Is Beef Ban Rational?

In recent times BJP has made attempts to ban beef  consumption in different states. There has been arguments that say that such attempts, may be half-hearted ones, have been there in the past, and this present attempt is just about reviving the old attempts. Fair enough! But the question is whether it's worth reviving old attempts. Is beef consumption something that deserves to be banned today, whether it's driven by BJP or by anyone else? 

One of the arguments is that cows give milk and therefore they are like our mother. After all it's the mother's milk that nursed us throughout our childhood days. And given that cow's milk nursed us, it deserves to be given respect. Well, it's difficult true that cow gives us milk! But I find this reason for seeking ban on consumption of beef not convincing. 

Cows give milk to a child specially once the child gives up mother's milk. But in certain other places, it's the buffalo that gives milk. Still in other places, it's the goat or the yak that gives milk. Aren't they then all like our mother? Should we seek ban on consumption of  all these animals for meat? Why give special treatment to the cows?

Yet there is also another point worth noting. To compare cow to a mother, it seems to me, is to disrespect mother. Mother is not just about giving milk; her role goes much more than providing milk. Apart from providing milk, cow does virtually nothing to our lives. But mother relates with the child. She raises her child; protects her child from harm; teaches her various aspects of living -- about moral life, about social relationship, education, imagination and so on.  Mother's role in the life of a child is tremendous and nothing can take her place. To compare her immense contribution to a child's life with cow's contribution is to bring her role down to the level of a cow. And I find this disrespectful to a mother. And so I don't think it's fair to compare cow to a mother. 

On a different note, the question is how much of liberty should the state give to the citizen. Unless it is about harming the other person, should not the state allow people to exercise freedom of choice of food? Well, one might say that beef consumption harms one's sentiment. But if harming others would include harming the sentiment, then the definition of 'harming others' is too stretched. Anything can just then be curbed saying that one's action harm the sentiment of another person. Therefore, I would argue that in this case, the case should be in favour of those who argue for liberty of choice of food; not in favour of those seeking ban for harming one's sentiment. 

Taken thus, I would say that beef ban is not to be pursued in a secular democratic society.