Site Title

Tag: travel

  • Should beef and pork meat be banned in India?

    “Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas” is a slogan launched by the ruling BJP Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It lays emphasis on inclusive growth, a growth in which every Indian is part of and benefits from. It envisions a progress model for the country in which all its citizens, irrespective of their caste, creed, language or religion get empowered. I think that the root of such kind of an inclusive growth has its foundation entrenched in tolerance towards one another and an appreciation of our unique way of life. Have we reached that level of success where we truly believe in the diversity of our nation? I don’t think we have, at least not yet.

    A few days back, I stumbled upon an article that showcased that a 44 years old man was assaulted and his shop vandalized on the suspicion that he was selling cow meat at his butchery. I was even more shocked to know that some reports covering this went ahead and stated that the meat has gone to a forensic lab to determine if the meat was indeed from cow or beef. I strongly opine that in a secular country like ours, everyone has a right to eat whatever they want. No one has any authority to question what we sell or consume as part of our lifestyle.

    If we go back to our mythological scriptures, we could find references that meat eating was prevalent in the society of those times. The great epic of Mahabharata mentions many instances of Pandavas consuming meat. The advent of the Mughals and later the Britishers introduced their cuisine to the Indian cuisine. Even though the Mughals came from outside and most of the Indian Muslims were converted during Mughal era, they eventually became inseparable part of our Indian society. They embraced our culture and played a vital role in transforming our society into the multifaceted and multidimensional society.

    I am a critique of many policies and wrongdoings of my adopted country, Canada, but I think there is one thing that India can learn from this North American country. It is an appreciation for all walks of life and all kinds of lifestyles and it holds true when it comes to our right to consume any kind of food that we want. In a country as diverse as India, there should not be any “ban” on any kind of food, may it be beef or pork. I do understand that many religions prescribe dietary regulations on its adherents. In Islam, eating pork is prohibited and in Hinduism, eating beef is forbidden. Things take a different turn when both the communities live together and share a common habitat.

    There is an argument given that if pork is banned in Pakistan and gulf countries, beef should not be allowed to sell or consumed in “Hindustan”, a country with a majority Hindu population. I do not buy this line of thought and would argue that the aforementioned countries are Islamic nations and not democracies. India, on the other hand is the world’s largest democracy, and one of the most secular nations in the world. In a country like ours, where all religions co-exist, one must have tolerance and appreciation for all kinds of cuisines, irrespective of whether it is beef or pork. Like religion, food is also a personal choice of an individual.

    Another argument proffered is that in order for peace to prevail between the majority and minority communities, both should respect each other’s “religious sentiments”. This means the Hindus should not eat pork and Muslims should not eat beef. This again is a faulty argument. I adamantly believe that for a society to truly become secular, there should be freedom to market and consume all sorts of cuisines that are part of a cultural or a religious community. If inhabitants of Goa, or North eastern Indian states consume beef, they should be freely allowed to do so. The same stands true for the consumption of pork.

    I think that Mr. Modi is an able prime minister and is committed to the integrity of the country, but I firmly think that it is the fanatical organizations thriving under him that spew venom on the minorities. It is them who indulge in hooliganism. It is them who, instead of taking the path of laws and courts, believe in “mobocracy”. They torment ordinary people earning their livelihood by selling beef without realizing that India is the fourth largest beef exporter in the world. That, is what I call hypocrisy. The ruthless assault and “crusade” of the “Saffron brigade” on an individual’s freedom to choose what he wants to eat must end.

    For India to become an epitome of secularism, the country needs to shun its religious bigotry at all levels of governance and allow its citizens to pursue their lifestyles to the fullest. This without any doubt includes giving everyone a choice and freedom of what they want to eat.

  • Factors that led the Britishers to leave India

    There is an entrenched belief among many Indians that the country got its independence from the Britishers because of the non violent, non cooperation movement led by M.K Gandhi. Many also believe that it was a combination of the “peaceful protest” led by Gandhi and the revolutionary forces led by the likes of Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and Subhash Chandra Bose that paved the way for India’s freedom.

    Before I ponder on the real factor that ended the “Raj” in the Indian subcontinent region, I would like to opine on how effective civil disobedience movement based on non violence can be. I do agree that Gandhi did played an instrumental role in unifying the country giving it a sense of identity and that his efforts focused on empowering the distraught peasants and promoted the religious pluralism but was it enough to free India from the shackles of British rule? Were his anti colonial measures potent enough to give that knockout blow to the powerful imperialist regime? I would argue they were not. Non violence can undoubtedly create civil disobedience in a society, but it is not impactful to an extent where it can cause a ruler to fret and run away.

    Like his personality, Gandhi’s mechanism of protest was controversial too. He preached peace and “Satyagraha” to the world but launched a campaign to enlist Indians to join the British efforts during World War – I. He encouraged Indians to stop using the British clothes but was invited by the Britishers to attend the second round table conference in London. There is a famous picture of him posing with British ladies with a smile on his face. On one hand, the revolutionaries or the so called “terrorists” as the Britishers labeled them, were brutally tortured in the jails, Gandhi was given the “luxury” of writing his autobiography during the time he spent in jail. What kind of an agitation is that?

    More than a foe, I think Gandhi was a confidante of the Britishers. If that would not be the case, why would the Britishers “invite” him and sit with him on the negotiating table? Did the Britishers had the same “soft corner”for Bhagat Singh or Bose. These people were a greater threat to the the empire than the non violent Gandhi. I do agree that there is a merit in the argument that since Gandhi exerted an influence on the Indian masses, it was a diplomatic strategy for the Britishers to negotiate with him. But was it an impossible task for the “cunning” and politically dexterous British officers to subdue him? I think it was not.

    The rise of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose and more importantly, the rise of communist ideology fostered by the Hindustan Republican Army posed a serious threat to the empire. The influence of Bhagat Singh on the youth of the country and the formation of Indian National army by Bose fueled nationalism in Indians. However, Britishers were extremely canny in their approach in handling Indians. The famous (or I would say notorious) “Divide and Conquer” method proved successful for them in segregating the Indian society. India, unfortunately has a history of producing its “Jaychand’s“. The British think tank was extremely apt in pitting Indians against Indians. For an empire as powerful and as shrewd as the the British empire, it was not impossible to crush the revolutionary movement.

    The aforementioned factors did played a role in the Indian independence, but they were not suffice in sending the Britishers back home. I strongly believe that what really led the Britishers to “quit” India was World War – II and the impact it had in weaking the empire. To run and administer any region, especially a region as vast as the Indian subcontinent, a country requires massive resources. Let me draw a parallel with why the Nazis were not able to hold off the Allied invasion during D-Day in 1944. It is widely believed that had the Nazis not launched Operation Barbarossa, the allied army would still have been fighting the Nazis. A lot of Nazi army units got “chewed up” in the eastern front in the conflict with the Soviet forces that they could not maintain their hold on the western front.

    World War – II dented the British economy gravely. Their foreign reserves dwindled and the Debt grew enormously. Adding to this quandary, the country lost approximately four hundred thousand soldiers in the war with many more injured. The country’s infrastructure was damaged and it took them several years to rebuild it. This depletion of resources was the primary reason that the empire lost its grip on its colonies, especially India. This, along with the growing internal pressure against colonialism, consequently ended their reign.

    The notion that we “seized” the control back from the Britishers is falsified and not based on the complete analysis of the factors that resulted in our Independence.