December 25, 2017

பசு மாடுகளை கடத்துபவர்களும், வெட்டுபவர்களும் கொல்லப்படுவார்கள் - பா.ஜ.க.


பசு மாடுகளை கடத்துபவர்களும், வெட்டுபவர்களும் கொல்லப்படுவார்கள் என ராஜஸ்தான் மாநில பா.ஜ.க. எம்.எல்.ஏ. தெரிவித்துள்ள கருத்து பரபரப்பை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது.

ராஜஸ்தான் மாநிலத்தின் ஆல்வார் மாவட்டத்தில் கடந்த சனிக்கிழமை ஒரு வாகனத்தில் பசு மாடுகளை கடத்திவந்த கும்பலை போலீசார் சுற்றிவளைத்து கைது செய்ய முயன்றனர். துப்பாக்கியால் சுட்டபடி அந்த வாகனத்தில் வந்தவர்கள் தப்பியோட முயன்ற நிலையில் அப்பகுதி பொதுமக்களில் சிலர் அவர்களை பிடித்து சரமாரியாக தாக்கி காயப்படுத்தினர்.

இந்த சம்பவம் தொடர்பாக இன்று செய்தியாளர்களிடம் கருத்து தெரிவித்த ராம்கர் தொகுதி பா.ஜ.க. எம்.எல்.ஏ. கியான் தேவ் அஹுஜா, பசு கடத்தல்காரர்களுக்கு பொதுமக்கள் தாக்கியதில் அவர்களுக்கு காயம் ஏற்படவில்லை. அவர்கள் வந்த வாகனம் கவிழ்ந்து விபத்துக்குள்ளானதில் தான் காயம் ஏற்பட்டது என்று குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.

போலீசாரின் சோதமையும் மீறி சமீப நாட்களாக சுமார் 100 பசு கடத்தல் சம்பவங்கள் இப்பகுதியில் நடைபெற்றுள்ளதாக தெரிவித்த அவர், போலீசாரை நோக்கி துப்பாக்கிகளால் சுட்டு பசு கடத்தல்காரர்கள் தப்பிச் செல்ல முயல்வதால் அவர்கள் மீது பொதுமக்கள் ஆத்திரத்தில் உள்ளதாகவும் கூறினார்.

மேலும், பசு மாடுகளை கடத்தினாலும், வெட்டினாலும் நீங்கள் கொல்லப்படுவீர்கள் எனவும் அவர் எச்சரிக்கை விடுத்துள்ளார். 

சர்ச்சைக்குரிய பரபரப்பு கருத்துகளை அவ்வப்போது தெரிவிக்கும் கியான் தேவ் அஹுஜா, பிரசித்தி பெற்ற டெல்லி ஜவஹர்லால் நேரு பல்கலைக்கழகம் விபச்சாரம் மற்றும் போதைப்பொருள் கூடாரமாக மாறி விட்டது, அங்கு நாள்தோறும் 2 ஆயிரம் காலி மது பாட்டில்களும், சுமார் 3 ஆயிரம் பயன்படுத்தப்படுத்த ஆணுறைகளும் சிதறி கிடக்கின்றன என்று முன்னர் தெரிவித்திருந்தார் என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

இந்நிலையில், ராஜஸ்தான் மாநில ஆளும்கட்சி எம்.எல்.ஏ.வாக பொறுப்பு வகிக்கும் இவர் பசு மாடுகளை கடத்துபவர்களும், வெட்டுபவர்களும் கொல்லப்படுவார்கள் என தெரிவித்துள்ள கருத்து பரபரப்பை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது.

14 கருத்துரைகள்:

இந்த சைத்தானை அல்லாஹ் தண்டிக்க வேண்டும் என் அல்லாஹ்விடம் நாம் பிரார்த்தனை செய்வோம்.

இதுல பரபரப்பாவதற்கு என்ன இருக்கு. இவனப்பாத்தாலேயே சரியான பரம்பர அலுகோசு மாதிரில்ல தெரியுது.

You (Anu) Respect the one who is ready kill Human But
You Hate one who will be killed by this Animal.

Hai Anu why not hate such people in this link http://www.jaffnamuslim.com/2017/12/16000.html

Anuக்கு அவர் ஒரு முறையில் அப்பாவாகுதாக்கம்.

I don't like any body dies, this is a statement can stop some lives of Komatha, if muslims can't follow this, they can leave the country freely and settle in Palistan.
They want to live in India and even never want to respect their culture. This is islam, they learn from Quran.
If you ppl can't minkle with the society wherever, there will be two species after some years they are human beings and muslims

Yes, i feel it is worthless to comment on that below link, i firmly believe some creatures are not humans such as the priest.

ஆதி ஹிந்துக்கள் மூன்று நேரமும் மாட்டிறைச்சி விரும்பி உண்ணுபவர்களாகவே இருந்துள்ளனர்.
Cows in ancient Indian history

Scholars have known for centuries that the ancient Indians ate beef. After the fourth century B.C., when the practice of vegetarianism spread throughout India among Buddhists, Jains and Hindus, many Hindus continued to eat beef.

In the time of the oldest Hindu sacred text, the Rig Veda (c. 1500 B.C.), cow meat was consumed. Like most cattle-breeding cultures, the Vedic Indians generally ate the castrated steers, but they would eat the female of the species during rituals or when welcoming a guest or a person of high status.

Ancient ritual texts known as Brahmanas (c. 900 B.C.) and other texts that taught religious duty (dharma), from the third century B.C., say that a bull or cow should be killed to be eaten when a guest arrives.

According to these texts, “the cow is food.” Even when one passage in the “Shatapatha Brahmana” (3.1.2.21) forbids the eating of either cow or bull, a revered ancient Hindu sage named Yajnavalkya immediately contradicts it, saying that, nevertheless, he eats the meat of both cow and bull, “as long as it’s tender.”
It was the Sanskrit epic, the Mahabharata (composed between 300 B.C. and A.D. 300) that explained the transition to the non eating of cows in a famous myth:

“Once, when there was a great famine, King Prithu took up his bow and arrow and pursued the Earth to force her to yield nourishment for his people. The Earth assumed the form of a cow and begged him to spare her life; she then allowed him to milk her for all that the people needed.”

This myth imagines a transition from hunting wild cattle to preserving their lives, domesticating them, and breeding them for milk, a transition to agriculture and pastoral life. It visualizes the cow as the paradigmatic animal that yields food without being killed.
Beef-eating and caste

Some dharma texts composed in this same period insist that cows should not be eaten. Some Hindus who did eat meat made a special exception and did not eat the meat of cow. Such people may have regarded beef-eating in the light of what the historian Romila Thapar describes as a “matter of status” – the higher the caste, the greater the food restrictions. Various religious sanctions were used to impose prohibition on beef eating, but, as Thapar demonstrates, “only among the upper castes.”

As I see it, the arguments against eating cows are a combination of a symbolic argument about female purity and docility (symbolized by the cow who generously gives her milk to her calf), a religious argument about Brahmin sanctity (as Brahmins came increasingly to be identified with cows and to be paid by donations of cows) and a way for castes to rise in social ranking.

Sociologist M. N. Srinivas pointed out that the lower castes gave up beef when they wanted to move up the social ladder through the process known as “Sanskritization.”

Beef eating: strangulating history

While one must respect the sentiments of those who worship cow and regard her as their mother, to take offence to the objective study of history just because the facts don't suit their political calculations is yet another sign of a society where liberal space is being strangulated by the practitioners of communal politics. [text Tag=blue-tint][/Text]PROF. D. N. JHA, a historian from Delhi University, had been experiencing the nightmares of `threats to life' from anonymous callers who were trying to prevail upon him not to go ahead with the publication of his well researched work, Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions.

As per the reports it is a work of serious scholarship based on authentic sources in tune with methods of scientific research in history. The book demonstrates that contrary to the popular belief even today a large number of Indians, the indigenous people in particular and many other communities in general, consume beef unmindful of the dictates of the Hindutva forces.

It is too well known to recount that these Hindutva forces confer the status of mother to the cow. Currently 72 communities in Kerala - not all of them untouchables - prefer beef to the expensive mutton and the Hindutva forces are trying to prevail upon them to stop the same.

Not tenable

To begin with the historian breaks the myth that Muslim rulers introduced beef eating in India. Much before the advent of Islam in India beef had been associated with Indian dietary practices. Also it is not at all tenable to hold that dietary habits are a mark of community identity.

A survey of ancient Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, shows that amongst the nomadic, pastoral Aryans who settled here, animal sacrifice was a dominant feature till the emergence of settled agriculture. Cattle were the major property during this phase and they offered the same to propitiate the gods. Wealth was equated with the ownership of the cattle.

Many gods such as Indra and Agni are described as having special preferences for different types of flesh - Indra had weakness for bull's meat and Agni for bull's and cow's. It is recorded that the Maruts and the Asvins were also offered cows. In the Vedas there is a mention of around 250 animals out of which at least 50 were supposed to be fit for sacrifice and consumption. In the Mahabharata there is a mention of a king named Rantideva who achieved great fame by distributing foodgrains and beef to Brahmins. Taittiriya Brahman categorically tells us: `Verily the cow is food' (atho annam via gauh) and Yajnavalkya's insistence on eating the tender (amsala) flesh of the cow is well known. Even later Brahminical texts provide the evidence for eating beef. Even Manusmriti did not prohibit the consumption of beef.

As a medicine

In therapeutic section of Charak Samhita (pages 86-87) the flesh of cow is prescribed as a medicine for various diseases. It is also prescribed for making soup. It is emphatically advised as a cure for irregular fever, consumption, and emaciation. The fat of the cow is recommended for debility and rheumatism.

With the rise of agricultural economy and the massive transformation occurring in society, changes were to be brought in in the practice of animal sacrifice also. At that time there were ritualistic practices like animal sacrifices, with which Brahmins were identified. Buddha attacked these practices. There were sacrifices, which involved 500 oxen, 500 male calves, 500 female calves and 500 sheep to be tied to the sacrificial pole for slaughter. Buddha pointed out that aswamedha, purusmedha, vajapeya sacrifices did not produce good results. According to a story in Digha Nikaya, when Buddha was touring Magadha, a Brahmin called Kutadanta was preparing for a sacrifice with 700 bulls, 700 goats and 700 rams. Buddha intervened and stopped him. His rejection of animal sacrifice and emphasis on non-injury to animals assumed a new significance in the context of new agriculture.

The threat from Buddhism

The emphasis on non-violence by Buddha was not blind or rigid. He did taste beef and it is well known that he died due to eating pork. Emperor Ashok after converting to Buddhism did not turn to vegetarianism. He only restricted the number of animals to be killed for the royal kitchen.

So where do matters change and how did the cow become a symbol of faith and reverence to the extent of assuming the status of `motherhood'? Over a period of time mainly after the emergence of Buddhism or rather as an accompaniment of the Brahminical attack on Buddhism, the practices started being looked on with different emphasis. The threat posed by Buddhism to the Brahminical value system was too severe. In response to low castes slipping away from the grip of Brahminism, the battle was taken up at all the levels. At philosophical level Sankara reasserted the supremacy of Brahminical values, at political level King Pushyamitra Shung ensured the physical attack on Buddhist monks, at the level of symbols King Shashank got the Bodhi tree (where Gautama the Buddha got Enlightenment) destroyed.

One of the appeals to the spread of Buddhism was the protection of cattle wealth, which was needed for the agricultural economy. In a way while Brahminism `succeeded' in banishing Buddhism from India, it had also to transform itself from the `animal sacrifice' state to the one which could be in tune with the times. It is here that this ideology took up the cow as a symbol of their ideological march. But unlike Buddha whose pronouncements were based on reason, the counteraction of Brahminical ideology took the form of a blind faith based on assertion. So while Buddha's non-violence was for the preservation of animal wealth for the social and compassionate reasons the counter was based purely on symbolism. So while the followers of Brahminical ideology accuse Buddha of `weakening' India due to his doctrine of non-violence, he was not a cow worshipper or vegetarian in the current Brahminical sense.

Despite the gradual rigidification of Brahminical `cow as mother' stance, large sections of low castes continued the practice of beef eating. The followers of Buddhism continued to eat flesh including beef. Since Brahminism is the dominant religious tradition, Babur, the first Mughal emperor, in his will to his son Humayun, in deference to these notions, advised him to respect the cow and avoid cow slaughter. With the construction of Hindutva ideology and politics, in response to the rising Indian national movement, the demand for ban on cow slaughter also came up. In post-Independence India RSS repeatedly raised this issue to build up a mass campaign but without any response to its call till the 1980s.

While one must respect the sentiments of those who worship cow and regard her as their mother, to take offence to the objective study of history just because the facts don't suit their political calculations is yet another sign of a society where liberal space is being strangulated by the practitioners of communal politics. We have seen enough such threats and offences in recent past - be it the opposition to films or the destruction of paintings, or the dictates of the communalists to the young not to celebrate Valentine's Day, etc., - and hope the democratic spirit of our Constitution holds the forte and any threat to the democratic freedom is opposed tooth and nail.

Prof. RAM PUNIYANI

A member of EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity), Mumbai

Ah bro how it is going to stop killing of cows as India is the biggest exporter of the cows for flesh and for skins for foreign countries. If u are respecting that much they shouldn't export as well so others also stop eating cow in India. If you are not slaughtering cows which are not giving milk then milk industry will get big lost. So So farmers will be affected much.

Post a Comment