The other day a Muslim man was killed and his son thrashed by a mob for supposedly eating beef. The family of the deceased says he did not eat beef; it was rather mutton. But suppose it was beef, what's the problem? There is no law against beef consumption in Uttar Pradesh, newspaper reports say. You can read an article on beef consumption by the Hindus in the past here; another article on the controversy on beef consumption can be read here, written by a fine political thinker in India.
In this post I want to respond to one the of the arguments coming from RSS-BJP supporters which goes like this: If pork was not allowed in Saudi Arabia, why should beef be allowed in India? Well, to put it simply: India is not another version of Saudi Arabia; that's why even if pork is banned in Saudi Arabi, beef cannot be banned in India.
Saudi Arabia's history is different from India's history. Modern India that came to be established in 1947, after getting independence from the British empire, is made up of different religious communities. When such people were invited to be part of India and the idea of India was framed, the idea of a Hindu state was rejected. The people chose not to create another version of Pakistan. Pakistan went on to become a Muslim state; India chose to be a secular state, having no state religion. My ancestors were never ever Hindu and so were the ancestors of the Mizos or the Khasis (of Meghalaya) or most Arunachalis. So how can India be a Hindu state?
India cannot be a theocratic state. just as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are.
No comments:
Post a Comment