You don't drink dog's milk: Why eat beef?

One had hoped that the so-called "seculars", "liberals", "rationals" and "intellectuals" of the society would condemn and leave behind controversial issues like beef ban and cow slaughter raging for the past couple of months. However, far from moving on, they are adding fuel to the fire and matching the "bigots", "motor-mouths" and "rabble-rousers" with words and deeds of their own, blurring the very qualities which differentiate the two.

Several so-called "progressive" citizens have let the country down by their statements. But here I will discuss only three of them.

1. Retired Supreme Court judge and former chairman of Press Council of India Markandey Katju said, "I eat beef and I don't consider cow as mother as it is an animal like horse and dog." Though he also labelled the politicians as thieves and looters and advocated capital punishment for them, I would confine myself to his beef and cow slaughter remarks.

2. Historian and former member of the Indian Council of Historical Research, Professor DN Jha, reiterated his old thesis that there is copious evidence the Vedic Aryans sacrificed cows and ate beef. Jha, who specialises in ancient and medieval India, said this practice continued in the post-Vedic period, up to the pre-Mauryan period.

3. Established writer Shobhaa De, described in a portal blog as a columnist, opinion shaper and social commentator and who is considered an authority on popular culture, proudly tweeted in the wake of Dadri lynching: "I just ate beef. Come and murder me."

What does one make of these statements? They seem to have been made to seek attention, much like the acts and words of the fringe elements. Mr Katju eats beef because he does not consider cow as mother and does not find any difference between cows, horses and dogs. For him, all are animals.

It's fine - cows, horses and dogs - all are animals. By that logic, a woman is a woman, be she a mother, sister, wife or daughter. Still, why do men differentiate between them? We behave differently with them. A mother, sister and daughter can also be treated as wife if the purposes are just sexual pleasure and reproduction. Still, we do differentiate between them while the animals don't. Conversely (to avoid being labeled a misogynist), a man is a man, be he a father, brother, husband or son and women treat them differently.

Similarly, all religions treat different animals differently due to historical, sociological, utilitarian and even scientific reasons. And, this is what differentiates human beings from the animal kingdom.

There are many other aspects which distinguish human beings from animals. Treating different animals differently is one such aspect. No doubt, faith plays a major role in this. And only human beings have faiths and beliefs, not animals or birds. But other considerations are also there.

For instance, why do we generally drink only cow's or buffalo's milk? If all animals are equal, then we should also drink dog's or pig's milk. Shouldn't we? But we don't because cow or buffalo milk is considered the best suited for health.

When Mr Katju said all animals are equal for consumption, he obviously means he can also eat horse or dog meat. Hopefully, he knows that slaughter of horses and horsemeat are banned in the US just as 25 of the 29 states have banned cow slaughter in India. Can he afford to demand and consume horsemeat openly in the US or can he even air his views there in the same way he has done about cows in India? It shows how tolerant Indians are and how they are bearing with people like him.

What does Mr Jha want to prove by saying that Hindus slaughtered cows and ate their flesh during the Vedic Age? He is obviously justifying consumption of cow meat by saying so. Why does he need to go specifically to 5,000 years ago? Why not earlier? Why not to the period when human beings stayed nude, were barbaric, were promiscuous, did not believe in the institution of marriage or family? Why be selective? If he can justify the practices during the Vedic Age, he can well do the same during the pre-Vedic Age by ignoring evolution of mankind and civilisations.

The less said about Ms De the better. Her intention seems just to hog limelight and provoke people instead of behaving like a true intellectual and trying to quell unrest. An appeal from people like her would have been much appreciated.

Going by the reaction of the so-called intellectuals, it appears that the country has got rid of all other ills like corruption, illiteracy, unemployment, diseases, poverty, water scarcity, electricity shortage and gender inequality. One also gets the impression that the citizens are enjoying all other freedoms and rights like right to education, right to get potable water, right to enjoy amenities for which one is paying taxes. Or are the other freedoms and rights less significant? Is freedom to eat is the only issue staring the country in the face?

Earlier, only the Sahitya Akademi winners returned their awards protesting against "intolerance". So, issues like beef ban, Dadri lynching and ban on cow slaughter (by the way, 25 of the 29 states have laws banning it and Article 48 of Constitution too ordains it), raid on Kerala Bhavan by Delhi Police sleuths on the suspicion of cow meat being sold there appear to be the only acts of "intolerance" which the nation has seen in the recent years.

Scientist PM Bhargava announced on October 29 his decision to return Padma Bhushan as a protest against "growing intolerance". Now, when the Sahitya Akademi awardees have been joined by other "intellectuals" like scientists and filmmakers, it smacks of some well-hatched conspiracy. Didn't their conscience prick when people like Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Akhilesh Yadav and others were enjoying music and dance in Saifai even as victims of Muzaffarnagar riots - including women and small children - were freezing without adequate warm clothes and shelter in the chilly winters of 2014?

Or when anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare was on fast unto death for days together taking on the mighty UPA government to demand Lokpal Bill, or when the Nirbhaya incident happened and the protestors were teargas shelled, lathi-charged or drenched in water-canon in the chilly winters of 2012? There are innumerable such instances even in the recent past.

Please do away with your selective and motivated outrage which is doing more harm to the country. A visionary and real intellectual has much larger issues to agitate against. Why is it that a "Save Tiger" campaigner is called a social activist, those Indians working for "Save Dogs (in China)" and "Save Buffaloes (in Nepal)" are called animal lovers but those pleading "Save Cows" are being labelled as bigots having a medieval mindset? Just think.