What's new

Khalistanis depict assassination of Indira Gandhi in Canada

Who knows what the exact history of cow protection is. If we try hard enough we can find some science behind mythology and something mythical behind every axiom of science.

Most people just inherit most of their beliefs from their parents. And most people are egotist to admit it to themselves.

Most people believe their beliefs are better grounded than any competing beliefs.

For example there is a serious fight going on between the pigs and the cows. The pigs claim they invented the ‘don’t eat me because your God said so’ is their original idea but the cows say they came up with that technique long before the pigs.

Any reasonable pig knows the difference - they claimed the ‘don’t kill eat’ clause in the grounds of being dirty whereas the cows’ reasoning was the opposite, that of being very pure. It is a lot like the zillion Lithium Ion energy research papers filed by Beijing uni.
 
.
I am not an expert on religion, but here is my understanding -

Protection of cow is a cultural practice that has taken on a religious dimension. Nothing unusual in that. In societies where religions originate, culture and religion has always been mixed. I don't think that in Hindu religion any one cow was revered which became the symbol for all cows. Interestingly there is a holy bull - Nandi, but there is no restriction on slaughter of bulls. This may indicate that there are multiple influences on religion. Some coming from mythology, some from practices - such as not killing cows because they will produce milk and offsprings. You can have one bull impregnating multiple cows, so bulls weren't that prized. Also note that the traditional cow owning communities are also politically powerful in India - Yadavs, Jats, Gujjars, Reddys, Gowdas etc and have been over centuries. If they frowned upon cow slaughter, rest of the population would follow suit. An Indian would know that cases of cow vigilantism also happen in areas where these groups are dominant.

Hinduism was competing with Buddhism and Jainism, both of which frowned upon meat eating. The priestly class in both Jainism and Buddhism had turned vegetarian and propagated the idea that humans did not need to eat meat to live healthy, and that other living beings had a right to live too. This idea was catching up then (as it is catching up again now) and the meat eating Hindu clergy found this to be disadvantageous. To keep up, they shunned meat too (and/or probably were genuinely converted to the idea of vegetarianism). Over generations, vegetarians started abhorring meat. This is natural. Once you give up eating meat, you don't want to handle it either, or even look at it. It even becomes dirty for you.

Now combine this with the existing taboo on killing cows. It becomes double sacrilege if you are a vegetarian. I have a good friend from the Gowda community, a well to do and influential man. He is staunchly opposed to cow slaughter. He says his reason is not related to religion, but the fact that the cow provides us so much that it is wrong to kill it. He has a goshala where he takes care of end-of-life cows, but safe to say, it is not enough, and not every cow owner can afford this system. Should I ridicule him for his affection towards his cows? I don't. He has every right to feel what he does. It is not a bad thought. No one is getting hurt or offended by his affection. He is also not forcing others not to sell their cows to butchers.

I understand this is not the case everywhere, and most of the people opposing cow slaughter don't even own cows. But we cannot stop someone who consumes milk from feeling grateful to the cow and not wanting it killed. This is the first step that needs addressing for a non Hindu when they see what they consider an irrational obsession with cow. What is the value of the goat that muslims sacrifice on Eid? Are you not supposed to rear it for some time, develop affection to it and then slaughter it, as a symbol that you have sacrificed something dear to you? In the case of Hindus, we don't want to sacrifice something dear to us. Different perspectives, but entirely believable. The second step is to see it as a religious belief that needs to be respected. Matters of faith cannot be argued upon using logic. Otherwise many holes can be poked into many religious beliefs of any religion.

I eat beef, not to prove a point, but because it is available, legally. It is most likely bull or oxen or buffalo, I don't know. I cannot differentiate either. If it was not available, I wouldn't raise a hue and cry about it. I however do have a beef with (pun intended) Hindus not knowing or bothering what happens to the cows, whose milk they consume all their life in some form or the other. I have written about this multiple times earlier on PDF and other social media platforms, but in short - if you want cow slaughter to stop, the dairy industry needs to be abolished. Now tell that to the Brahmins and Banias who have near monopoly on sweet shops and take pride on their 'shuddh milk products'. I don't drink milk because I can't digest it anymore. There is nothing wrong with my health. We are the only species who continue drinking milk after our initial years. It is not necessary. I am strongly in favour of abolition of this industry.

In a country like India why oppose eating of dead cows ? Unless the dead cow is diseased

Cope pajeets.

If you disrespect my religion then you better be ready for what will come.

We aren’t puss*es like you. We will retaliate. Our religion is worth more than our lives to us.

If you were really in Canada you hope one of your kind does not act on silly impulses

View attachment 933485
Mr. Nathuram Bambaldas
"a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

"So in general, if you want to keep your head on your shoulders don’t dare speak ill about our religion"

I can start with this

bring on the threats
 
.
We can fight back with our own cartoons and books.
Sorry bro, two wrongs don't make a right.

Islam explicitly forbids us to hurt other religions' followers' sentiments.

@ProudThamizhan @Joe Shearer . surprised to see both you gentlemen agreed with the above. I don't agree with the violent response from a lot Muslims to blasphemy but what are you thinking? Will muslims making cartoons of Jesus or Indian deities make things better?
 
. .
@ProudThamizhan @Joe Shearer . surprised to see both you gentlemen agreed with the above. I don't agree with the violent response from a lot Muslims to blasphemy but what are you thinking? Will muslims making cartoons of Jesus or Indian deities make things better?
What was this about? About cartoons showing Hazrat Mohammed? Or about the Satanic Verses?

First, the ban on depicting the figures of humans was an extreme ban; the ban on depicting the Prophet is merely a variation.

I, personally, find it hard to take this seriously, as the depiction of the Prophet has been a practice in Iran for centuries, with no problem. Yes, in India, I would ban this, to ensure that there is no civil strife, even if it is in itself harmless, as it might offend many.

The controversy over the Satanic Verses was a manufactured controversy, and something that has been known as an esoteric factoid for centuries, again, centuries as was the case in the other matter.

Again, with regrets and apologies to Salman Rushdie, and his personal feeling of having been let down at home, I would ban selling the book, to avoid civil strife, again, but would refuse to ban possession of the book,

One point on which I would resist civil strife and be prepared to put it down by force is the liberty of the rather inconsequential authoress, Taslima Nasreen, to live in India wherever she chooses. She was quite happily esconced in Calcutta, when some trouble-hunting politician made an issue of it, and organised violent protests until she had to leave, to the eternal shame of Calcutta. Then the Owaisi brothers led a similar agitation in Hyderabad, again, an agitation that should have been repressed by force. This is the greatest shame that has happened in India that the right wing has rightly pointed out as a failure of the rule of law, and as a open act of appeasement of the minority. Usually those claims are so ridiculous that they merely invoke irritated smiles, in this case, the fault must be admitted.
 
. .
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. The Hindu extremists are stealthily emigrating to the West in droves

I am confident my message is delivered to the right people .

agree

lots of rss hindoo
I am confident my message reached to the right people.
 
.
then think about all the life destroyed to keep crop fields free from pests
Your point is a good one in generic terms, but misdirected.

I eat organic, pesticide free vegetables, as it happens.
 
.
Your point is a good one in generic terms, but misdirected.

I eat organic, pesticide free vegetables, as it happens.
u grow ur own rice? ur own corn for alcohol? ur own seeds for making oil? all ur spice?
 
.
This was a development of the early mediaeval ages, as, in classical times, there was absolutely no taboo against eating beef; the Rg Veda contains references to it, and it isn't possible to go further back into proto-history than that. However, as the migrants spread through the Ganges Delta, the Doab, they displaced some of the original hunter-gatherers, who got reported in their fables and myths as dark creatures lurking in the forests who were not always safe company. They also began to clear the thick forests and start cultivating the very fertile land - this is when they added the fire-god Agni to their pantheon. This was also the period when they found they could not plough with one, or even two cattle (oxen) to pull their ploughs through the thick, loamy soil, and this was the period when there was a taboo on oxen, thence to the cow.

A cult grew around the cow, and in various forms, she turned out to be magical, capable of granting any wish, capable of guarding her guardian of the moment, and so on.

That was one origin-myth.
The cow was an asset, that's all. If you see the older stories, the dowries / presents / spoils always included cattle apart from gold and silver.
Personally I don't care if anyone killed the cow or now. In fact it is necessary for the cow that its a part of the economy. If the cow is not allowed to be slaughtered, it will slowly lose importance as it becomes a problem to maintain after its milching years. The eventual outcome could be extinction of the local varieties. Whether you like it or not, its good for the cow to allow its trade.
I am vegetarian since birth.
The law around cow protection has existed since 1947 (or earlier , please correct me). Mahatma Gandhi supported it and Hindu beliefs is the soul of India. The rabble rousing around this should stop as it will inevitably be detrimental for the very reason it sought to protect.

u grow ur own rice? ur own corn for alcohol? ur own seeds for making oil? all ur spice?
It's not a correct argument. It's like Zakir Naik's logic. The very existence of us as living animals necessitates our body to kill pathogens. We have evolved through millions of years (much as Islam or Christianity show its ignorance around this). So cow slaughter is a cultural thing. If a group of people don't want to respect another group's beliefs it should be ok. But it should be two way.
 
. .
Ooh, freedom of expressions!

So... How come people aren't allowed to make Nazi salutes, deny Holocaust, and chant something along the lines of 'Death to Faggots' or 'Gas the Jews?'

The muh 'Freedom of Expression' only applies if you follow the "mainstream" narrative.

P.S I couldn't care less about Sikhs and their Khalistan but... what's unfair is unfair!
Already addressed.

Hate speech isn't protected speech.

In this case, it could be argued in court that the float was depicting a historical event that had a major impact on the Khalistan movement, and isn't necessarily hate speech or a call to violence.

Next, people are allowed to do the nazi salute in Canada, and are allowed to deny the holocaust. The others you mentioned would fall under calls to violence or hate speech which are not protected under FoE.
 
.
Sorry bro, two wrongs don't make a right.

Islam explicitly forbids us to hurt other religions' followers' sentiments.

@ProudThamizhan @Joe Shearer . surprised to see both you gentlemen agreed with the above. I don't agree with the violent response from a lot Muslims to blasphemy but what are you thinking? Will muslims making cartoons of Jesus or Indian deities make things better?

Does the word Ignore mean anything ?
 
.
You gotta understand. You are unique, mahashay. Can't be pigeonholed into a group. Aap ki category hi separate he. There's no one else in it? So, you are automatically at the top.
@Paitoo , do you concur?
Absolutely. There came a time when Lata Mangeshkar refused to accept Filmfare awards. She wanted others to win too. Apnay @-=virus=- miya bhi uss hi category mein hain. Award shaward se oopar ho gaye hain.
 
.
Does the word Ignore mean anything ?
There's another word, abstain. Like abstaining from stirring shit. It also makes "Ignore" and "Turn the other cheek" redundant since there is nothing to ignore.

People are irrational/emotional beings. So, rather than do something stupid and then make a surprised pikachu face, just abstain. Just say No.

If that still went over your head, tell me.

If someone was insulting your mother and using vulgar gestures, would you ignore? or beat the shit our of them?

Think carefully before trying to come up with a non-answer. As there's only one answer to the above question.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom