![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Tuesday, May 27, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Opinion |
![]() |
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Opinion
-
Letters to the Editor
Mr. Tarunabh Khaitan (Vegetarianism, tolerance and discrimination, May 26) has taken an unreasonable position while faulting the Supreme court judgment in the HinsaVirodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat case. It is not as though the Gujarat government’s order, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, imposed a permanent ban on the sale of meat. The ban was only for nine days and need not be considered an unwarranted or unreasonable curtailment of the rights of any community. The court has taken a pragmatic view in the matter to which no community can take objection. There can be no comparison of the rationale behind the temporary ban with the tendencies underlying the incidents involving M.F. Husain, Taslima Nazreen, etc. While fundamental rights are not concerned with numbers or sentiments, a certain degree of consideration and respect for genuine beliefs of a particular community should not be considered an assault on the secular fabric of the state or serious infringement of any community’s fundamental rights While the practice of certain private housing societies refusing to sell flats to Muslim families cannot be justified, there can be no objection if a group of vegetarians, which may include Muslims, form a housing society with a condition that non-vegetarian food will not be allowed to be cooked in the flats. S. Gurumurthy, Richfield, MN, U.S. The article is thought-provoking. Sure, vegetarians need to be tolerant of non-vegetarians and vice versa, and the liberals need to be tolerant of the conservatives, etc, for people to live together peacefully. In the event of a dispute, there is no alternative but to approach a court of law. Questioning a Supreme Court judgment, without reference to the facts and arguments that weighed with them, and generalising that the Supreme Court “routinely” upholds intolerant orders the executive passes is, perhaps, not the best way to advocate tolerance. M.H. Rao, Hyderabad
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|