What's new

Haryana to offer special licence for foreigners to consume beef

Correct if i wrong but sn't it hypocritical? Whats the purpose of ban then? Its like only Muslims are prohibited that too only Indian Muslims, since Hindus don't eat beef in Haryana anyways. Ban for all, or no ban at all, otherwise doesn't make any sense.
Well its not only beef but also liquor. 5 star hotels can serve liquor 24/7 whereas a normal shop selling liquor should shut down by 11.00. This rule was obviously relaxed for foreigners (aka tourism).

There was no problem with christians consuming beef as it was hardly noticeable. states in north east or kerala always had higher beef consumption compared to rest of the country. problem is certainly not with beef, problem is the way they tend to portray it. It is construed as a battle between radicals on either side of the divide as such no one wants to be seen weak by giving it away. Certainly not all muslims eat beef , but it is just another reason which can be used to fight.
 
.
and which "democratic constitution" prohibits food?
Also No democratical constitution will
permit personal laws but single civilian code for all

In realtity Constitution also depends on cultural and demographic realtities depends on country to country

So one cannot compare western world idea of democracy or civilian liberty's to Asian one.

Here Social values are different and that will impact in its criminal and social laws.
 
.
You can eat Buffalo meat in a 5 star hotel & some states in India like Kerala ,WB & north east & other's

I guess i was not clear in my post, i am not asking about eating. I wanted to know about sacredness of animal as per Hinduism, i.e. Is it only cow which is sacred or bull as well?
 
.
Discrimination against own kin. Either ban it completely or if given a license then why only for foreigners? Are they going to stamp it on passport ?
If we have to work out some facility for them [foreigners] to be able to [consume beef]… we will do it. It could be a special licence… [as] whatever is licensed, no one can oppose [under] the law,” Mr. Khattar said. “Everyone has a personal lifestyle for eating and drinking, especially those who come from abroad … we don’t have any opposition to that. In fact, we are not opposing this for anyone,” Mr. Khattar said.
Look at this bold line, He is putting foot in his mouth. If everyone has a right to enjoy his personal lifestyle then why not muslims?

Anyways IMO, the ban should be overall, there should be not exemption if you are putting ban, else remove the ban in totality.
 
. .
and which "democratic constitution" prohibits food?

Don't like to respect other faiths, don't expect it back either then.

If you expect everyone from USA to Canada to Europe to India to Russia to Israel to China and all to accept your sentiments, then do the same to others as well.
 
.
Don't like to respect other faiths, don't expect it back either then.

If you expect everyone from USA to Canada to Europe to India to Russia to Israel to China and all to accept your sentiments, then do the same to others as well.
Do what? Lol
 
. .
cultural and demographic realities are different for different religions/cultures and a "good" democratic constitution ensures freedom and respect for all of them, not bulldoze minority rights in favour of majority Hindus.

Also No democratical constitution will
permit personal laws but single civilian code for all

In realtity Constitution also depends on cultural and demographic realtities depends on country to country

So one cannot compare western world idea of democracy or civilian liberty's to Asian one.

Here Social values are different and that will impact in its criminal and social laws.
 
. .
cultural and demographic realities are different for different religions/cultures and a "good" democratic constitution ensures freedom and respect for all of them, not bulldoze minority rights in favour of majority Hindus.
Yes constitutional rights also briefs equality to all and universal coverage civilian Code for every citizens

If constitution gives exception to minorities in terms of their personal laws understanding there faith one should not question if Constitution give same exception to majority on bases of their beleifs after all the Essene of constitution is based on equal rights to all.

If majority has to respect religous compulsion of minorities so will be minorities has to respect same in case of majoritarian beleifs
That's how equality works
 
.
Correct if i wrong but sn't it hypocritical? Whats the purpose of ban then? Its like only Muslims are prohibited that too only Indian Muslims, since Hindus don't eat beef in Haryana anyways. Ban for all, or no ban at all, otherwise doesn't make any sense.

Ghar Wapsi through back door :yahoo:
 
.
I remember when we had to get licences to own a radio, i guess this is just another variation of the licence raj.:)
That might be during the Indira Gandhi Raj (Congress rule) Where dissemination of information was restricted like in 1970's emergency.

and which "democratic constitution" prohibits food?
Ours.Because those are "our country and our rules".Who are Outsiders to question them?

Discrimination against own kin. Either ban it completely or if given a license then why only for foreigners? Are they going to stamp it on passport ?

Look at this bold line, He is putting foot in his mouth. If everyone has a right to enjoy his personal lifestyle then why not muslims?

Anyways IMO, the ban should be overall, there should be not exemption if you are putting ban, else remove the ban in totality.
Foreigners dont indulge in halaal in open street just to spite hindus, nor do 5 star hotels sacrifice cows for beef.
 
.
Foreigners dont indulge in halaal in open street just to spite hindus, nor do 5 star hotels sacrifice cows for beef.
It does not matter hte medium. Cows are holy animal in Hindu religion so eating them creates issues does not matter how the meat is sourced or produced.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom