Meat Ban meet Meat ‘Ben’

So India Finally declared war against rest of the world!

Well, some Indian states did.

How else would you describe these state’s diktat of what is acceptable food and what’s not? The food item in question being one of the most favoured among world population.

It was obviously the war cry, to declare this food ill-favoured by Gods!

And for the Supreme Court of India to uphold the dictate! That makes it a thought out decision, on India’s part.

That is showing some guts, calls for commendation, I guess.

It must have been necessary to announce we were still our own bosses, after Government failed to show spine in an attempt to ‘maintain International relationship’.

The foreign delegate was left alone, in order to not offend the country he belonged to and to avoid any repercussions on our representatives in the said friendly country.

Of course, it was convenient that the women concerned were not of Indian origin. It was okay, for those women to be ravaged as piece of ‘meat’, by some 25 odd men.

Every community’s; organisation’s; religion’s silence was justified because the issue was beyond our realms. It involved International matters. Something, we, the lesser beings, the God fearing people could not understand.

I am yet to hear of a single man Indian or foreigner being arrested in that case. And what leaves me befuddled is the lack of sympathy to the survivors. Aren’t Candle marches norms in these incidents? There was not a stray spark even. Or were those reserved for a certain ‘fearless’.

Those women were mother to someone, someone’s child.

They have been used as meat by some animals and that has failed to shock anyone. May be certain Gods will not be outraged as the ‘meat’ wasn’t killed. So it’s ‘okay’ to turn a blind eye and not approach the Supreme Court.

Maintain relations with strong, not so much with the weaker nations and people, those are the rules of happy Governance.

Then how did we dare decide to offend the strongest of countries by discriminating against their popular food? Was that sensible strategy? Or is it just to spite a not so favourite neighbour?

I wouldn’t appreciate my neighbour dictating what I eat, wear or whether my proximity makes their living uncomfortable in any way. I am sure, no one else would.

So why can this be not applied when you refer to the bigger picture?

It is simple table manner to not eye, what the next person is eating, or not eating.

Then why is this lack of etiquette being supported?

Instead of stopping people from eating what they wished, couldn’t they have fed the unfortunate, in the name of God?

Wouldn’t that have given them a better place in God’s good books?

A bovine dying is not acceptable, but hundreds of human dying because of hunger, malnutrition, food poisoning is acceptable?

Who is trying to fool whom?

And why the Gods of selected states only had to be pleased? Only those states, which are under the strong hold of an influential, communal organisation.

P.S.: This discussion is not on God, or communities but on the silence of public on matters that violate the most basic of rights.

Please leave your notions here:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s