Fair point, but I still don't understand how does making beef readily available is going to help?
I answered your question regarding 'sensitisation', not regarding beef being made readily available.
It should be obvious to you that to suppress the dietary habits of a sizeable section of the population on the grounds of the religious sensitivities of another is insensitive, and tends to assume that the interests of one should be allowed to over-ride the interests of the other. This is what the Dalit students were protesting, their being denied the right to eat what they normally eat. Continuing to deny them this right will further demonstrate the insensitivity of the dominant section to the needs, wishes, expectations and rights of the Dalit, and push them steadily in the direction of opposition, from verbal and articulated opposition as it is today, to active and armed opposition today.
We have managed to alienate one identity group after another very successfully, in the 65 years that we have been free, and the chances of alienating this one are very high.
Is eating beef necessary to be a True Muslim or a True Christian? Its not. When Hindus can be mindful of sensitivities of other religious groups in India, is it too much to expect the same back from them?
Secularism demands that neither set of sensitivities be public policy. That is, those who do not wish to eat beef, need not; those who wish to do it, may do it. The state is expected to be neutral, not to pass laws and direct the efforts of its resources at supporting one side or the other.
Do you see Muslims or others demanding for beef? No they don't, they can still get it if they want and they know where to get it from. Is there still a need to rub it in the face of people who are against it, by making it publicly available?
How can you say that in the face of laws banning cow slaughter? How can they still get it if they want, by breaking the law? Why should they be obliged to do so?
Would you also support including pork in the hostel menu?
Absolutely! Pork is also very much part of the Dalit diet.
The Indian society is not ready yet for such openness, if it was you wouldn't be seeing these protests and violence. There is no point artificially imposing these ideas on the society when the current system is working just fine. You allow cow slaughter and next thing you know there will be d***heads slaughtering cows in front of temples and what not just to incite the other group and stir the pot. They day our society can get rid of such elements then we can go ahead with such plans, but not before that.
If you take the trouble to go back and examine the history books, this was precisely and exactly the same argument advanced by precisely and exactly the same elements of society - conservative Hindus - against suttee. But suttee was banned, as a crime, and it stopped.
Does this stance make me a right wing fanatic?
Not necessarily. There are many more elements in the mix. But this is one, certainly; neither necessary, nor sufficient, but contributory.
I see myself as a "secular Hindu" and not a secular "non religious person".
That implies, simply, that while in matters of public policy, you are secular, in matters of private religious practice, you are Hindu. That is fine, as long as one does not bring one's private religious beliefs into the public sphere.
I think majority of Indians are like that.
Unfortunately, probably not. They do not leave their religious sensitivity at home, but bring these into the picture when deciding public policy. As has happened in the case of the ban on cow slaughter.
Mutual respect for each others religion is the key, being a Secular Hindu, Secular Muslim and Secular Christian is the key, you do your own religious thing and be mindful that you are not offending other groups.
The points to address here are "
mutual respect", and "not offending".
How is it mutual respect to ban cow slaughter, implicitly banning consumption of beef? The right of a Muslim - or a Christian, or a Buddhist - to eat what is normally part of his diet is banned; it is banned because of the hostility of a section of the Hindu population. So where is the mutuality in this? The Muslims and the Christians have been put under the ban; where has the Hindu paid respect to those of the other two religions?
Thats my idea of a Secular India and thats what Indian society needs to perfect.
You are free to preach this message. However, converting these views into law would constitute anti-secular action. The cow-slaughter laws are hostile to secularism.
Becoming a non religious society won't work in our case, specially when its just the Hindus who are expected to become non religious with such "desensitization".
It is precisely the seeking of licenses and exemptions from each other that has led to a culture of mutual blackmail. You ban cow-slaughter for me, I'll let you ban pig-slaughter; you ban Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen, I'll let you ban James Laine. Where will your doctrine of multi-culturalism carry you?
