural and medical products from cow dung and urine do purchase raw materials from nearby cow owner at a price which is sufficient to maintain the cow.” (Report of National Commission on Cattle, July 2002, Vol. II, pp.68-69)
A host of other documents have been filed originating from different sources such as Governmental or Semi-governmental, NGOs, individuals or group of individuals, who have carried out researches and concluded that world-over there is an awareness in favour of organic farming for which cattle are indispensable. However, we do not propose to refer to these documents as it would only add to the length of the judgment. We have, apart from the affidavits, mainly referred to the…
We have, apart from the affidavits, mainly referred to the reports published by the Government of India, whose veracity cannot be doubted.
We do not find any material brought on record on behalf of the respondents which could rebut, much less successfully, the correctness of the deductions flowing from the documented facts and statistics stated hereinabove.
The utility of cow cannot be doubted at all. A total ban on cow slaughter has been upheld even in Quareshi-I. The controversy in the present case is confined to cow progeny. The important role that cow and her progeny play in the Indian Economy was acknowledged in Quareshi-I in the following words:
“The discussion in the foregoing paragraphs clearly establishes the usefulness of the cow and her progeny. They sustain the health of the nation by giving them the life giving milk which is so essential an item in a scientifically balanced diet. The working bullocks are indispensable for our agriculture, for they supply power more than any other animal. Good breeding bulls are necessary to improve the breed so that the quality and stamina of the future cows and working bullocks may increase and the production of food and milk may improve and be in abundance. The dung of the animal is cheaper than the artificial manures and is extremely useful. In short, the back bone of Indian agriculture is in a manner of speaking the cow and her progeny. Indeed Lord Linlithgow has truly said – “The cow and the working bullock have on their patient back the whole structure of Indian agriculture.” (Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India, p. 20). If, therefore, we are to attain sufficiency in the production of food, if we are to maintain the nation’s health, the efficiency and breed of our cattle population must be considerably improved. To attain the above objectives, we must devote greater attention to the preservation, protection and improvement of the stock and organise our agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines.”
On the basis of the available material, we are fully satisfied to hold that the ban on slaughter of cow progeny as imposed by the impugned enactment is in the interests of the general public within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
…
QUOTATION ENDS:
Brothers i am a vegetarian.so don’t see me as a beef eater.but my doubt is not yet clarified.what will do poor farmers do if there cattle become old and non productive.it is not gud for them to keep old cattles just only for urine and dung.because both cattles which yield milk and not yield milk will consume same amount of food and give same amount of dung and urine.so they naturally go for selling their beloved cows.if u ban killing they will just abandon them will inturn result in more misery for cows.so how ur going to help my farmers.will u pay as same money as a butcher and take the old cows??how u r going to raise those cows economically?is it like oldage home?please answer me and clarify my doubts.
@Atul Mohan – Do you think the Supreme Court Judges are fools to give a judgment in favor of cow protection? BTW, the government launched a scheme to financially support goshalas on the condition that they must take care of 40% desi cows that do not give milk.
Rs. 500 crore was allocated for this. So, poor farmers can get the money and build a goshala. Later, they can use organic farming methods and reduce the economic burden of buying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. So, that’s the big plan!
The idea sounds bloody good mate, but is this the way you treat an animal that you call your mother?
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/cows-milk-cruel-unhealthy-product/
All humans do is abuse, use and finally kill cows. Its the same in the UK and in India.
If you call the animal your mother, why do you sods drink milk? isn’t your biological mothers milk enough? Why should you have to drink the milk meant for the offspring of the animal? Why do adult have to drink bovine milk? you have made an industry out of this. Selling cow urine, isnt there a business angle
All you holier than thou sods here, GO VEGAN. But i bet you wont, as there is money in exploiting dairy animals under the guide of religion
robot puddy:
“If you call the animal your mother, why do you sods drink milk? isn’t your biological mothers milk enough? Why should you have to drink the milk meant for the offspring of the animal? ”
–
If milk is non vegan. than you must be born non vegan, then why go vegan (for you) ??
We have tradition of taking out only the remaining milk from cow after calf drinks upto its capacity.
–
If if you dont milk the cow (the cow like gyr and kankrej) it will imbalance their hormones and make her uncomfortable and unhappy.
–
There are so many CALFs in india which gives milk and we dont have dangerous milking machines like in your country.
In india cow only gives milk to the people they love.
You are welcome to vrindavan to see it.
Rudra, Look mate, humans should drink milk, but human milk, till they reach an age where they can consume vegetables. That’s natural.
Do you even know what being vegan means for the love of god.. yes bovine milk is NON VEGAN. When a child drinks her mothers milk, its due to a biological need. The mother is not forcibly milked and profited from.
You people who give the cow a status of your mother know deep in your hearts that its commercial. The dairy industry is a bloody business. And consuming milk is just as bad as eating beef or pork or chicken or turkey or any living being, because you are incentivizing people who put an animal though misery just to profit.
I’ve been to India and have seen how major milk companies work, just as capitalist as farms back in the UK, and if you say you love the cows and milk them only after the calf has had her fill you are either deluded or full of manure.
Even in India they use milk aspirators, to put it crudely, machines that pump put milk from the cows udders till they are bloody sore.
Not to mention the artificial impregnation, hormones and antibiotics. Yes that’s what happens in India too. Except maybe if a few village folk own their own cattle.
And the logic that “If if you dont milk the cow (the cow like gyr and kankrej) it will imbalance their hormones and make her uncomfortable and unhappy.” is so half assed that i dont even find it funny.
What hormone imbalance? What authoritative study can you quote to back this up? if that were the case any wild cow wouldn’t live her natural life happy? I read on another blog where some retarded bloke said that if you don’t milk a cow she dies of sepsis..
Banning the killing of cows is a start, but please stop defending people who run “concentration camps” to harvest milk from an animal using the most inhuman means.
So the blog author or authors, pardon my lack of knowledge if you are one individual or an organisation as the blog has a photograph of a single person and in the posts you refer to aginveer in the third person which would imply an organisation.
Anyway so if you love cows so much perhaps an expose on the dairy industry is the need of the hour and your “Cow worshipping” government should add this to their agenda too.
“In india cow only gives milk to the people they love.You are welcome to vrindavan to see it.”
No sir, you have domesticated cows solely for your profit, don’t hide under the guise of benevolence
I still say Go Vegan and stop incentivizing the murder of animals, its time innit?
16 answers to Robert Puddy
(1)
Robert Puddy:—-Rudra, Look mate, humans should drink milk, but human milk, till they reach an age where they can consume vegetables. That’s natural.—-
Answer: As per the Vedic scriptures the cow is one of the 7 mothers. According to scriptures, there are seven mothers: (1) the real mother, (2) the wife of the spiritual master, (3) the wife of a brahmana, (4) the wife of the king, (5) the cow, (6) the nurse, and (7) the earth. All of them are mothers. God has arranged the nature in such a way that in the childhood one drinks the milk of his/her mother, but after growing up he/she can take the milk from cow and in return he/she serves the cow, because cow is the mother. The human being should take the milk from the cow after the calf is completely satisfied. If the cow is served like a mother, then the cow will be satisfied completely and then she will give excess milk, when can then be taken by the human beings.
(2)
Robert Puddy:—-Do you even know what being vegan means for the love of god.. yes bovine milk is NON VEGAN. When a child drinks her mothers milk, its due to a biological need. The mother is not forcibly milked and profited from.—-
Answer: Dear Robert Puddy, if you know what being vegan means for the love of God, then you should certainly not kill the cow, who is the mother of the humankind, and you should also never kill the bull, who is like the father. The Vedic civilization views the cow and the bull in this way. Why should you have any objection? As per the Vedic scriptures the milk is NOT nonveg. It is veg. Please refine your definitions of what is veg and nonveg. Don’t change the definitions to suit your own selfish motives. The lovers of nonveg food may say that the milk is nonveg food because they want to cheat the world by saying milk and meat are on the same level. But actually, when the milk is taken from cow, the cow is not killed. Hence, the milk is veg. Are you one of those beef-eaters who want to prove that consuming beef is less sinful than consuming milk?
(cont…… remaining 3 to 16)
3 to 6
(3)
Robert Puddy:—-You people who give the cow a status of your mother know deep in your hearts that its commercial. —-
Answer: Dear Robert Puddy, you know deep in your heart that you are writing this because you want to prove consuming beef as legal as consuming milk. And the best way to do that is to somehow prove that milk is as sinful as beef. But no matter how hard you try, you cannot win this argument because even a child will understand the difference between the milk and the beef. Even if you take out the milk in the cruelest possible way, still it cannot be equated to killing the animal completely and eating its beef. Moreover, when you take out beef, the animal stops giving everything—–beef, skin, bones, intestines—-all these can be taken only once. But when we take the milk, the animal is at least alive, and it can give the milk even the next day. Even the animal is going to die naturally some day. At that time, you can even take out the skin. But the meat eaters don’t care. They just want to eat the beef, and for that, they are ready to kill the innocent animals immediately.
(4)
Robert Puddy:—-The dairy industry is a bloody business. —-
Answer: That’s why we want to stop this business. But when we do that, the same people like you will also shout against that. The dairy industry was started by the Britishers whose only aim was to squeeze India and loot its riches. They didn’t care if the India gets destroyed by this process.
(5)
Robert Puddy:—-And consuming milk is just as bad as eating beef or pork or chicken or turkey or any living being, because you are incentivizing people who put an animal though misery just to profit.—-
Answer: That’s why we want to stop the dairy culture, and our goal is that EVERYONE should keep the cow and the bull in their house (at least in villages) and treat them like their real mother and father, and not exploit them for the milk. And please note that even without the milk the animals will not be burdensome to the house if the farmers utilize the dung and urine of the animals properly under guidance, without giving trouble to the animals. We don’t want these dairies where animals are badly treated, and ultimately slaughtered. The dairies are equivalent to slaughterhouses because the main business of the dairies is the “meat”-business, and the milk is only the side business.
(6)
Robert Puddy:—-I’ve been to India and have seen how major milk companies work, just as capitalist as farms back in the UK, —-
Answer: That’s why we want to restore India to its past glories—to its state before Britishers came and destroyed India. That is our goal. And if people like you come and try to stop us, then we will have not even slightest shame in destroying such plans.
(cont….. remaining 7 to 16)
For answers 7 to 16
please see somewhere below
(Answers 7 to 16 posted as one of main comments—–somewhere below).
7 to 11
(7)
Robert Puddy:—-and if you say you love the cows and milk them only after the calf has had her fill you are either deluded or full of manure.—-
Answer: But if you quote the above as a reason to slaughter the cows and the bulls and also think that people will believe you, then you don’t have head.
(8)
Robert Puddy:—-Even in India they use milk aspirators, to put it crudely, machines that pump put milk from the cows udders till they are bloody sore.—-
Answer: Such practices should certainly be stopped. But the worst practice is killing them altogather, which should be stopped first.
(9)
Robert Puddy:—-Not to mention the artificial impregnation, hormones and antibiotics. Yes that’s what happens in India too. Except maybe if a few village folk own their own cattle.—-
Answer: Robert, this is coming from the British. This was not there originally in India. But we are going to try our best to stop all these things. But the first step is to stop their slaughter.
(10)
Robert Puddy:—-And the logic that “If if you dont milk the cow (the cow like gyr and kankrej) it will imbalance their hormones and make her uncomfortable and unhappy.” is so half assed that i dont even find it funny.—-
Answer: Nobody cares what you feel about it. The fact that you are so inimical to the God-given ideas of obtaining milk from cow proves that you are a beef-eater but posing your false love towards cattle because your meat-eating facilities are at stake now. Your abusive language shows your culture, but we least care about you because we know how to deal with pretenders like you.
(11)
Robert Puddy:—-What hormone imbalance? What authoritative study can you quote to back this up? if that were the case any wild cow wouldn’t live her natural life happy? I read on another blog where some retarded bloke said that if you don’t milk a cow she dies of sepsis..—-
Answer: Dear Robert Puddy, the process of obtaining milk is the natural process given by God and we don’t require any authoritative study to prove this natural process, because, for us, the God is the highest authority. Hence, we don’t care for your any other so-called authority. You are accusing others by using the terms like “retarded bloke” and “half-assed” etc which shows your anger arisen due to opposition to your beef-eating ideas. But actually your head is retarded because you are putting obstacles in the ways of God, which is that the cow and her progeny should always be protected, and God has allowed us to take the milk from the cow provided we serve the cow nicely like a mother.
(cont….. remaining 12 to 16)
12 to 16
(12)
Robert Puddy:—-Banning the killing of cows is a start, but please stop defending people who run “concentration camps” to harvest milk from an animal using the most inhuman means.—-
Answer: Nobody is defending here the people who give distress to cow. We agree that we should be “human” while dealing with the animals. And to be “human” means never kill any animal just for the taste of the tongue.
(13)
Robert Puddy:—-So the blog author or authors, pardon my lack of knowledge if you are one individual or an organisation as the blog has a photograph of a single person and in the posts you refer to aginveer in the third person which would imply an organisation.—-
Answer: First you show your photo.
(14)
Robert Puddy:—-Anyway so if you love cows so much perhaps an expose on the dairy industry is the need of the hour and your “Cow worshipping” government should add this to their agenda too.—-
Answer: Thank you for giving this advice. We definitely respect good advices. But your overall presentation shows that this advice is not given with a pure heart. In any case, we admire that, at least, in the end, you spoke something responsible. You will always get due justice from us.
(15)
Robert Puddy’s comments on “In india cow only gives milk to the people they love.You are welcome to vrindavan to see it.”——–No sir, you have domesticated cows solely for your profit, don’t hide under the guise of benevolence.—-
Answer: We agree that, some bad elements of the society have done that. But in any case, killing the cows and bulls is the most mentally retarded thing a human can do to them.—-
(16)
Robert Puddy:—-I still say Go Vegan and stop incentivizing the murder of animals, its time innit?—-
Answer: If you really support “Vegan” then you should not give any arguments against protecting cows and her progeny.
(End)
I wonder if you are genuinely concerned about this issue, or are you using it to gain instant publicity in a country filled with religious extremists( just like Mr.Modi did). Majority rule can not be the only expression of “supreme power” in a democracy.If so,the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. I see a budding Chetan Bhagat in you, dishing out bullshit to the crazed masses, and benefiting hugely in the process. Mr. Modi also belongs to the same category, as I can see clearly from the points you mentioned from the manifesto. And for your information, BJP was able to get only 31% of the votes polled in the 2014 loksabha elections. So please spare the rest of us, and mind your own business. If tomorrow you guys feel that banana is a “religious fruit” should the rest of us be forced to never touch it again? There are much more important things to be taken care of in this country, where 50% of the children are undernourished. Please don’t spread such vitriolic content in the internet. It has enough crap already.
@karthik
—-. So please spare the rest of us, and mind your own business.—-
Cattle protection is my business. Your beef-brain seems to have a problem with it. It does? I DONT CARE!
—-There are much more important things to be taken care of in this country, where 50% of the children are undernourished—-
Read #4
“(… – Water footprint of beef is highest of all food. Estimates range from 441 gallons to 12008 gallons of water per pound of beef. In comparison, rice and wheat are 50 to 100 times more efficient!! Forget about India, there is a global movement to sway people away from beef to ensure our future generations have water to drink and food to eat.
Refer http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/1143/beef-the-king-of-the-big-water-footprints
-Beef production is most inefficient use of fossil energy at an energy input to output ratio of 54:1.
Compare with chicken 4:1, pork 26:1, eggs 6:1. For Indian food grains, it is around 2:1. The implication is clear: When you eat beef instead of grains, 26 people go hungry to fulfill your so called “personal freedom of tongue indiscipline”.
Refer American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full . Also review http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat ….) ”
—If tomorrow you guys feel that banana is a “religious fruit” should the rest of us be forced to never touch it again?—
Read #12
Next time, try reading the whole article first before showing-off your beef-brain stupidity.
Majority rule can not be the only expression of “supreme power” in a democracy.If so,the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. I am not bound to follow your whims and fancies, even if you form the majority. If in the future you decide to eat a community of humans and follow #12, would it mean we have no alternative, coz the “majority” demands it? Getting personal in an argument is the biggest sign of stupidity 🙂
—–There are much more important things to be taken care of in this country, where 50% of the children are undernourished.—–
So what are you doing here commenting like a fool? Commenting on this post will feed some of the undernourished children?
—–Majority rule can not be the only expression of “supreme power” in a democracy.—-
If democracy doesn’t suit you, move to African Jungles. There you can eat flesh of whoever you want. Even cannibal rights are protected there.
——–If so,the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority.——
So best way is to make someone PM who has got no seats in assemblies and parliament? Make some Choudhary Dharam Pal Baagpat Vaale as PM of India because someone with votes can tyrannize the minority? And Choudhary Dharam Pal Baagpat Vaale will protect everybody’s rights. Good, start the movement to elect him as PM.
——-I am not bound to follow your whims and fancies, even if you form the majority.—-
You ARE bound to follow the law of the land. Kill cow in Maharashtra and get jailed for 5 years. Live with it 🙂
——If in the future you decide to eat a community of humans and follow #12, would it mean we have no alternative——-
Beef-lovers are too dumb to realize that this argument actually works against them! Because in beef-ban case, ban-supporters are asking you NOT TO KILL someone. They are fighting to protect someone’s life. Whereas the dumb beef-eaters are hell bent in KILLING in name of choice. There is all probability that your group of dumbass is going to demand cannibalism next. But believe me, your butts will be kicked as soon as you do that. And yes, there wont be any alternative for you. You will have to behave like humans.
Good luck.
@Vajra
Allah will not forgive you for not worshiping to him and he will sent you in eternal hellfire and torture you by regrowing your skin again and again.
@All
Final prophet of Islam Muhammad allowed the beef to his followers. How can followers of prophet disobey the rasool?
Truth Seeker (this is for all hell-wishers)
Kat jaaye agar sui se vo shamsheer nahi hai
Jal jaaye jo Dozakh se, Agniveer nahi hai
Dukhda tere Dozakh ka kahin aur sunana
Ye Ram ka dar hai kisi Babur ka nahi hai…
@All Muslim brothers
I invite all Muslim brothers to call upon Allah curse on Vajra that he will die with in 3 days for not worshiping true God. If Vajra will be false he will not alive after 3 days.
Holy Quran says:-
3.61: If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: “Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!”
http://alisina.org/?p=2349
@Vajra
How do u post such long messages…..I am having a stupid word limit…….its stupid because the limit is very low……he=ardly enough to write one para
So how come u post such long messages????
@jyothish: Please refresh your browser. The word limit has been increased for everyone.
@kar-THICK
———– ” Getting personal in an argument is the biggest sign of stupidity “———
You beef-brain doesn’t get it, does it?
It got personal the moment you stepped in to show that you wanna kill and eat my cattle as soon as their life is no longer economically profitable for you ( when it is in actuality, but thats immaterial here ) !
I am not interested in winning logical-argument points with an idiot like you. I am just trying to make you realize beforehand why I won’t act rationally/ humanely with you, if you’re not human enough to understand why innocents must to be protected; especially when whole of our society is indebted to a lifetime of contributions in numerous forms and ways, from these cattle animals.
Please do take it personally, or dont ( I dont give a damn ) !
@ Truth Seeker
What kind of GOD is that who uses of curse to kill ordinary human being? Is he really a GOD or the imagination of someone ? Why “all powerful(?) and merciful(?)” GOD has to curse someone?
I call upon all good Muslims to join mission Agniveer to fight against the real curse of IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY which is eating away their brains.
@Gyan Surya
Dear bro, say as you wish but it is fact Allah is God of 1.5 Billion people. Holy Quran advocates to its followers to curse the non-believers.
Holy Quran says:-
3.61: If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: “Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!”
So you don’t think that the verse u quote is being quoted “out of context” or something????
You mean to say that the above mentioned verse was not meant for the two christians who asked about Jesus to Mohammed PBUH………and even if u r to generalize…….doesn’t u think the curse is meant for ONLY those who recieved full knowledge and then lied??
How can u say….any of us has full knowledge ?
Very nice article.
However, sentimentalism could have been avoided. Mere scientific and spiritual facts are sufficient reasons for the humanity to realise that there is a need to protect cows and other animals.
In facct, the greatest need is to become vegetarians. People eating ‘tamasic’ foods for gratification of their taste buds are not even realising the hell they are living in.
ISLAM ENCOURAGING/PROMOTING KINDNESS TO ANIMAL MORE THAN ANY RELIGION ON EARTH
KILLING ANIMAL DURING MORAL WAR PROHIBITED
Malik :: Book 21 : Hadith 21.3.10
Do not kill women or children or an aged, weak person,Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees.Do not destroy an inhabited place. *************Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food***************. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty,
GIVE WATER TO DOG
Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 43 :: Hadith 646
Malik :: Book 49 : Hadith 49.10.23
LOVE & MERCY TO ANIMAL
Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 67 :: Hadith 423
Narrated Said bin Jubair:
While I was with Ibn ‘Umar, we passed by a group of young men who had tied a hen and started shooting at it. When they saw Ibn ‘Umar, they dispersed, leaving it. On that Ibn ‘Umar said, “Who has done this? The Prophet cursed the one who did so.”
Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 67 :: Hadith 424
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
The Prophet cursed the one who did Muthla to an animal (i e., cut its limbs or some other part of its body while it is still alive).
Muslim :: Book 24 : Hadith 5283
Jabir reported that there happened to pass before Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) an ass the face of which had been cauterised(burn), whereupon he said: Allah has cursed one who has cauterised it (on the face).
Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 73 :: Hadith 38
Forbad killing animal even for medicine:
Dawud :: Book 28 : Hadith 3862
Jew Prostitute sin forgiven for given water to dog
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 56 :: Hadith 673
BEATING ANIMAL PROHIBITED
Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 67 :: Hadith 388,422,421,423,449
Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 67 :: Hadith 421
Narrated Hisham bin Zaid:
Anas and I went to Al-Hakam bin Aiyub. Anas saw some boys shooting at a tied hen. Anas said, “The Prophet has forbidden the shooting of tied or confined animals.”
Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 67 :: Hadith 422
Reason for hell: animal imprisoned & not give food
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 56 :: Hadith 689
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 54 :: Hadith 530
During the pre-lslamic >>>>>>>>period of ignorance <<<<<<<<<I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
Muslims must join Agniveer to strengthen the cause of animal rights. This is their religious duty as per the given Hadiths. Now that killing of animals is not required even for food and in fact animal food is causing pollution and poverty (refer #4 of article), devoted Muslims must promote the cause of vegetarianism. We wholeheartedly welcome them for the common cause.
@ Agniveer ji
I have concurred with almost all of your articles except this one…..because your basic line of argument was “because the majority want the ban…….it has to be enforced”
And i live in an area where rest be assured “majority decision will be an outright support for beef eating/killing rights”
That is why there was even a counter protest themed “Beef eating Fest” here in Kerala
In Kerala Hindu’s eat beef…..not cows………but others are eaten
Its not the most popular meat item…..but a significant proportion consumes it !!!!
And pure vegetarians are “looked down with contempt and sarcasm”
You need to consider a couple of contexts:
A. Irrespective of right or wrong, reality in democratic (and even non-democratic) world is that majority defines its acceptance. A large number of things – tobacco, alcohol, junk food etc – thrive purely because it is acceptable to majority. In many societies even polygamy and child marriage thrive because it is acceptable. You yourself gave example of Kerala.
B. Such contexts cannot be symmetric. Majority may be doing something out of legacy. In UP, tobacco consumption was culture. But the way forward has to be based on rationality, compassion, justice and impact on society.
In other words, if majority wants to do something that is based on rationality, compassion, justice and good impact on society, then there is no reason why it should not be done.
But contrary is not necessarily true. If majority is indulged in malpractices, that only means that malpractices must be eradicated. It can happen through education, awareness and law. In democracy, sometimes “law” may not be feasible option if awareness is not proper. Hence rule of majority thrives – whether we like or not.
But to not exercise the rule of majority where we can – to eradicate a malpractice – would be a crime.
So yes, currently beef may be staple food of Kerala and hence beef-ban may not be feasible. But in years to come, with education, that is bound to happen. Just as dengue mosquito cultivation is banned in Delhi, this will happen across…
this will happen across the globe as we gradually realize how industries are beef-eating are ruining the environment and economy alike. And breeding dreaded diseases.
@AGNIVEER
WE MUSLIM RESPECT VEDA ,SANDHANA DHARMA& REAL HINDUISM…….
Rig Veda 5.29.8 When thou [Indra] three hundred buffaloes’ flesh hadst eaten, and drunk
Atharva Veda 9.4.18 All Gods promote the Braman who offers the Bull in sacrifice.
Shukla Yajur Veda 2.2.9 At the time of the (offering of the) cow, he should offer on one potsherd to Mitra and Varuna, this (offering) corresponds to his foe’s cow which is to be slaughtered
Devi Bhagwatam 1.18.48-61…O King! One can see before one’s eyes that the drinking of Soma rasa, the killing of animals, the eating of fish and flesh and so are advised in the Vedas;
The Dharma Sutras, Gutama 17.37. And (animals) that must be slain for (the fulfilment of) the sacred law…….may be eaten both by the priests and other Brahmanas.
Among the Smrities, the Manu Smriti alone is authentic.- Satyarth Prakash pg 142
Manu Smriti 5.32 He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin,
Manu Smriti 5.42 A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.
Manu Smriti 5.39-40 Swayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices(have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices,
Manu Smriti 5.56 There is no sin in eating meat,
Manu Smriti 5.31 ‘The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the gods;
SO WE LIKE TO EAT BEEF AS ORDERED FROM HINDU SCRIPTURE & WE R NOT LIKE ANTI HINDU ,THE PPL WHO REJECT THE ABOVE MORAL VERSES FROM VEDA & UPANISHID……THEY R ENEMY OF HINDUISM……..
CHALLENGE TO AGNIVEER LOT OF VERSES I POSTED HERE FOR SUPPORTING ANIMAL SACRIFICE & EAT,PLZ BRING THE…
How many times would you and Jihadi gangs like you post the same stupidity that has been refuted by us long ago. Just type “Beef in Vedas” and you would get links to our articles that expose hollowness of these idiotic claims. I hope some sense will prevail. So am giving links one last time:
http://agniveer.com/no-beef-in-vedas/
http://agniveer.com/no-beef-in-vedas-part2/
http://agniveer.com/no-beef-in-vedas-film/
Meat-eater will try everything to justify meat consumption. These people are stopped by force in any society otherwise they will continue to preach their ideology . They will do intentionally wrong translations of scriptures to justify their acts. As a pedophile does not find anything wrong in sex with child, A cannibal does not find anything wrong in consuming human flesh. All people acts according to their tendencies.
Problem in this world is good people never unite against falsehood while false people always unite to fight with goodness.
I rarely comment on blogs. This has sort of forced my hand.
This is the most mindless, ignorantly jingoistic and outright offensive article I have ever read.
Other than the inherent stupidity of what it says, it lacks logic and is filled with contradictions.
But being a ‘liberalist’, no matter how much I hate what is said here, I acknowledge your right to say it and I wouldn’t want a ‘ban’ on it.
Akash: I rarely comment on blogs. This has sort of forced my hand.
Answer: It is good that you don’t comment on blogs, because one should not comment on blogs until one has valid support of reason behind his statements.
Akash: This is the most mindless, ignorantly jingoistic and outright offensive article I have ever read.
Answer: This is just your opinion. Probably you are also a beef-eater. Most of the beef-eaters have to say the same thing when their cow-hostile habits are forbade by using the law.
Akash: Other than the inherent stupidity of what it says, it lacks logic and is filled with contradictions.
Answer: You need to also prove that the article lacks logic and that it contains contradictions. Without proving your point simply stating it shows that you are simply angry but do not know why you are angry.
Akash: But being a ‘liberalist’, no matter how much I hate what is said here, I acknowledge your right to say it and I wouldn’t want a ‘ban’ on it.
Answer: No matter how much you hate what is said in the article, the truth is not going to change, and the truth is that beef-eating is very detrimental to the law and order of society and that you will have to pay for your hatred towards the innocent animals.
Hey Veda!Hope you are doing great.You will find in this article the following:
1. STUPIDITY-
a. The article says ” But the ban is not on eating. It is on killing of cattle”. Cute. Please read http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/beef-banned-in-maharashtra-5-yrs-jail-rs10000-fine-for-possession-or-sale/
Beef possession and eating is a crime now. Cow slaughter has always been prohibited.
SO, PLEASE KNOW THE LAW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
b. The article says “But so far majority of Indians consider cow as mother, killing of cows cannot be acceptable.”
A classic misguided majoritarian view of democracy. Incorrect in the Indian context of course, considering we have a tremendous Constitutional mandate for rights of minorities. We like our minorities. We don’t make laws because a lot of people want them. Specially because they appeal to a religion/sentiment. Fundamental rights are beyond majoritarian ‘bull’shit.
c. The legal references are just laughable. I’m a student of Law. Directive Principles of State Policy?Really?
He speaks of ‘paras’ in the Constitution. Far for smart.
2. CONTRADICTIONS
The article says “Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.”
It also says, ” Don’t impose your moral policing on me. Don’t tell me why I should not worship cow as mother.”
Need I say anything more?
3. OFFENSIVE
The article reads..
“If yes, I will call you pervert.”
“Your sick argument mirrors exactly the views of rapist in Nirbhaya case.”
“This is exactly the way ISIS terrorists think, rapists think, psychopaths think, criminals think.”
Somebody was…what did you say…”simply angry” and “didnt know why” when they wrote this article.
4. ILLOGICAL
Environment protection? Citing studies?Read the ‘Objects and Reasons” of this Law..please.
Also, Mr. Agniveer or whatever you call yourself. If we ever meet, you get the prize of a free lecture from me on Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence and…
Also, Mr. Agniveer or whatever you call yourself. If we ever meet, you get the prize of a free lecture from me on Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence and ‘How to make your point without getting hyper’
I guess all that we are really trying to say is that.. let us live our lives guys. We have never intended to or cared about hurting anybody’s sentiments. But if what I eat or don’t eat offends your sentiment. Well there’s a problem with you.
What I do or don’t do is cannot be the concern of your sentiments (religious or otherwise).
I will never force you to eat anything you don’t want because that would be offensive. But stop making a face at what I’m eating, thats offensive too.
Its simple.
@Akash, Can you imagine what kind of lowlife you are?
1. You enter a website that is owned by someone else who is paying for it.
2. Instead of showing basic courtesy that he allowed you to express your views on his site, despite his clear declaration that he considers cow as mother, you go on talking about killing cows insensitively.
3. Then to further expose your terrorist mindset, you called author’s defence for mother of crores (made on his own site) as stupid, contradictory, offensive and illogical.
4. Then an offer of ‘free lecture’ w/o reading the comment policy http://agniveer.com/terms/comment-policy/ which disqualifies you from even commenting on author’s website, forget about meeting him in person, shows your semi-literate status. And then you claim to be a legal expert!!.
As for your “kindness” in saying “I will never force you to eat anything you don’t want because that would be offensive. “, this kindness is a typical trait of incapable. Do you even have the force to force Agniveer to eat your choice?
Grow up! And if you are student of law, follow the law. Don’t sell or possess beef, or happily be ready for jail and fine.
1.
Akash:
You will find in this article the following: 1. STUPIDITY-
a. The article says “But the ban is not on eating. It is on killing of cattle”. Cute. Please read http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/beef-banned-in-maharashtra-5-yrs-jail-rs10000-fine-for-possession-or-sale/
Beef possession and eating is a crime now. Cow slaughter has always been prohibited.
SO, PLEASE KNOW THE LAW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Answer:
We very well know the law which we are talking about. The beef possession and eating is related with the slaughter of cows, calves, bulls and bullocks. The slaughter of the cows and the male and female calves of cows was ALREADY PROHIBITED in Maharashtra FULLY since 1976. Also, the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, female buffaloes and buffalo calves was also prohibited, but their slaughter wasn’t prohibited fully, i.e. it was allowed only if fit-for-slaughter certificate was given by the competent authority. So, if, there was any fraud in giving the fit-for-slaughter certificate during the period 1976 to 2015, and you have eaten the beef of those animals, then morally, you were a criminal since 1976. What this new law has made is simply explicitly announced that you are a criminal if you eat beef. It is not a great violation of rights if someone is called a criminal.
1.cont.(a)
Please do not try to give us knowledge that “cow slaughter has always been prohibited”. Yes, we know that already, but the slaughter of bulls and bullocks was not prohibited, who are also “male” cows. This new law (1995-2015) has simply also banned their slaughter, and in this way, made the law complete. In other words, the 1995-law has made CORRECTIONS into 1976-law (it is just an amendment law). Had the makers of the 1976-law made the law perfect at that time itself, then the clause to also additionally criminalize possession of beef and eating/selling would have been in effect at that time itself (in 1976). But unfortunately, that was not done. But this mistake was corrected in 1995. The same thing has simply been implemented in 2015. You were already a criminal SINCE 1976 if you ate beef, but you did not know it. Now you know it. That is the only difference. But there is absolutely no need to call someone STUPID if you are not aware of the actual facts. By calling Agniveer STUPID, you are ALSO calling GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA stupid, who made the law. Also, you are calling CONSTITUTION OF INDIA stupid, which is the basis of the new amendment law, and you are also calling SUPREME COURT OF INDIA stupid, who has already said in 2005 that the complete ban on slaughter of cow progeny is INTRA VIRES the Constitution.
Did you not read Agniveer’s argument in this article before posting a comment on it?–“If you can create beef in laboratory without killing my mother (cow), I have absolutely no issues with you.” That’s exactly the spirit behind the additional clause of criminalization of eating beef. You may or may not agree with it. But that doesn’t mean that you should call your opponent STUPID. This is not the spirit of being a ‘liberalist’.
I mean to say, by calling Agniveer STUPID, you have actually proven yourself to be a STUPID.
(cont.)
1.cont.(b)
Akash:
b. The article says “But so far majority of Indians consider cow as mother, killing of cows cannot be acceptable.” A classic misguided majoritarian view of democracy. Incorrect in the Indian context of course, considering we have a tremendous Constitutional mandate for rights of minorities.
Answer:
This is your own misguided view of Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. For the Constitution, all religions are equal. All religions’ rights should be protected, which also includes Hindu religion. Moreover, the protection of cow progeny isn’t simply necessary for the protection of Hindu rights. The protection of cow progeny is required for the protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life. It is also proven to be the basis of Indian economy. If you don’t know about it, then read the Supreme Court judgement of 2005 where the judge gives numerous evidences proving the cow to be the basis of Indian economy. Therefore, protection of cow and her progeny is VERY MUCH CORRECT in the India context. Even if, there were no existence of Hindu religion, the India’s cultural heritage requires that the cow and her progeny should be protected.
You are talking about the Constitutional mandate for the rights of minorities, but you are ignoring so much constitutional mandate for the protection of natural environment. If minorities’ rights interfere with natural environment, then the minorities rights should be rejected.
But, fortunately, in actuality, none of the minorities’ rights interfere with protection of cow and her progeny. In other words, also, the main minorities MUSLIMS rights do NOT interfere with protection of cow and her progeny.
(cont.)
1.cont.(c)
For example, way back in 1959, the Supreme Court of India has noted the following.
In the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, 1959,
SUPREME COURT JUDGE said as follows
(in 1959):
“It is part of the known history of India that the Moghul Emperor Babar saw the wisdom of prohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious sacrifice and directed his son Humayun to follow this example. Similarly, Emperors Akbar, Jehangir and Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter. Nawab Hyder Ali of Mysore made cow slaughter an offence punishable with the cutting of the hands of the offenders. Three of the members of the Gosamvardhan Enquiry Committee set up by the Uttar Pradesh Government in 1953 were Muslims and concurred in the unanimous recommendation for total ban on slaughter of cows. We have, however, no material on the record 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. In the premises, it is not possible for us to uphold this claim of the petitioners.”
In the 2005 judgement of the Supreme Court of India, which went in favor of full protection of cow and her progeny, the Supreme Court quoted its abovementioned own past finding of 1959 and commented on the same as follows:
“No one specially competent to expound the religious tenets of Islam filed any affidavit and no reference was made to any particular Surah of the Holy Quran which, in terms, requires the sacrifice of a cow. ”
(cont.)
1.cont.(d)
In the same 2005 case, the Supreme Court also quoted its another own past verdict,
“In State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashutosh Lahiri, (1995) 1 SCC 189, this Court has noted that sacrifice of any animal by muslims for the religious purpose on BakrI’d does not include slaughtering of cow as the only way of carrying out that sacrifice. Slaughtering of cow on BakrI’d is neither essential to nor necessarily required as part of the religious ceremony. An optional religious practice is not covered by Article 25(1).”
Similarly, again citing itself, the Supreme Court said (in the same 2005 judgement),
“the Supreme Court held that it was a settled legal position that there was no fundamental right of Muslims to insist on slaughter of healthy cows on the occasion of BakrI’d.”
(1.over)
cont.(2)
2 to 6
2.
Akash:
We like our minorities. We don’t make laws because a lot of people want them.
Answer:
The same thing can be said about beef-eaters:
We cannot legally permit beef-eating because a lot of people want them!
3.
Akash:
Specially because they appeal to a religion/sentiment.
Answer:
In the same way, although Muslims or Christians might want (wrongly) to eat beef as their religion/ sentiment, we cannot grant beef-eating.
4.
Akash:
Fundamental rights are beyond majoritarian ‘bull’shit.
Answer:
Beef-eating cannot be proved to be a fundamental right.
5.
Akash:
c. The legal references are just laughable.
Answer:
The whole of ‘Akash’ philosophy is just laughable.
6.
Akash:
I’m a student of Law. Directive Principles of State Policy?Really?
He speaks of ‘paras’ in the Constitution. Far for smart.
Answer:
You say that you are a student of law. But it is doubtful whether you even know the basics of law. You don’t even know that the Directive Principles of State Policy (PART IV of Indian Constitution) includes the following:
Article 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.
(cont.to 7)
7.
Akash:
2CONTRADICTIONS The article says “Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.”
It also says, “Don’t impose your moral policing on me. Don’t tell me why I should not worship cow as mother.”
Need I say anything more?
Answer:
This is said in response to beef-eater’s illegal demand of breaking the law in the name of democracy.
A thief might say that he has the freedom to enter my house and steal my wealth, but since this freedom interferes with my freedom of protecting my wealth, the Law will punish the thief for executing his illegal (so called) freedom. Also, but, at the same time, the thief cannot tell me, “Don’t put your wealth in the locker.” This is like thief imposing his moral policing on me. So there is no contradiction in the two statements (1) “Thief’s freedom to steal ends where my house begins.” and (2) “Thief cannot dictate his moral policing on me.”
(cont. to 8)
8.
Akash:
3OFFENSIVE The article reads..”If yes, I will call you pervert.” “Your sick argument mirrors exactly the views of rapist in Nirbhaya case.” “This is exactly the way ISIS terrorists think, rapists think, psychopaths think, criminals think.”
Somebody was…what did you say…”simply angry” and “didnt know why” when they wrote this article.
Answer:
The same example. A pervert thief with sick mentality may protest against a rape-victim for opposing the rapist. Such a thief is worse than a terrorist and may argue like a psychopath. He ideally cannot protest because he is a criminal. Even if he becomes angry on police, he cannot address the public who calls him a criminal as offensive.
Even though an activity which was always unlawful wasn’t proved as such earlier, it is still an unlawful activity. Even if you want to blame someone for not letting you know that it was an unlawful activity, then you can find some other entities such as the society in which you are born to blame. But you can never blame the law-makers for making the laws just because your crime wasn’t regarded as crime earlier.
More than anything else, the reason is the false ego of beef-eaters than the taste of the beef that they are opposing the ban so vehemently. But when a person lives in a society, he ought to give up his ego. The cow-lovers were doing the same thing till today when beef-lovers were eating the flesh of an entity whom they considered as their mother. Of course, this’s not cited as the only reason why beef is banned. Fortunately, for cow-lovers, there are many other reasons, as indicated earlier, for justifying the ban on slaughter of cow and her progeny.
(cont. to 9)
9.0
Akash:
4ILLOGICAL Environment protection? Citing studies?Read the ‘Objects and Reasons” of this Law..please.
Answer:
The copy of the new Amendment law of Maharashtra State is still not available online. But I can quote the OBJECTS AND REASONS of a similar law of Gujarat State, which was passed nearly at the same time i.e. 20 years ago.
[The Maharashtra Amendment Law was passed in 1995 and the Gujarat Amendment Law was passed in 1994. The Gujarat’s law became officially implemented since 2006 and now, Maharashtra’s law is being officially implemented since now i.e. 2015.]
Since Maharashtra’s Law isn’t yet available online, I am quoting the OBJECTS AND REASONS of Gujarat’s law.
I will quote both
(a) Preamble to the Act, and
(b) Statement of Objects and Reasons
of the 1994 law of Gujarat.
(cont.to 9.1)
9.1
The Preamble to the Act
(Gujarat 1994)
“WHEREAS it is established that cow and her progeny sustain the health of the nation by giving them the life giving milk which is so essential an item in a scientifically balanced diet;
AND WHEREAS the working bullocks are indispensable for our agriculture for they supply power more than any other animal;
AND WHEREAS the working bullocks are often useful in ploughing the fields, drawal of water from the wells and also very useful for drawing carts for transporting grains and fodders from the fields to the residences of farmers as well as to the Agricultural Market Yards;
AND WHEREAS the dung of the animal is cheaper than the artificial manures and extremely useful for production of bio-gas;
AND WHEREAS it is established that the back- bone of Indian agriculture is, in a manner of speaking the cow and her progeny and have, on their back, the whole structure of the Indian agriculture and its economic system;
AND WHEREAS it is expedient to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in articles 47, 48 and in clauses (b) and (c) of articles 39 of the Constitution of India and to protect, preserve and sustain cow and its progeny;”
(cont. to 9.2)
9.2
The Statement of
Objects and Reasons
(Gujarat 1994)
“The existing provisions of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 provides for prohibition against the slaughter of cow, calf of a cow, and the bulls and bullocks below the age of sixteen years. It is an established fact that the cow and her progeny sustain the health of the nation by giving them the life giving milk which is so essential an item in a scientifically balanced diet.
The economy of the State of Gujarat is still predominantly agricultural. In the agricultural sector, use of animals for milch, draught, breeding or agricultural purposes has great importance. It has, therefore, become necessary to emphasise preservation and protection of agricultural animals like bulls and bullocks. With the growing adoption of non-conventional energy sources like bio- gas plants, even waste material have come to assume considerable value. After the cattle cease to breed or are too old to do work, they still continue to give dung for fuel, manure and bio-gas, and therefore, they cannot be said to be useless. It is well established that the backbone of Indian agriculture is, in a manner of speaking, the cow and her progeny and have on their back, the whole structure of the Indian agriculture and its economic system.
In order to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in articles 47, 48 and clause (b) and (c) of article 39 of the Constitution of India, it was considered necessary also to impose total prohibition against slaughter of progeny of cow.
As the Gujarat Legislative Assembly was not in session the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 to amend the said Act was promulgated to achieve the aforesaid object in the interest of general public. This Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance by an Act of the State Legislature.”
That’s it.
Dear Akash, now, if I call you stupid, will you feel it offensive?
(cont.to 10)
10 to 11
10.
Akash:
Also, Mr. Agniveer or whatever you call yourself. If we ever meet, you get the prize of a free lecture from me on Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence and ‘How to make your point without getting hyper’
Answer:
Akash, we have serious doubts about your claim that you are a law student. If you are a really a student, then please, first complete your studies, and then think about giving lectures.
11.
Akash:
I guess all that we are really trying to say is that.. let us live our lives guys. We have never intended to or cared about hurting anybody’s sentiments. But if what I eat or don’t eat offends your sentiment. Well there’s a problem with you.
Answer:
This shows that, you are still guessing what you are really wanting to say. But, in any case, we don’t always intend to hurt non-vegetarian’s feelings. But if you are eating the flesh of the emblem of Indian civilization and the basis of Indian economy, then as RASHTRA-BHAKTAS (devotees of the nation), we will not allow it at any cost. Yes, our greatest problem is that we just don’t think about our own selfish desires and our own conveniences—we think about the whole nation. And, for protecting the welfare of the nation, if we have to, sometimes, hurt some people’s feelings, then we don’t mind doing it.
(cont. to 12—which will be last)
12.
Akash:
What I do or don’t do is cannot be the concern of your sentiments (religious or otherwise).
I will never force you to eat anything you don’t want because that would be offensive. But stop making a face at what I’m eating, thats offensive too. Its simple.
Answer:
The argument that “What I do or don’t do cannot be the concern of your sentiments” is a very poor argument. The same example of the rapist can be given in this regard. I mean to say, once again, whether it is a religious or non-religious is not important in this case. The whole point is that the ban is NOT simply for religious purposes. In other words, we are not citing our religious sentiment as our main reasoning in this case. For example, in all my answers above, I never cited the religion as a ground. Our main argument is about the ECONOMY of the nation. That is the main contention. Once this is taken into consideration, then whether someone makes faces at your eating or not becomes an irrelevant point. The point is that, the cow and her progeny is the basis of INDIAN ECONOMY. How this is so cannot be shown in a debate such as this one (since it will involve abundance of information). But that can be proven to people provided they are ready to listen.
(End)
@Akash
–Beef possession and eating is a crime now…..SO, PLEASE KNOW THE LAW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.–
1. Possession and sale is crime. Not eating. Prove to court that your possess beef that was produced in your office without killing any cattle and definitely you can escape the punishment. So far that technology has not been brought to light by geniuses like you, hence the law is accordingly worded.
–A classic misguided majoritarian view of democracy. Incorrect in the Indian context of course, considering we have a tremendous Constitutional mandate for rights of minorities. —
1. There is no violation of rights of minorities here. At least makers of constitution and Supreme Court doesn’t think so. So does Agniveer.
2. Highlight misguided aspects of constitution and Supreme Court. Don’t accuse Agniveer. Explain to public why you did not challenge Supreme Court after its observations of 2005?
–The legal references are just laughable. I’m a student of Law. Directive Principles of State Policy?Really? He speaks of ‘paras’ in the Constitution. Far for smart.–
1. Does calling references from constitution as “paras” make the references inadmissible in court? As per which law? Which section?
2. You are student of law. Justice Lahoti, makers of constitution, Justice Lodha, framers of this law are experts of laws. Crib against them, not Agniveer.
— If we ever meet, you get the prize of a free lecture from me on Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence and ‘How to make your point without getting hyper’–
1. Please market your law training business to Justice Lahoti who gave SC judgment upholding ban on cow slaughter in Gujarat in 2005, Justice Guman Mal Lodha and his team for National Commission Report on cattle and President of India for giving a nod to the law.
You had said Sanskrit is mother of all languages. Where is the proof? How many actual Sanskrit speakers are alive now? (other than linguist and researchers)
Vishwanathan:
1. Ask Supreme Court for more details. They recently stated the same during German-Sanskrit controversy. Refer
http://agniveer.com/supreme-court-echoes-agniveer-on-sanskrit/
http://agniveer.com/sanskrit-german-and-hindutva-agenda/
Please refute it if you can.
2. Actually a lot of Sanskrit speakers are alive. All who speak Indian languages are actually speaking distorted Sanskrit. Rest of details are in above articles.
You must have been complaining against use of Sanskrit for each and every slogan used by government since independence (and before it) – from Vande Mataram to Satyameva Jayate. I don’t know why you were silent so far.
@Agniveer ji,
my reply to you is with regards to my previous querries regarding beef consumption….you basically support beef ban by saying:
1)Majority decision…….
2)There is some logic too behind the ban…….u quoted pollution, water consumption , wasteage of fossil energy things like that
My opinion……what u said as logic may or may not he true……I don’t care because such logical arguments can be put forward to support any decision…….I believe,.If someone so wished, they could bring logic and scientific papers to support a ban o consumption of rice too !!!!
My point is……Even if your logic is true, this ban on beef is not based on logic , but based on public attitude and the govt wanting to earn brownie points
Now I am a non -vegetarian…..I consume beef too…..very occassinally (but strictly not cow….because cow is a very productive animal; so its emotionally not agreeable for me……..Other cattle may also be productive, but I only encounter the “productivness” of the cow; not of other cattle and I don’t have emotional issue with consuming other cattle)……..Its rare to consume beef because of the higher amount of bad cholesterol that it contains and we have much healthier alternate options than to consume beef !!!
So my question here is:
If we can put a ban on beef because we have majority……….then what will happen in future….I mean obviously some day Muslims will have majority (not sure whether the world or India will exist till then……what with the current global warming, climate shifts, jihadi’s and various other stuff)……so at that time, what is to stp Muslims from enforcing similar unforeseen things upon us?
@Jyothish
basically point is that whatever is right must be done. And when there is collective consensus, there is no reason for a right to not be done.
fact remains that beef-consumption is neither healthy for body, nor good for environment, nor good for economy. There is a reason why Vedas (and Hinduism) were against beef-consumption.
Fact also remains that Vedas/ Gita teach us to follow our conscience, do the right without bothering about what will happen and what will not. That is Karma Yoga. Because what will happen is not for us to bother. What we can do is exclusively for us to decide.
Believe me, if Jyotish vows to this enlightened living (true to his name), then Dharma will have Vijay (again true to his name). Dharma shall win if we win our own self and perform our duties selflessly without bothering about results.
Destiny demands the Agniveer in Jyothish Vijay to awaken, act and transform the world.
@ Agniveer ji
Agreed to the argument of Law of Karma….if the majority thinks beef ban is right…..they have to go forward and not worry about future……nishkam karma……law of karma
When put in this context…..I have to agree (with the beef ban)……though personally I have not felt a need to ban beef…..Yet, I agree to the overall decision made….
As far as the scientific logic involved……I am not qualified to comment……….but I still agree to the ban
Thank you……for putting things in perspective !!!
@Jyothish
We appreciate your views. To put things in better perspective, just think about who we are actually fighting against. It does not matter what my individual belief is, it is important that collectively we strengthen the forces on side of Dharma and weaken the forces of Adharma.
Hence all these arguments actually do not matter. When we defended Idol Worship, no argument mattered and even our personal choice did not matter. That was not even discussed in article. What mattered was that we must decimate the enemy and protect the innocents. So Agniveer remains most loyal defender of so-called idol-worshippers.
In case of beef-ban as well, I need not tell who are we actually fighting against. Everyone can read that. Anything and everything that takes their strength out is Dharma. Anything and everything that strengthens the innocents we are protecting is also Dharma. At Agniveer we follow just this criterion. And are sure that you also follow the same.
Sanjeev Agniveer
Why do you wish to ban only cow-slaughter ? Does Sanatan Dharma allow meat of all types of animals or cattles except that of cow ? Why Hindus don’t refrain from eating meat?
Shivsena is a party of hypocrites. Shivsainiks ( proud Hindus) enjoy all types of meat except that of cow.
Hope Agniveer will answer.
Dear Supriya:
Read our http://agniveer.com/why-i-dont-eat-meat/ . Not just Sanatana Dharma perspective, but from a variety of perspectives, meat is a harmful diet for humans and society. But beef-eating is worst offender because it is most polluting, most poverty-enhancing and most anti-economical industry for humanity. And of course, most importantly, cow is mother for 100 crore plus Indians. Hence cow-slaughter can no way be acceptable. However we must strive to bring more education and create environment where world jettisons meat-habits by itself. Let us set right examples to bring change.
@ Suupriya
Sorry to intrude…..But u did ask a general question “why Hindu’s consume meat?”, which applies to Hindu’s in general and hence I am intruding just on that point……….
But first…….can u please tell me……”why should Hindu’s NOT consume meat? ”
and is there any scriptural verse to support your anti—non-vegeterianism?
ie does any scriptures prohibit consumption of meat?????
All the scriptures talk only about animals and plants (ie living creatures) having soul……..and the reasonoing of vegeterians is that one must not affect other souls………so killing in general needs to be avoinded……..but yet no scriptures actually put a restriction on what not to be eaten…….its our own self imposed restriction……….Now if i am wrong…..correct me by posting relevant scriptural references !!!
Its not enough that u remain a vegeterian and “look down” upon other Hindu;s eating meat without actual knowing whether one needs to be a vegeterian based on religious guidelines?
Agniveer here on his part has gone by the following reasons……..majority sentiments , economical and logical reasons to support beef ban and notably he has not used any scriptural backing
But your stance seems to imply that there is a religious doctrine (apart from pure sentiments)……..so I want to know it !!! PLEASEEE !
Jyotish Vijay
NOTE :Mai Hindime is prashn ka uttar dena chahungi taki jo reader English nahi samazate unhe meri baate samazme aae.
1. Sabse pehale muze is baat ka ashchary hain ki tum ‘ Jyotish’ ho aur non-veg sirf defend hi nahi karate balki khate bhi ho.
2.Main vegetarian/shakahari hun par usase pahale main Bharatiy hun. Aur muze lagata hain har bharatiy ko bachapan main bataya jata hain ki Paramatma wishw ke pratyek kan main hain chahe wah living ho ya non-living. Hame bataya jata hain ki agar ham kisi ki hatya karenge to aage hamare sath bhi kuchh bura hoga ya hamara kisi bhi rup mai nukasan hoga. Yah wishw sirf urja/enegy se bhara hua hain. Ham bharatiy karma mai wishwas karate hain. Karma principle keheta hain jo bhi urja ( wichar ke rup main ham emit/ bahar chhodate hain , usi prakar ki urja akarshit/attract karate hain. Kisi ki hatya karana ek negetive/nakaratmak bhawana hain. Jab ham Jab ham apani toungue-taste/swad ke lie kisi prani ki hatya karane ka wichar karenge to ‘hatya’ yah nakaratmak bhawana akarshit karenge. Kya jaane aage ane wale janm main wah prani tumhare/jisane bhi usaki hatya ki hain usaki hatya karane ka wichar kare.
3.Main manati hun plants aur animals donome atma hain. Plants me level of consciousness/chaitanya kam hain aur animal/prani me jyada hai kyunki wah manushy ki tarah ghumata hain firata hain, sota hain aur kuchh level tak wichar bhi karata hain. Manushya jivit rahane ke lie agar kisi plant ki hatya karata hain utana bada nukasan nahi hota hain jitana kisi prani ki hatya karane se hota hain.
4.Sanatan Dharm ka koi bhi dharmik granth/scripture mansahar/non-veg khane ki salah nahi deta hain kyunki wah sarw granth SATWIK risiyon dwara likhe gaye hain. Mansahar TAMASIK bhojan hain. Jo mansahari hain unaki prawrutti TAMASIK hone ki sambhawana jyada hoti hain. Jo TRUE HINDU hain wah kabhi non-veg nahi kha sakata. Sadsad wiwek buddhi wala Hindu kabhi apani rasana ki purti ke lie kisi innocent animal ki hatya nahi kar…
5. Jyotish shastra me Guru/Brihaspati grah ko baki sarw grahonka swami manate hain aur is grah ka sambandh wyakti ki adhyatmik pragati se hain. Ham Bharatiy manate hain- Jaisa ann waisa man/ jaisa ahaar waisa wichar aur wyawahar. Non-veg tamasik ahaar hain isalie mansahari tamasik hoti hain aur usake kundali me Guru grah kamajor hota hain. Guru grah kamajor hone se kya dushparinam bhugatane padate hain-yah to tum janatehi hoge.
6. Non-veg ahaar galat hain ya nahi yah janane ke lie Ved Upanishad ke references ki jarurat nahi hain.Usake lie Sirf wiwek buddhi kafi hain.
@Supriya
I read your points. You seem to say that none of our scriptures support non-vegeteraniainsm…….but u also seem to imply that none of our scriptures actually prohibit non-vegeteranianism…….but the prohibition is more of a logical result of the principle “do least harm”
Thats your only point actually…….the point regarding “ishwar sabme hain” doesn’t really matter for a non-vegeteranian because by cooking and eating we are neither creating or destroying ether mass or energy………its just changing form !!!!
So I believe your only really valid point is “do minimum harm” ! Because chaitanya is less in plants, its OK to consue plants
My answer is; When we breathe we breathe and cause the death of lot of microbes……whose chaitanya is not less……when we walk we stamp upon insects and ants, we kill the mosquito’s that bite us …….etc etc ……point is noone is purely vegeterian……..we all have different arbitary cut offs…..For eg myself wouldn’t kill another human being or any other animal knowingly for pleasure…….whereas for you, you wouldn’t kill any animals whatsover, only mosquitos, insects, ants and microbes come into your list……..whereas certain sect of Jains have much higher cut offs……they try not to harm even insects and microbes………So u see its all where we draw the line
In fac if u would commit suicide now, u would be saving lot many lives now that u would if u were to live your full quota !!!
So be happy with u being a vegetarian…….and keep it to that……..Not everyone has the same viewpoint and we don’t consider us any inferior or cruel
personally speaking just like carnivores are built to eat meat, we are meant to be omnivores as is taught from our science classes…..eventhough our teeth is not carnivore like, our eyes are carnivore -like…..and our body just wouldnt function on pure vegeterian diet……unless one artificially supplement ones diet 9which is going to…
Agniveer Agni
I wish Indian Government would ban all types of animal-slaughter. But I know this is next to ‘ impossible’.
Jyotish Vijay
One more point : Jab kisi wyakti ya jeev ki mrutyu hoti hain to kuch samay pashchat usake organs se nakaratmak urja bahar nilalani lagati hain islie ham Bharatiy us sharieer ko jald se jald jalate hain. 12 deen tak ghar me bhojan nahi banate hain kyunki mrut shareer se nikalane wali saari nakaratmak urja ka prabhaw ghar ke sadasy par bhojan ke dwara na ho. 12 deeno baad ghar ki swachchhata karaneke baad hi ham ghar me khana banate hain.
Agar kisiki mrutyu ke baad ham itani sawadhaniyan baratate to hain kisi mrut shareer ko kaise kha sakate hain ? Kya hamare pet me aur smashan bhumime koi fark nahi hain ?
Jyotish Vijay
//.For eg myself wouldn’t kill another human being or any other animal knowingly for pleasure//
Why won’t you knowingly kill other human being or creature ? Expecting your answer……
You said – Human body can’t survive only on pure vegetarian diet.
I object your argument. I am vegetarian and perfectly fit and healthy without eggs , fish, non-veg supplements.
@ supriya
Me too do not kill any other animal or human beings……for pleasure…….even the nonveg I have consumed is not for “pleasure”……its to eat
Why wouldn’t I kill another huan being or animal?
Ans: I have already posted it……my moto is do minimal harm…….and for me the threshold is such that I don’t kill another human being or creature
if the question is why that threshold?
My ans: Its not a threshold kept after any deep thinking process……..and now that I think about it……i don’t find any reasoning strong enough to change my food habbit !!! (Human beings were nonveg at first and then came vegetarianism……..and I find all current talk on vegetarianism as people pushing in their own ideas……..I object to cow slaughter because its a very useful animal even from myperspective…….I understand Agniveer’s stand on a general beef ban; eventhough personally i don’t want that……..but that doesn’t mean I support a complete veg diet ie no egg, no fish, no poultry)
And yes….my opinion is still that our body is made to consume non veg as well…….many nutrients especially Vit B12 (exclusively non veg) and PUFA and Omege 3 FA are found mostly only in animal sources……..animal fats are better energy surce than plants(eg the Mediterranian diet)……..while all these health facts have been posted here only as an attempt to justify my nonveg diet, (and its not like “because of such nutritive values that i eat non veg”), the fact remains that these diet facts have made me to think that we are indeed omnivores like what our science texts tells us !!!
And for your information……the diet facts quoted above are not taken from the internet for arguing……I am in this field…..and I know stuff like this !!!
One more things…….all you vegetarians are remaining healthy only because of the microbes and insects you consume unkowingly during your lifetime…….As I told plants cannot sustain life in humans by…
I guess you are from South India. Did you understand my points in Hindi thoroughly ?
1. Our ancestors were not Homosapiens or Neanderthals ( barbaric non-vegans). They were Satwik( hardcore vegetarians) Aryas in Sat Yug. The human being in Kali yug enjoy meat.
2.The person who meditates daily and takes food according to Ayurveda does not need vitamins and minerals from external sources. e. g. My own family members like parents, my younger brother and I. We haven’t suffered from defficiency of any of Vitamins and minerals. We don’t need non-veg. supplements.
@ Supriya
Yes I am from south India
And Yes….I can understand Hindi very well…….I can talk in Hindi too
but i don’t prefer written communication in Hindi
And yes…..I did understand your points
But I believe you do not become vitamin defincent only because of the non veg u have consumed albeit unknowingly !!!
//But I believe you do not become vitamin defincent only because of the non veg u have consumed albeit unknowingly !!!//
So your logic is that non-vegans don’t suffer from vitamin deficiency. I can prove you wrong by giving many examples. For an instance, let me tell you there is my friend who is non-vegan. She is suffering from deficiency of Vit B12 and Folic Acid. She has to take medicines daily. She is hardcore non-vegan and consume all kinds of non-vegan food including eggs.
//Me too do not kill any other animal or human beings……for pleasure…….even the nonveg I have consumed is not for “pleasure”……its to eat//
I have given my own example. I am vegetarian and healthy. Even Agniveer is hard-core vegetarian too. When you know the fact that vegan diet can keep you healthy, then why do you still want to prefer nonvegan food ? Isn’t it for the taste of your tongue ?
Do you believe that non-vegan food is TAMASIK and it can create hinderances in your spiritual progress ?
I know a famous Jyotishi from Delhi. He suggests to serve cow ,Guru and temple to strengthen Guru or Brihaspati in Kundali. He specifically suggests to refrain from consuming meat.
@Supriya
Its impossible for a person who consumes non veg to develop Vit B12 defiency unless they have some other disease that causes defect in absorption or utilization of vitamin B12 like pernicious anemia, drug intake, IBD etc……..So most likely your friend must have had primarily a Folate defieicny which lead to Vit B12 defieincy
When I say non veg diet…..I mean mixed diet……of course nobody is a pure non veg among humans…..we are omnivores (veg and non veg)…….and not carnivores like a lion (ie pure non veg)….And I believe the fact that we have a combination of features of both carnivores and herbivores and that some nutirents come purely from non veg…….suggests that we are menat to be omnivores
see, I don’t want to argue too much here…….I don’t want to convince u to become a non vegetarian……….and i don;t think u can convince me either……..
And No….I don’t believe in this negative energy u call TAMASIK,,,,,neither do i think its a hinderance to my spiritual progress
I just don’t think eating meat is wrong in anyway
jyothish,
I agree. I think we are wasting our time pushing the non-Veg thing. I disagreed with you on the idol worshiping thing, but totally agree with you on the non-veg. I grew up non-veg. Became a veg for 7 years, and later started eating meat again. ANd those 7 years, was good, but I will say it was hard on me. I don’t think I got all the nutrients I needed.
Also I remember the story of Arjuna when he shot an arrow at a bird. Why would he do that if they didn’t eat it afterwards.
Even Buddha said eating meat wasn’t wrong. Buddha’s brother-n-law tried to implement a law to be vegetarian only, and Buddha clearly said no, that is not the way.
Best,
Krishnarao
Please read this excellent research on indian cow :
Read this excellent research paper on Indian cows:
http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/sacred-cow
Sacred Cow by Robin Winter
“Eventually, after repeated attempts to modernize India’s approach to farming—and in particular its attitude toward its beloved zebus—it became clear that these technological upgrades were not very well thought out. They were not to replace a system that had endured for thousands of years; a system not only economically wise, but one that was part of a spiritually rich heritage. On the contrary, it may well be time to export the spiritual heritage of India to the West, where technology continues to threaten the tangible progress of humanity in its search for the deeper meaning of life.”
Jyotish Vijay
//Its impossible for a person who consumes non veg to develop Vit B12 defiency unless they have some other disease that causes defect in absorption or utilization of vitamin B12 like pernicious anemia, drug intake, IBD etc……..So most likely your friend must have had primarily a Folate defieicny which lead to Vit B12 defieincy//
In your opinion Non-vegans can’t develop or suffer from any disease because they get all nutrients through their nonveg diet. Why my non vegan friend is suffering from the disease mentioned by you ? As per your logic she should be perfectly fit and healthy.
//see, I don’t want to argue too much here//
I too, don’t like to argue with anyone.
//And No….I don’t believe in this negative energy u call TAMASIK,,,,,neither do i think its a hinderance to my spiritual progress//
For your there is no difference between Satwik and Tamasik food and thinking. But for me and Agniveer, Non veg.is Tamasik and against the teachings of Vedic Rishis.
@Supriya
I will reply since u asked a direct question:
“Why did your relative develop deficiency?”
Ans: First of all……you did not read my replies carefully………I said human beings are omnivores…..ie veg and nonveg both !…..Even when someone says he is a non veg, they actual mean mixed diet ie veg and non veg both !!!
As I told earlier …..in the case of your relative…..the following are possible:
1)The diagnosis is wrong……she may not have vit B 12 deficienecy at all……the doctor may be wrong……or maybe your relatives got the wrong idea from the doctor……Vit B12 assay is an investigation costing somewhere like rs.1000 to rs.2000…..its rarely done in reality !!!
2)if its indeed Vit B12 deficiency…….it may be the result of already having a folate deficiency……..So maybe your relative first deceloped folate deficiency and this lead to Vit B12 deficinecy EVENTHOUGH THE DIET PER SE WAS NOT DEFICIENT in Vit B12…….As mentioned earlier, absortion of Vit B12 is dependent on folic acid
Or else Vit B12 may be due to a physical diseases or a result of drug intake (NOW PLZ DON”T ASK ME AGAIN AND AGAIN)
HIi Jyo,
I wanted to point out that even though I agree with you, we need to be careful with the whole meat eating thing. Scientists recently found out that goats have a worm in them that causes a change in brain chemistry that can cause increases state of aggression. And guess what area in the world eats the most goats, that is right the middle east. Guess that explains a lot. And we aren’t even getting into the other major diseases one can get from Goat. Like worms and etc.
Krishnarao
Also one of the key reasons of getting a parasite from goats is they eat their own feces. It is actually a similar problem we see with pigs. So the main thing we need to do when it comes to goats is keep their pen area clean. In the US they don’t eat much goat, but they do eat pigs. And since this is a known problem with pigs, the American pig is one of the cleanest raised animals in the world. More people get sick and diseases from eating beef or lamb or chicken or fish than eating pork in the US. It is that clean.
Great site on goat worms: http://www.luresext.edu/goats/training/parasites.html
Thank God I am born to a Vegetarian family.
Also found this interesting tid bit. This is from a positive article on goat meat. But they talk about environmental foot print:
“There are currently no statistics on the negative effects of goat meat production, however we do know that lamb production has by far the worst impact on our environment of any food, almost doubling beef and tripling pork CO2 emissions. Lambs yield a small amount of meat compared to the amount of waste they produce. Unfortunately, a goat’s meat/waste ratio is even worse.”
http://www.berrybreeze.com/6-things-you-should-know-about-goat-meat/
– So it sounds like the least environmental foot print is Pork. They give the most meat for the least environmental foot print. And it sounds like goat and lamb is the worst for the environment.
Hi Jyotish
Actually you were right. She is suffering from mild Anaemia. Hence she is having problem in absorption of Vit B12.
She is omnivore like you. Please tell me why an omnivore is suffering from deficiency of Iron/ Anaemia if she gets all nutrients from her mixed diet ?
Doctors always claim that vegetarians like me are victims of Anaemia. But I am healthy and fit. I don’t need non-veg to increase Iron level and Hb in blood.
Expecting your answer……
@ Supriya
Your questions are pointless……..I am not her doctor to say the answer to that question..ie “why anemia?”
Diseases are not always the result of problems related to food !
What do u mean when u said “Why did an omnivore develop deficinecy?”
I felt u mean to say……the non veg diet was harmful in some way……is that what u mean?
Make your intentions clear……..otherwise I can’t answer
As for the qn”Why u r not deficient?”
Ans: Are u even reading my answers….???? If u rnot deficient thats because u get enough nutrients from non veg sources…..which u might be consuming unknowingly……Specifically speaking …..unless u drink 600ml of milk daily and u don’t eat non veg food unknowingly…….u will develop vit B12 deficiency…..CHOOSE YOUR PICK……..one of them has got to be answer:
1)>= 600 ml of milk (or milk products) per day
2)Non veg consumed unknowingly…….which EVERY vegetarian does
3)BOTH….
Jyotish
Your logic is pointless and not my query to you. It seems to me that you did not understand my query. I didn’t mean that she is suffering from deficiency of iron because she is omnivore. I refuted your claim that only an omnivore is healthy and fit because he/she gets all nutrients from veg + nonveg food.
You said vegetarians are alive because they consume microbes and insects unknowingly. What do you mean by vegetarians consume insects ? I’m not insane to consume insect. It’s you non-vegans who consume insects and all those disgusting and horrible creatures knowingly.
Thank God I’m vegetarian.
Thanks Jyotish Vijay for not trying to convince me to become non-vegan. And anyone would try , he/she will fail because my conscience ( vivek buddhi) does not allow me to consume animals and creatures.
Suppose I try to consume those things, my family members and relatives will abandon me. So thanks again.
Sanjeev Agniveer
We both are really lucky because we are born to Vegetarian family. We should thank God.
About Vitamin B12
http://niraamish.blogspot.in/2011/12/cobalamin-myth-fact-b12-vegan-shakahar.html
(1) The Vitamin-B-group is found abundantly in the vegetarian diet beyond doubt. The only part of Vitabmin-B-group known as “B12” is controversial. Many non-veg people are again and again saying that “B12” is not found in the plants.
(2) If B12 was not found in the plants and was created only in the bodies of the animals, then there wasn’t any need to worry about it, because, then, it would have been created automatically in our bodies as per the necessity. And actually this is a fact also. The only difference is that it isn’t a product of meat, but is created by minute organisms such as Streptomyces griseus, Propionibacterium shermanii, Pseudomonas denitrificans.
(3) Similar to other animals, Vitamin “B12” is also created in our own bodies in certain parts of the digestive system with the help of the same above-mentioned organisms.
(4) Even in the animal-meats, the parts of the animal-bodies in which this vitamin “B12” is found are considered as non-eatable by the non-veg people.
(5) The non-veg diet is NOT necessary to be done for getting the vitamin “B12”.
(6) The VEGETARIANS create sufficient amount of vitamin “B12” in their bodies.
(7) It is true that whether the plants are or aren’t the important sources of “B12” has not been researched so much. The most of the researches about nutrition have been made in the WESTERN COUNTRIES where the meat is consumed normally, and therefore, there wasn’t any need felt there for any alternative research. But it is completely WRONG to say that the plant sources completely lack vitamin “B12”.
(8) In recent times, the VEGETARIANISM has been predominant in the western countries, and therefore there is an INCREASE in the researches for sources of vitamin “B12”.
(9) COW-DUNG: There are PROOFS available which show that vitamin “B12” is found ABUNDANTLY in the soils nurtured by…
(10) The vitamin “B12” is also found in the milk products of the Indian (“Deshi”) COWS, such as yogurt, paneer, buttermilk etc.
(11) Like other bodies, the human body PRESERVES vitamin “B12” for a LONG time and USES it repeatedly without losing its essence.
(12) There are clinical proofs that our body can preserve vitamin “B12” for 30 years even without any fresh intake. The reason for this is that, unlike other vitamins, vitamin “B12” is STORED in the LIVER (similar to other animals) but it is not created there.
http://niraamish.blogspot.in/2011/12/cobalamin-myth-fact-b12-vegan-shakahar.html
…
विटामिन बी के नाम से पुकारा जाने वाला समूह बहुत से विटामिनों का ऐसा समूह है जिसके अधिकांश घटक शाकाहारी भोजन में निसन्देह प्रचुर मात्रा में उपलब्ध हैं। केवल एक घटक “बी12” के बारे में कुछ समूह बार-बार यह बात कहते हैं कि यह वनस्पति जगत में नहीं होता। आइये सत्यान्वेषण पर आगे चलने से पहले इस तर्क को परख लिया जाये। यदि बी12 वनस्पति जगत में न बनकर केवल प्राणियों के शरीरों में उत्पन्न होता तब तो उसके लिये चिंता करने की कोई आवश्यकता ही नहीं होती, क्योंकि तब वह हमारे शरीर में भी आवश्यकतानुसार उत्पन्न होना ही चाहिये था। और तथ्य यह है कि ऐसा होता भी है। अंतर केवल इतना है कि वह मांस का उत्पाद न होकर सूक्ष्म जीवों (Streptomyces griseus, Propionibacterium shermanii, Pseudomonas denitrificans) द्वारा ही उत्पादित पोषक तत्व है। अधिकांश प्राणियों की तरह हमारे शरीर में भी पाचन-तंत्र के कुछ अवयवों में इन्हीं सूक्ष्म जीवों की सहायता से बी 12 की भारी मात्रा उत्पन्न होती है। पशुमांस में भी यह विटामिन जिन अंगों/अवयवों में अधिक मात्रा में पाया जाता है उन भागों को तो अधिकांश मांसाहारी अभक्ष्य ही मानते हैं।
विटामिन बी12 के लिये मांसाहार अनिवार्य नहीं है।
शाकाहारी प्राणी अपने शरीर में विटामिन बी 12 की पर्याप्त मात्रा उत्पन्न करते हैं।
यह सच है कि पौधे विटामिन बी12 के महत्वपूर्ण स्रोत हैं या नहीं इस पर बहुत खोज हुई ही नहीं है। पोषण सम्बन्धी अधिकांश आधुनिक अध्ययन पश्चिमी देशों में हुए हैं जहाँ मांस और दुग्धाहार सामान्य है इसलिये किसी वैकल्पिक स्रोत की जाँच की…
यह सच है कि पौधे विटामिन बी12 के महत्वपूर्ण स्रोत हैं या नहीं इस पर बहुत खोज हुई ही नहीं है। पोषण सम्बन्धी अधिकांश आधुनिक अध्ययन पश्चिमी देशों में हुए हैं जहाँ मांस और दुग्धाहार सामान्य है इसलिये किसी वैकल्पिक स्रोत की जाँच की आवश्यकता नहीं पड़ती। परंतु यह कहना बिल्कुल ग़लत है कि वनस्पति स्रोतों में बी12 का पूर्णाभाव है। हाल के वर्षों में पश्चिम में शाकाहार के बढते प्रचलन के कारण विटामिन बी12 के स्रोतों पर शोधों में भी वृद्धि हुई है। गोबर आदि जैविक खादों से पोषित भूमि में उगाई गयी फसलों में बी12 की जांच योग्य मात्रा पाये जाने के प्रमाण हैं। पशुओं के दूध और दुग्ध-उत्पादों यथा दही, पनीर, खोया, मट्ठा आदि से भी बी12 की पर्याप्त मात्रा प्राप्त होती है। अन्य प्राणियों की तरह ही मानव शरीर भी बी12 को लम्बे समय तक सुरक्षित रखता है और इसके सार को नष्ट किये बिना बारम्बार इसका उपयोग करता है। नई आपूर्ति के बिना भी हमारा शरीर विटामिन “बी12” को 30 वर्षों तक सुरक्षित रख सकता है, ऐसे चिकित्सकीय प्रमाण हैं। इसका कारण यह है कि अन्य विटामिनों के विपरीत, विटामिन बी12 अन्य प्राणियों की तरह हमारी मांसपेशियों और शरीर के अन्य अंगों विशेषकर यकृत में भंडारित रहता है। लेकिन यह वहाँ उत्पन्न नहीं होता है।
…
भोजन के प्राकृतिक स्रोतों और शरीर के भीतर निर्मित होने वाले विटामिन बी12 के अतिरिक्त हम इसकी आपूर्ति पूरक स्रोतों, जैसे विटामिन की गोलियों द्वारा भी कर सकते हैं। पूरक स्रोतों में पाया जाने वाला विटामिन बी12 प्रयोगशाला में संश्लेषित होता है। इसमें किसी पशु-उत्पाद का प्रयोग नहीं होता है। पश्चिमी देशों में प्रचलित डब्बाबन्द शाकाहारी नाश्ता (फ़ोर्टिफ़ाइड सेरियल) और चिक्की/पट्टी (ग्रेनोला बार) बी12 सहित आवश्यक विटामिनों और खनिजों से भरपूर होता है।
तो देर मत कीजिये। अपने नाश्ते में दूध का गिलास और अंकुरित दालों को शामिल कीजिये, और भोजन में गाहे-बगाहे खमीरी रोटी और स्पाइरुलिना भी ले लिया कीजिये, विशेषकर यदि आप चालीस के निकट हैं या उससे आगे पहुँच चुके हैं। संतुलित भोजन कीजिये और शाकाहारी रहिये, यह आपके लिये तो अच्छा है ही, हमारे पर्यावरण के लिये भी उपयोगी है।
सार:
Read directly on http://niraamish.blogspot.in/2011/12/cobalamin-myth-fact-b12-vegan-shakahar.html
Repeating point no. (9)
(which was cut in half above)
(9)
COW-DUNG: There are PROOFS available which show that vitamin “B12” is found ABUNDANTLY in the soils nurtured by ORGANIC MANURES such as COW-DUNG.
[This point wasn’t visible above completely…..So repeated it.]
@ supriya
What i said is non debatable…
)You either get vit B12 from milk (which will require atleast 600 ml of milk or equivalent milk products) OR
2)You get Vit B12 from insects and microbes u consume unknowingly…..its not a myth…..just do a genuine research……..people don’t want u to know this truth, hence they are not giving it widespread coverage…..thats all….seearch and u will know it is the truth
And in any case unless u consume more than 600 ml of milk or milk product equivalents…….there is no way u can remain Vit B12 sufficient without eating all those insects and microbes…….!!!
PS: I am not putting in this Vit B12 ideas to prove that vegetarianism is bad…….all I say is that “I believe (Its “I” not “u” or anybody else) we are meant to be omnivores for this very fact…….and even if we arenot meant to be, I don’t see a point in being vegetrian”
So quit arguing to me about which is good (veg/non veg)……i don’t care
If u have any questions about this vit B12 thing ….ask….I will reply
As for the microbes and insects which I said u consue unintentonally……..do a genuine search in scientific books and u will know the truth……If u don’t want to be confronted with that truth…..beleive whatever u wanna believe…..I don’t care….I brought up this insect thing only because of the issue somehow came up regarding vit B2 deficiency…..otherwise i have never until now engaged in a veg /nonveg debate……and never ever have dissappointed even one single vegetarian so far with this insect knwoldege !!!!
jyothish vijay says: What i said is non debatable…
Answer: Merely by saying your arguments to be non-debatable, they don’t become non-debatable. The information given by me (under “Veda”) is sufficient to prove that you don’t need to be CONSCIOUSLY non-vegetarian (as you yourself are) for becoming rich in vitamin “B12”. It is pointless to try to prove the normal food eaten by vegetarians to be non-vegetarian just for the sake defending your non-vegetarian intake. Even a child can understand what is vegetarian and what is non-vegetarian. When the non-vegetarians become bereft of any other arguments, they put forward their foolish argument that the vegetarian foods are also so-called non-vegetarian. I have just proved above (under the name “Veda”) that vegetarians do NOT have any “B12”-problem (so-called vitamin problem).
OK…….good for you…….and all the best !
@ Veda…..on second thoughts…..just one more reply so that some sane people can understand and that they don’t remain confused
First here is a statement from : The Vegetarian Research Group
“Plant foods do not contain vitamin B12 except when they are contaminated by microorganisms or have vitamin B12 added to them”
I could give even more scientific material in this regard…..medical book quotes, UPTODATE articles …….
I have not read your Hindi posts and have not referred to your link because there is “level of evidence” criteria……..the website u quoted is not anywhere nearly as authentic as scientific journals and medical textbooks
Further I didn’t quote those points to win an argument……or to support non veg diet (reasons explained earlier)…….I only say this:
1)You need to consume atleast 00 ml of milk or equivlent amount of diary products per day to meet RDA of Vit B12……..
Or
2)Your plant diet must be either fortified or “contaminated” with microorganisms
Or Both 1 & 2
Now I didn’t say anybody is consciously eating insects………you seem to imply that I did……..But I did not…….The face is we all do inconsciously consume non veg !!!!
You are right about the long storage of vit B12 ……but thats not relevant here….is it????
And our body do not produce Vit B12……I don’t care if some website says that……..because just because someone opened a website or a blog doesn’t make them authentic………I don’t know whether the website says that we produce vit B2 (because i didn’t read it……..but if they did say that……they are wrong……..I could say that on the weight of science taught to me)
[Points 1 to 3]
1.
Jyothish vijay says: OK…….good for you…….and all the best !
Answer: The above reply from jyotish vijay was enough and there was no need of any further reply from jyotish vijay. But still jyotish vijay gave unnecessary further reply.
This we deal with below.
2.
Jyothish vijay says: At Veda…..on second thoughts…..just one more reply so that some sane people can understand and that they don’t remain confused
Answer: Here, jyotish vijay seems to mean that we are not sane people. But actually, as we will see below, jyotish vijay himself is not sane. Moreover, he is saying “don’t remain confused”. But actually, jyotish vijay’s intention is itself to confuse on the name of removing the confusion.
3.
Jyothish vijay says: First here is a statement from The Vegetarian Research Group, “Plant foods do not contain vitamin B12 except when they are contaminated by microorganisms or have vitamin B12 added to them”
Answer: The Hindi link given by us, which jyotish vijay conveniently avoided to read, is ALSO from the Vegetarian Group, and this link (Hindi above) has already said as follows: “The non-veg diet is NOT necessary to be done for getting the vitamin “B12”. The VEGETARIANS create sufficient amount of vitamin “B12” in their bodies. But suppose, even if B12 was not found in the plants and was created only in the bodies of the animals, then even in that case, there wasn’t any need to worry about it, because, then, it would have been created automatically in our bodies as per the necessity. And actually this is a fact also. The only difference is that it isn’t a product of meat, but is created by minute organisms…and similar to other animals, Vitamin “B12” is also created in our own bodies in certain parts of the digestive system with the help of the same above-mentioned organisms.
What more is required to be said?
(cont. with 4).
[Points 4 to 5]
4.
Jyothish vijay says: I could give even more scientific material in this regard…..medical book quotes, UPTODATE articles …….
Answer: All such so-called scientific material is not required, because when the aim of the scientific research is to PROVE that non-veg is necessary to be eaten by human beings, then they can NEVER come to the proper conclusion. Moreover, there is so much fraud, nowadays, in the science and research.
5.
Jyothish vijay says: I have not read your Hindi posts and have not referred to your link because there is “level of evidence” criteria……..the website u quoted is not anywhere nearly as authentic as scientific journals and medical textbooks.
Answer: What is that your so-called criteria? What do you mean by authentic? I already stated above that there is so much cheating going on in the research institutes. There are books available on the frauds that take place in the fields of research, and these research experts can even reverse the conclusions which come naturally. The materialistic researchers always successfully hide the truth because their rackets are the groups of the cheaters and the cheated. They can always suppress the truth by means of frauds and extortions. So quoting from such fraud research groups is not required here.
[cont. with 6]
Point 6
6.1
Jyothish vijay says: Further I didn’t quote those points to win an argument……or to support non veg diet (reasons explained earlier)…….I only say this: 1)You need to consume atleast 00 ml of milk or equivlent amount of diary products per day to meet RDA of Vit B12……..Or 2)Your plant diet must be either fortified or “contaminated” with microorganisms. Or Both 1 & 2.
Answer: This is the favorite argument of the non-veg people. The only way for them to support their non-vegetarian habits is to equate the veg and non-veg and to say that the “veg” is also “non-veg”. It may be true that, the vegetarian people might inadvertently consume some insects or micro-organisms which might be seen as “non-veg” by the “non-veg” people, but still, it is different from cutting the throat of animals, which are noticeably living, and eating their flesh or eating fish etc. In the veg-food, the insects can very easily be detected and they can be removed from the veg-food. AS FAR AS, MICRO-ORGANISMS ARE CONCERNED it is ridiculous to state that MICRO-ORGANISMS are NON-VEG because they are NOT killed. I mean to say, even after they enter the human body, THEY REMAIN ALIVE and they do their job creating vitamins for the human body. On the other hand, when non-vegetarians eat “chicken”, “fish”, “meat” or “beef”, the chicken is already killed, the fish is already killed, the ship, cow, bull, buffalo etc are already killed before their “meat” is prepared. In other words, it is not possible to create the “flesh” without first killing them. This is the difference between the MICRO-ORGANISMS which you are talking about (in veg-food) and the non-veg food. Got it?
(cont. with 6.2)
6.2
The micro-organisms are NEVER KILLED. I mean to say, even upon entering the body, they remain ALIVE. Not only do they remain alive, but they also do their job properly. They are not killed. Hence, they are NOT non-veg. They are VEG. I mean to say, deciding whether something is NON-VEG or VEG is not done simply by seeing the content of the food, but it is decided by seeing how much KILLING has been taken place for preparing that food.
The another point is that, the non-vegetarian people, in order to prove their point, take shelter of science and research, and then they want to “scientifically” prove that non-veg diet is essential for health, because their attempt to logically proving it failed and hence now they take shelter of science. One such attempt of the non-vegetarian people is the vitamin “B12” argument. This vitamin “B12” argument must, therefore, always be seen as a secondary argument, and not as any primarily important argument of non-vegetarianism. But, even then, even this “B12” argument is completely smashed by the Hindi website, which I quoted above. But this website has not been read by you, because it is inconvenient for you to read it since it destroys your weak arguments. But you are saying that you didn’t read it for the reasons of scientific authenticity. But, this is another attempt of yours to escape from the truth.
If you were honest enough, then you could have actually FIRST read the argument on the Hindi website, and then defeated it. But you have not done that. You have simply rejected it WITHOUT reading. This is because, you were afraid to read it. I mean to say, you had the fear in your mind that it would actually prove vegetarianism. That’s why you didn’t read it.
And this especially becomes very noticeable, when while quoting the Hindi website, I had actually TRANSLATED it into English too.
[cont.with 7]
Points 7 to 8
7.
Jyothish vijay says: Now I didn’t say anybody is consciously eating insects………you seem to imply that I did……..But I did not…….The face is we all do inconsciously consume non veg !!!!
Answer: It is not important whether you consciously eat insects or do not consciously eat insects. It is impossible that I will ever comment about any particular person’s eating habits in the general discussion of the current type. Let us not get diverted into who meant what or imply what. You have made a blanket statement: “The face is we all do inconsciously consume non veg”. This statement is of fraud nature because just in the previous paragraph I have proved it to be false. The people who don’t eat non-veg consciously do not eat non-veg even unconsciously. This is because they can always minimize the potentially non-veg elements from their diets or even make it zero. But even if, by mistake, they may consume non-veg (without their knowledge), as soon as they are informed about it, they will avoid eating it. This is the difference between the “veg” and “non-veg” people. [Here, I am not talking about people who are not careful about their eating habits and who are simply vegetarians out of “chance”. No. I am not talking about them. I am talking about the vegetarians, who are “consciously” vegetarians.] The difference between the (strict) vegetarians and non-vegetarians is that the vegetarians will always want to minimize the non-vegetarian elements (if any) from their diet, and the non-vegetarians will not.
8.
Jyothish vijay says: You are right about the long storage of vit B12 ……but thats not relevant here….is it????
Answer: Simply quoting something from my comment “out of the context” without quoting it fully (especially when the argument is scientific argument) shows another cheating propensity or simply the speediness in wanting to prove without proper study.
[cont.with 9]
Points 9 to 10
9.
Jyothish vijay says: And our body do not produce Vit B12……I don’t care if some website says that……..because just because someone opened a website or a blog doesn’t make them authentic………
Answer: The same thing can be said about your comments: just because someone commented that our bodies do not produce “B12”, the commentator does not become authentic. The commentator may say anything he wants, but we can say, on the strength of the Hindi website, that the vitamin “B12” argument given by the cheater type non-vegetarians is a fake argument. This is the truth. I don’t care if some commentator (jyotish vijay) keeps on holding the old faulty argument. Because, simply by commenting, one does not become authentic.
10.
Jyothish vijay says: I don’t know whether the website says that we produce vit B2 (because i didn’t read it……..but if they did say that……they are wrong……..I could say that on the weight of science taught to me)
Answer: If you didn’t read it, then how can you say it is wrong? First read it. I have read all your arguments and also proved them to be wrong. But you have not even read all our arguments. But simply on the basis of the “science taught to you”, you are claiming that you are right. But we are saying on the “science taught to us” that your claim is wrong. We don’t care what “science taught to you” says. It is sufficient for us to know that the vegetarians can remain completely healthy without any need of non-vegetarian diet, and that the “B12” argument given by non-vegetarians is faulty.
[End]
@Veda
You have not contradicted anything I said:
1)I said people take non veg unconsciously…….there are articleson the net to support this……..and u may have articles on the net to counter it……..So which one to believe? (I wil come to that in the end)
2)I said humans don’t produce vit B12……you say your website says so……I can provide scientific references that deny it….So which to believe? (As said earlier I will come to that)
3)Human being on veg diet get Vit B12 only from milk or diary products products……..or from contaminants…..do u wish to say that this statement of mine is wrong?
What constitutes believable document then?
Ans: In my view medical textbooks, medical journals and UPTODATE (its a medical software)….I can give evidence from that to support my statements
The problem is u don’t consider them asauthentic……u consider your website is authentic….fine I can’t argue to that……..Sane people also will read these…….let each one make up their own mind as to which they consider as authentic
Of course I can’t force u to consider my references as authentic……just like u can’t force me either……..Even so……..u can’t counter me…….and I can’t counter u ……because first we need to agree on some reference standards……….since we cannot…….I have nothing more to say than this:
“Animal products (meat and dairy products) provide the only dietary source of Cbl (vit B12) for humans.”
Here is the ref from Harrison’s TB of Internal Medicine 17th Ed Chapter 100
“Cobalamin(Vit B12) is synthesized solely by microorganisms. Ruminants obtain cobalamin from the foregut, but the only source for humans is food of animal origin”
Prejudiced minds might still believe your Hindi website, but if a person has open mind and considers modern science and medicine as authentic enough (which almost any person does)……they will believe it !!!!
@Veda
You have not contradicted anything I said:
1)I said people take non veg unconsciously…….there are articleson the net to support this……..and u may have articles on the net to counter it……..So which one to believe? (I wil come to that in the end)
2)I said humans don’t produce vit B12……you say your website says so……I can provide scientific references that deny it….So which to believe? (As said earlier I will come to that)
3)Human being on veg diet get Vit B12 only from milk or diary products products……..or from contaminants…..do u wish to say that this statement of mine is wrong?
What constitutes believable document then?
Ans: In my view medical textbooks, medical journals and UPTODATE (its a medical software)….I can give evidence from that to support my statements
The problem is u don’t consider them asauthentic……u consider your website is authentic….fine I can’t argue to that……..Sane people also will read these…….let each one make up their own mind as to which they consider as authentic
Of course I can’t force u to consider my references as authentic……just like u can’t force me either……..Even so……..u can’t counter me…….and I can’t counter u ……because first we need to agree on some reference standards……….since we cannot…….I have nothing more to say than this:
“Animal products (meat and dairy products) provide the only dietary source of Cbl (vit B12) for humans.”
Here is the ref from Harrison’s TB of Internal Medicine 17th Ed Chapter 100
“Cobalamin(Vit B12) is synthesized solely by microorganisms. Ruminants obtain cobalamin from the foregut, but the only source for humans is food of animal origin. ”
Prejudiced minds might still believe your Hindi website, but if a person has open mind and considers modern science and medicine as authentic enough (which almost any person does)……they will believe it !!
Sanjeev Agniveer
I really mercy on non-vegans and am sorry for their conscience-less mind. Do you want to know why ? Read following articles
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/02/11/how-cancer-tumors-use-meat-to-fuel-their-growth/
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/03/30/worlds-hunger-for-meat-is-causing-the-superbug-apocalypse/
May God save those innocent animals and creatures.
Followers of Sanatan Dharma believe in Ahinsa and Bhoot-daya.
Live and let live.
@ Veda
Continuing from previous reply: (part 2)
I forgot to add the reference to this statement in my previous reply:
“Animal products (meat and dairy products) provide the only dietary source of Cbl (vit B12) for humans.”
That statement was from UPTODATE……
As for your article…..it basically says things like:
1)Plants are rich in vit B12
2)Human beings also pproduce vit B12 just like other animals
3)Milk provides enough vit B12
From a medical viewpoint statements 1 and 2 are wrong (references given in my previous reply….but of course u wouldn’t consider them as authentic…..u think the ultimate TB in medicine is wrong….tthats OK)
As an explanation(to others): only microorganisms produce Vit B12 …….these are found in gut of rumianats and are absorbed and is found in the meat…..Human beings are not so lucky ….their intenstinal microbes do not produce Vit B12)
Point no:3 is partly correct……partly because one needs to consume about 600 ml of milk or equivalent amounts of milk products to getsufficient daily doses of Vit B12…….not everyone consumes this much amountof milk everyday !!!
One another thing………most microbes that reachour stomach dies because of the high acidic content….otherwise wewould become patients all the time…..and again microbes are not the most imp source for Vit B12 in vegetarians…….its mostlyy milk and diary products PLUS a minor contribution from microbes eaten
@ Veda……I understand your info is based on the Hindi website…….but I have given u references from UPTODATE and Harrison’s TB of medicine…….are u really going to tell me that UPTODATE and Harrison TB got it wrong?
I can’t imagine someone disbelieving such references….hence asking????
Constructing Swami Dayanand Saraswati’s temple is more important and meaningful than constructing Ram temple. Am I right ?