The Hindu : Opinion / Letters to the Editor : Vegetarianism

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 29, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Opinion

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

Vegetarianism

Tarunabh Khaitan’s excellent article (“Vegetarianism, tolerance & discrimination,” May 26) has unfortunately elicited response from a writer who sees “there can be no objection” if a group of vegetarians forms a housing society “with a condition” that cooking non-vegetarian food in flats will not be allowed. How can a housing society, which has no legal binding, impose a “condition” on others in the first place?

Tolerance should begin at home. Having tolerance “in principle” in the statute book yet practising quite the opposite in your housing society amounts to ridiculing the Constitution.

Subahar. S

Takasago, Japan

* * *

There is a human factor which the honourable court has missed. Most of the people working in the unorganised meat sector are poor who make a living on a daily basis. They are also illiterate and don’t know how to defend their rights. Banning meat for nine days means they will not be paid wages for nine days. Who is responsible for their salary and welfare? The court should have at least directed the State government to compensate them for the loss.

A.B. Quadri,

Hyderabad

* * *

This refers to the two letters (May 27) in response to Mr. Khaitan’s article. One of them says that the ban was for only nine days and need not be considered an unreasonable curtailment of the rights of any community. Evidently, the letter writer considers that a ‘longer ban’ would be a curtailment. Our Constitution does not guarantee absolute rights to some and for others rights that can be negotiated. A government banning the sale of meat to take care of the sentiments of a few is unreasonable in curtailing the right of others to eat what they prefer. It does not matter whether it is for nine minutes or nine days.

The other letter says that the author is questioning the judgment without reference to the facts and arguments. Is government banning the sale of meat to take care of the sentiments of a few not a fact? Or is the court upholding this ban not a fact?

While it is absolutely all right for a group of people to form a housing society and live the way they choose to do within their premises, the government cannot impose these regulations, even temporarily, on the general public at large. Mr. Khaitan has presented the details of the judgment carefully and has pointed out the contradictions within it too. Unless such views are expressed, it would be assumed that there is no fundamental violation in such orders by the government and the court.

E. Arunan,

Bangalore

* * *

The author’s concern over the ruling is understandable. However, a response it elicited is untenable. Any community is free to practise its beliefs and customs without disrupting the lifestyles of others. It is one thing to expect others to respect one’s beliefs, but quite another to impose those beliefs on them. Expecting non-Jains to abstain from consuming meat during the nine days is precisely the latter. The duration of the ban on sale of meat is irrelevant. The verdict is an antithesis to the ‘Live and let live’ policy that we must strive to follow, as a secular nation.

M.S. Manasa,

Chennai

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion