Please don't bring morality in diet

Food habits are an evergreen topic for many debates and discussions. We all debate which food is healthier and which is not, the advantages and disadvantages of a vegetarian, nonvegetarian, or vegan diet, the health effects of processed food, and things like that. A lot of research is also going on about the effects of various types of diets and food habits on human health. There are many types of dietary habits in the world, but they can be mainly divided mainly into two classes; vegetarian (people who don't eat meat) and non-vegetarian (people who also eat meat). The nomenclature of nonvegetarians is utterly misleading, it implies that nonvegetarians only eat meat, but this is seldomly true, most nonvegetarians eat a vegetarian diet, but they also eat meat that's why they get included in this category. Actually, if we look at human history, as a species we are mostly omnivorous, which means we can eat both plants as well as meat. The ability to eat almost anything is a huge advantage for humans and can be considered one of the major reasons for being the most dominant species on this planet. Herbivorous and carnivorous animals have very specialized teeth, jaws, and digestive systems, it is not that easy for them to switch their diets but we can shift from one to another very easily. But this is not the topic of my post today. My argument is that it is inappropriate to bring morality while discussing various food habits. Very often vegetarian people argue on this point, somehow they feel that there is no killing of any living thing while preparing vegetarian food, and the fundamental basis of nonvegetarian food is violence, so, they have the moral upper hand as far as diet is concerned. Many of them argue that because of moral reasons, it is not appropriate to eat meat. If anyone argues about diet based on health benefits, then it is a reasonable argument, but I have a problem when people bring morality in judging the food habits of others. Eating meat is a widely accepted food habit all over the world, this has been a part of human culture for thousands of years, and judging it based on a moral compass is wrong. The truth is that every living thing survives at the cost of other living things, life feeds on life, and there are no exceptions to this rule so far.

I have observed that most nonvegetarian people try as much as possible to take care of the convenience of vegetarian people, they make sure that there are some vegetarian options available in case someone doesn't eat meat. But rarely favor is returned from vegetarians to nonveg people. The main reason is that most veg people make the diet a part of their belief system, not a personal choice, most of them think it is not moral to serve or eat nonveg food, so, there is a sort of contempt and rejection towards nonveg food from their side. Also, most nonveg people are fine with this discrimination and hardly they complain. Anyone can check this themselves if they want, any nonveg person easily eats a veg diet if there is no nonveg option available, but it will be tough to find an example the other way around. Anyway, it is not good to force anyone to eat any type of food if they don't want to, but somehow this sentence is interpreted as it is not proper to force anyone to eat meat but it is perfectly fine to force someone to eat vegetables. One can hear about several meat bans, but has anyone ever heard about some vegetable bans? Isn't it an example of a double standard or do we really think that meat-eating is such an evil habit that meat-eating people deserve to be discriminated against? If it is an evil habit, then why there are so many meat eaters on our planet, and why it is not illegal? I understand the appeal and protest of animal lovers against animal killings. They have the right to do so. In the same manure, I know many people who love plants, I wonder what will be the reaction of all of us who eat plants if plant lovers object to plant killings for food?

I am personally 99% vegetarian, I eat meat rarely and mostly outside my home. My diet is strictly my personal choice, several factors like geographical location, availability of food, my likes, dislikes, and health concerns dictate what type of food I eat. I don't judge anyone based on what type of food they eat, I don't force my food habits on anyone, and don't like anyone to force theirs on me. I respect other's food choices and expect the same in return, if they are not willing to respect my choices, I feel no obligation to respect their choices. It is a matter of mutual respect, rather respect has to be mutual in every case, one way respect or love never works. Many of these animals and plants are produced because there is a huge demand for them in the market, if there is no demand all these plant and animal farms will be closed, either way, their survival is in danger no matter if people eat them or not. I don't think many people who argue against veg or nonveg diets understand this reality. What I eat or wear is my personal choice and as I am free to choose these things others are also free. I have no right to impose my choices on others and others also should not do this. This is a very simple rule to follow, let's eat and allow others to eat.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Holy cow - myth or reality?

I get regular posts on my Facebook wall from some of my Indian FB friends about their anger against cow slaughter. How we need to save cows from getting slaughtered, how it is evil to eat cow meat, and so on. Basically, all these posts say that it's our (all Hindus) duty to save the cow because she is a sacred animal in the Hindu religion. Eating or selling cow meat (beef) is a big no-no in most parts of India. A cow is considered a sacred/holy animal by most Hindus and killing her is considered a big sin. Above that selling her meat is a greater sin and then eating that meat is an unforgivable sin. But this should not give anyone an impression that Indians are vegetarians or they don't eat any meat or they are very protective about all animals. Believe me, many foreigners do get the impression that if you are from India you must be a vegetarian. I still wonder how and why they get this impression. So the the question to ask here is if many people in India are not against eating animal flesh then why they are so against cow meat? What is so special about this animal?

If any country, religion, or community is against animal slaughter or using any animal products (as vegans are) then one can understand their opposition to eating animal flesh, but here opposition is not about eating animal flesh but flesh of only a particular animal, a cow in case of Hindus and Pig in case of Muslims. The question is what is the logic or rationale behind it? I understand that Muslims or some Christians don't eat pork just because it's mentioned in their holy books (Qu'ran and Bible) not to eat that meat. So it's a very simple thing, there is absolutely no logic behind this, just follow the instructions, don't ask why, just follow the book, very simple. Even if this instruction was given in a book written several hundreds of years ago, just follow it without questioning. So, people are not against eating pork because they are against animal killing or care about these animals but just because some book (and remember this is not any medical or diet book) says not to eat it without giving any logical reasons. Now, what is the reason for Hindus not to eat beef? Well, for Hindus there is no single book that can be called a Hindu religious text. There are many books and some of them even clearly indicate that cow sacrifice was a very common practice in those days when these texts were written. So the origin of this belief (sacred cow) is not some particular book but there must be some other factors also.

So for me, the question was how the cow became holy or sacred in India or Hinduism? I think the main reason why cows attained this holy status was because of the agriculture-based economy. The cow is a very useful animal in the agriculture-based economy as it can provide milk, cow dunk (used in dried form as fuel, insect repellent), and ox/bullocks were used for farming. A cow was a very important animal in the economic and social life of any family in an agriculture-based economy. It was a very useful animal and if people killed it just to eat her meat then it would have reduced their number and in turn, harmed the economy. It was economically more productive to use them as agriculture and dairy animals rather than killing them for their flesh. But then the problem was, how to convince people to stop their killing for meat? How to solve this problem? A difficult option was to explain to people the importance of cows for the welfare of their families and tell them to follow a sustainable lifestyle where they can strike a balance between the number of cows so that their ratio is not adversely affected. A lot of economics and complicated stuff that common people don't want to listen to. We all know from experience that this strategy is very difficult to implement, we see many species becoming endangered (plants as well as animals) and some even getting extinct because of aggressive hunting or killing by humans for so many reasons (flesh, skin, or for any other body parts). The easier option was to declare the thing holy or sacred, this automatically protects that object (animal, land, tree, or anything). This practice is still used in India, any land or tree or anything one wants to protect or occupy, built some temple or mosque or any religious structure there, and one can see that people of that religion are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect that object. But if one tries convincing people about the necessity of having a sustainable lifestyle hardly anyone pays any attention. It sounds ridiculous but it's the reality. I am sure this will change in the future but right now this is the case in most parts of the country.

People who are against cow slaughter or think she is a sacred animal equate cows with their mothers. The reason they give is we drink her milk like we drink our mother's milk as an infant. Note that they don't give the same status to other animals or nuts from where we get milk for human consumption, for example, buffalo, goat, soybean, or almonds. Why preferential treatment only to cows but not to other animals or plants? Shameless use of double standards. I know that they may not like my questions but I am curious to know if they have any logical explanation.

Some of these people are willing to massacre people who kill cows and all this in the name of saving the holy cow. Does this make any sense? What's the use of killing poor people who are trying to earn their living by doing their job to support their families. I used to feel really gross when I used to see people drink cow urine. I still can't understand the logic behind it. I know the uses of cow dunk but I never saw people eating it, but drinking the urine of some animal was a totally illogical and foolish act, but people do it. The book "The Myth of Holy Cow" written by D. N. Jha, where he discussed various aspects related to this issue is already banned in India (as expected, no surprise) and even the author was threatened, and anyone can guess the reason. People just don't want to read about the other side of the story, it hurts their religious sentiments? The opposition to cow slaughter is not at all related to Hinduism, this religion is much more than that but somehow few people are using this issue for their personal and political benefit. If people are so against animal killing then they should request the government to ban all meat-based products and make a law to enforce this action, but to create a drama using cow slaughter as a religious issue is just pathetic.

People of that time found this easy solution (declaring the cow a sacred or holy object) to protect cows. They also did with some trees (in India especially in villages still some species of trees are not cut just because people believe that they are sacred and cutting them will bring bad luck to them or their village). It was the need of that time and I think this trick worked very well and served its purpose. The question now is, do we still need this same trick to maintain the number of cows in India? After so much progress in animal husbandry and science do we have any logical reason to stop people from eating beef or pork? I am not advocating a non-vegetarian diet (especially eating beef) or slaughtering of animals for food here. This post is not in support of any particular form of diet. I am just asking a question, why a meat of only cows forbidden for people who want to eat it? People who don't want to eat that meat should not eat it, no one is forcing them but they should allow others to eat, the same way they allow others to eat chicken, duck, or deer. We should learn to respect each other's dietary choices.

People who oppose cow slaughter for whatever reasons put the argument that then people will also demand human meat, will that be okay? This question doesn't have any logic, people say this just for the sake of argument. Cannibalism was never part of our history or culture, but eating animal meat was and still is, it is stupid to argue that eating human meat could be a dietary choice. People don't have any right to dictate what others should eat, diet is a personal choice like clothing. There is nothing wrong in encouraging vegetarian or non-veg diets by showing their merits and demerits but to ridicule one form of diet for some illogical reasons doesn't make sense. Whatever food we eat, it should be healthy food, it is hypocritical to kill and eat some farm animals of our own choice (like chicken  goat, sheep, deer, pig, duck, etc.) and force others not to eat animals of their choice (pork or beef).

I also don't accept the logic of vegetarian people that their diet doesn't involve the killing of living things. A vegetarian diet just doesn't include animal flesh and doesn't involve animal killing, but all plants are living things and people do kill them to consume them. These two categories are named according to their origin or source from where food originates and there is nothing pro or anti-life in both of them. There is simple rule in nature, every living thing survives at the cost of another living thing. I hope that people around the world realize and acknowledge this fact and learn to respect each other's dietary choices. We need to adopt a sustainable lifestyle that is good for the health of our body, and our planet.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

References:
1. The Myth of Holy Cow- D. N. Jha (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Holy-Cow-D-Jha/dp/1859844243)
2. http://www.ted.com/talks/christien_meindertsma_on_pig_05049.html 
3. http://themuslimvoice.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/why-is-pig-haraam-in-islam/ 
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals
5. http://my.opera.com/liquid%20snake/blog/pork-forbidden-but-why (another example how Dr. Zakir Nayak uses his medical degree to fool people)
6. http://ebooks.iskcondesiretree.info/pdf/Voice_of_Cows/Voice_of_Cows_-_Newsletter_Vol-01_-_Issue-05_-_2010-02.pdf
7. http://books.google.com/books/about/Hindus_Ate_Beef.html?id=PjLxHAAACAAJ

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)