Adi Godrej first to speak out: Beef ban, prohibition are hurting economy

[dray]

You cannot expect a majority to look after minority, when the minority won't care to respect the majority community sentiments and religious beliefs.Simply put, why should we care about the minority woes or its sentiments,when it won't care about ours?
Country runs on the basis of who gets more votes that is majority rule( democracy) Country doesn't run on the whims and fancies of a minority.
When in Rome do like a Roman does,When in Hindustan, do like a Hindu does.
Beef consumption is neither necessary nor required as per the beliefs of Minorities, while for a Hindu it is required he respect the cows and do everything in their power to protect them from being Massacred for meat.


Only Hindus practice Monogamy ,while Muslim law endorses Polygamy, prohibits family planning.So they are primitives according to you.
We should first start with the Muslim law asking them to get rid of these things and agree on a common civil code ,One rule for everyone in the country.

The very same Muslims follow Common laws in other Western nations,but when they come here in India,they behave as though they are aloof and have separate laws,it is because they were pampered all these years by Hindus and Congress they grew the horns on their head to ask for special laws.
Back in Western countries, they will be told to pack up and move to another country which has sharia law.

Taking into consideration your argument that 'act like a Roman when in Rome', should a Hindu be made to act like a Muslim or Christian when in a Christian or Muslim majority country?

Majoritarianism is not a good thing, and that's why a fair constitution (like ours) is there to protect the smallest of minorities from majoritarianism.

Muslim law endorses Polygamy, prohibits family planning.So they are primitives according to you.

Yes, that is primitive and need to be changed, but at least that law is not being imposed on all others.

 

[Soulspeek]

Banning some thing that a person wishes to eat versus forcing some one to eat pork are totally different. How can you even compare it.

Similarity would start if Muslims ask for ban on pork as it hurts their religious sentiments. As far as I know, Muslims have no objection if someone eats it. Just like hindus dont eat beef, muslims dont eat pork. The problem starts when you ban it. Both can be allowed.

Taking Mr Adi's logic, why don't Sickulars ask a certain section of society, who are voracious meat eaters than Hindus to start consuming Pork as well?

That would be great for the economy with pork farming really taking off in the country..

 

[v9s]

The very same Muslims follow Common laws in other Western nations,but when they come here in India,they behave as though they are aloof and have separate laws,it is because they were pampered all these years by Hindus and Congress they grew the horns on their head to ask for special laws.
Back in Western countries, they will be told to pack up and move to another country which has sharia law.

Dumbass, that's because the sub-continent is Muslim land, as much as it's Hindu land. We won't acquiesce to your attempts at control.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Banning some thing that a person wishes to eat versus forcing some one to eat pork are totally different. How can you even compare it.

Similarly, when something offends majority section of society, why do it?

And remember, this ban is not something BJP started. It was started by Mahatma Gandhi.
Whole issue started when certain sections started arranging beef parties - if not to show Hindus that we are impotent, let me know what the intent was!

Dumbass, that's because the sub-continent is Muslim land, as much as it's Hindu land. We won't acquiesce to your attempts at control.

Egajatly..
It is ALSO Hindu land....not just sickular land...

 

[Bombermanx1]

Taking into consideration your argument that 'act like a Roman when in Rome', should a Hindu be made to act like a Muslim or Christian when in a Christian or Muslim majority country?

Majoritarianism is not a good thing, and that's why a fair constitution (like ours) is there to protect the smallest of minorities from majoritarianism.



Yes, that is primitive and need to be changed, but at least that law is not being imposed on all others.

You don't need to ask a Hindu much, to act like a Roman in Rome,they do it automatically as they follow the laws of the land and don't demand separate laws.
It is only a certain Minority which migrates to other nations and demands the host country laws be changed to suit to their religious liking.

How is Majoritarianism not a good thing, our country (Democracy) is based on Majority rule of who gets majority votes,how is that different from Majoritarianism rule?
Why should a Majority protect the smallest of Minorities , when they cannot protect or respect our religious beliefs and sensibilities?
Kyon ,sirf hinduon ko hi pagal kutta ne kaata hai kya, Sab ka Theka only Hindu hi kyon le?

It
Is not imposition but partiality, Others can marry 4 times, care a squat about family planning and divorce by saying a word three times.
While Hindus have been imposed with maintaining the law of Monogamy,Family planning is suggested to be implemented by Hindu, and Divorce is a lengthy process involving years of lawsuits and other headaches like Section 498a etc.
Why are Hindus being made to follow these rules,when Minority are free to frame their rules as they see fit?
I mean why should only we follow such laws, when another community won't follow it? Why should Hindus bear such cross upon themselves.

Dumbass, that's because the sub-continent is Muslim land, as much as it's Hindu land. We won't acquiesce to your attempts at control.

Sub-Continent we already gave Muslims their land in Partition,what is left is Hindu land, The terms and conditions during Partition were made clear to everyone involved.
Why should we be made to placate Muslims when they offend our religious sensibilities?
What is in it for us? Tell me!
Like it or not Hindus control Bharat, because they are the Majority population.
If there are different laws for different communities being the same citizens of that country, Then such laws are a farce.

 

[v9s]

Sub-Continent we already gave Muslims their land in Partition,what is left is Hindu land,why should we be made to placate Muslims when they offend our religious sensibilities?
What is in it for us? Tell me!

If they ask for their own laws, they aren't asking for them to be imposed on you.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

If they ask for their own laws, they aren't asking for them to be imposed on you.

When they do beef festivals in universities and on roads - YES THEY ARE IMPOSING ON US.

 

[Bombermanx1]

If they ask for their own laws, they aren't asking for them to be imposed on you.

We are asking for our laws too which means as a Hindu majority nation,we cannot let Cows be butchered for meat eating of a Tiny Minority, Our religion asks us to protect cows,it is our Religious duty. So what happens to our Sensibilities?
The minority on the other hand, has no such compulsion imposed upon them by their religion to eat beef or kill cows.They can eat other meats, just not kill cows.

Why do the same minority remain quiet and follow the secular laws in Western countries, while only in India they demand special laws and Treatment?
Do the muslims who migrate from India to USA, demand that American law be tailor made to suit them or will they follow the American law as every Americans follow?

Similarly, when something offends majority section of society, why do it?

And remember, this ban is not something BJP started. It was started by Mahatma Gandhi.
Whole issue started when certain sections started arranging beef parties - if not to show Hindus that we are impotent, let me know what the intent was!



Egajatly..
It is ALSO Hindu land....not just sickular land...

Don't fall for their argument that its Muslim land too,Both parties involved during Partition were made clear the Terms and Conditions as asked by Jinnah and Muslim league, "Pakistan for Muslims", " India for Hindus" As the Muslim league said they couldn't bear to live with Hindus in the same country.We gave them that and those who stayed back agreed to follow and respect Hindu sensibilities, Now if they claim this is Muslim land its a joke.
Whatever was to be given to them,we already gave them in 1947, they cannot ask for more.

Organizing Beef parties with the sole intent of saying "Hey look Hindus,we kill your Gaumata and eat it openly,do what you can,we can insult your religion,beliefs and we can still get away with it"
This was the reason The Mughals started butchering Cows in Hindu areas or near temples to insult the Hindu population not out of their religious requirement but out of pure hate for Hindus.
So why should we keep quiet at this atrocity?
When something like Gujarat 2002 happens they cry rivers of blood for decades.But why let it happen in the first place by attacking a train full of Hindu Pilgrims (Mostly Women and Children) returning from Ayodhya and burn it down?
What happened next was retaliation from Hindus.

Likewise, when you openly organize beef parties to insult us,we know that is your intent. Don't expect any sympathy or what happens after that.We are not responsible for it.

 

[dray]

How is Majoritarianism not a good thing, our country (Democracy) is based on Majority rule of who gets majority votes,how is that different from Majoritarianism rule?

Democracy is not exactly based on majority rule, basically in a democracy several groups of people form several political parties and go to the citizens with their policies of good governance that they promise within the ambit of constitution, and whom citizens elect gets to govern the country within the ambit of constitution for a stipulated time. The elected government is not supreme, but constitution is, and we have several checks and balances to ensure that the elected government works within the ambit of constitution and cannot enforce brute majoritarianism, that's why we have two different houses and an independent judiciary, a civil society and media.

Some of the practical examples of majoritarianism are Nazis and communist regimes where all differing voices are crushed.

when something offends majority section of society, why do it?

Why should a Majority protect the smallest of Minorities , when they cannot protect or respect our religious beliefs and sensibilities?

Mere existence of "polytheists idol-worshiper pagan Hindus" could offend believers of Abrahamic religions, would you support them if they ban all Hindu practices wherever they are in majority in the world?

All fundamentalists and radicals use the same argument that you are pitching here to justify their action.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

All fundamentalists and radicals use the same argument that you are pitching here to justify their action.

Thats not accurate.
In US Horse meat is banned.

Chinese eat dogs and our liberals make a huge deal of this exact practice of ours.
The reason why Cow is sacred is not because of religion but because we look at cows similar and could be more than a person would view dogs.

Fundamentalism is not about eating beef. It's conducting beef parties just to rile up Hindus buddy.

 

[dray]

Thats not accurate.
In US Horse meat is banned.

Chinese eat dogs and our liberals make a huge deal of this exact practice of ours.
The reason why Cow is sacred is not because of religion but because we look at cows similar and could be more than a person would view dogs.

Fundamentalism is not about eating beef. It's conducting beef parties just to rile up Hindus buddy.

There is not an iota of concern for religion in both of those who are banning beef and who are doing public beef parties, it's all politics.

 

[Samudra Manthan]

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2013/07/nutritious-a1-milk-of-vedic-cows-with.html

Secular Indians are champions of adopting bad ideas from the West in the name of secularism, individual liberty, and championing minority rights. In the name of these holy cows bad behavior like ingratitude, selfishness, cruelty are promoted. The Western cows stopped giving nutritious milk and useful dung thousands of years ago because of the violence meted out to it and the dairy from its milk is one of the leading cause of debilitating diseases in the Western world. The retards in India want to pursue this course of action in India too so that they can destroy whatever fertility is left in Indian soil and any nutrition our people get from its milk products.

 

[T-72M1]

beef parties

agree, I found that to be absolutely disgusting behaviour by the left, those bastards should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Star Wars]

Thats not accurate.
In US Horse meat is banned.

Chinese eat dogs and our liberals make a huge deal of this exact practice of ours.
The reason why Cow is sacred is not because of religion but because we look at cows similar and could be more than a person would view dogs.

Fundamentalism is not about eating beef. It's conducting beef parties just to rile up Hindus buddy.

There were so many lunatic seculars whining about the Chinese eating Dog meat but are silent when it comes to cows. Hypocritical bunch...

agree, I found that to be absolutely disgusting behaviour by the left, those bastards should be ashamed of themselves.

Left are a shameless bunch all over the world, the shit they are doing in US and Bangladesh is no different.

 

[IndoCarib]

He is speaking truth. Beef ban is primitive law like "sati" , "caste system", "polygamy" and "prohibition of family planning" .
All of which must be eliminated ASAP if we want to develop seriously

what about pohibition of alcohol ?