The Concept Of Double Pseudo Secularism (Beef-Ban) Poem by Alok Agarwal

(To be read in conjunction with India's political-religious situation in 2015)

Recently there has been controversy regarding beef-ban. Then you link it with religion or you first link with religion and then put a ban on beef.

On the one side there is a group of people who are dubbed as religious fanatics and on the other side there is a group of people who consider themselves as intellectuals, non-nomadic, non-barbarous tribe; generally considered as part of progressive group. Basically the other group may be classified as religious but with reasons. Scientific Hindu...may be.

Why ban beef? We should even allow cannibalism. We are a progressive society. I know- -your jaws have dropped. But examine the scientific benefits; have you ever considered the proteins/vitamins available in a human liver. May be it can put an end to poverty. Every poor can sell one, earn 10 lakhs and wossh....its a magic wand. End to poverty. You just need to grow babies. (Google: kuru - A disease caused by cannibalism) . Got a reason. We must learn to reason.

India is the only country where the sentiments of the majority are criticized and labelled as Dehati. From which logic, serving my community, society, religion and nation is a symbol of backwardness.
Now I am totally against ban. Why ban? You can pee anywhere but not PDA. This gives me a license to PDA. Agreed. I am a scientific person. I should disregard all norms of home, and do everything in khulla. Instead of preaching to use bathrooms, the new debate has shifted to French culture of PDA.

This is something new to Indian mindset. Instead of correcting the wrong, we give example of another wrong and wrong the right.
My reasoning allows me to question everything and then find answers. Some of us have learned to question, but when it comes finding answers, then it all blank; as some of us did in our exams. My reasoning should seek answers and consider all aspects to the extent possible. Every scientific theory is supported by facts, figures, experience, knowledge, experiments, research, re-experiment, etc. it is basically a multi-dimensional approach to problem solving.
Let's examine cow slaughter, point-by-point:

Points For Cow slaughter:
1) My freedom of eating anything I like.
2) The economy of people dependent on usage of leather. Both direct and indirect employment.
3) Contribution in export market. Heavy words like GDP. India ka naam hoga, etc.

Points against Cow slaughter:
1) My freedom should not hurt sentiments of other. The term 'Freedom' is controversial. I am free to write this article, but this may hurt others. So should I withdraw this - if people start labeling me as an wrongly educated and a supporter of BJP/RSS/any other group supporting beef ban.

2) Economy of people linked with ivory trade. You name a trade, and there is an economy linked to it.
2A) What about a cow after it is no longer use to the society.

3) Export karne ko yahi mila hai.

Neutral Points:
1) The term 'Freedom' is controversial. I am free to write this article, but this may hurt others. So should I withdraw this?

2) The point of discussion should rather be Economy of society WITH and WithOUT beef. We should compare the cost incurred to revenue generated in the timeline of a cow.
a) To generate beef - What expenses were incurred to raise a cow. No. of people who got employment? The conditions in which it was kept. The feed it was provided. Isn't it the basic right of any living creature to be dealt with dignity.
b) To use dairy products (Alternate economy) - Expenses incurred. No. of jobs. Conditions of living.

A comparative data should be generated (which is available in 'google') and then see yourself which way to go.
2A) What about a polio infected infant. Should we throw it in a dustbin

Counter Logic
Q) What about goat?
Hmm...The SWOT analysis needs to be done again. A comparative study needs to be done animal-wise.
1) Comparative usage and scientific usage of goat/cow as a source of milk and other facilities.
2) The feelings/brain reaction/mapping when siblings of both are slaughtered in front of their mother. The pain felt by each species. The brain of every species and emotional intellect is different.
3) The availability of animal species in a particular geographical area, and its relevance to that.
4) Human factor: The emotional connect of a species with the society. Is any other animal specie equally revered as cow? Means of all the diverse animal species nature has to offer, we want to eat only that which hurts other people. This is a classic case of reverse psychology. We have craving for things, which are most restricted.

Legal Point:
As per the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Article 48 of the Constitution. It reads, 'The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.'

Religious Point with historical perspective:
Traditionally in India before the birth of other religions, there was a custom of people having atleast one cow in a family. Consider cow as a factory who takes in grass (not consumed by humans) and delivering milk (consumed by us) . Even cow-dung could be used as a biodegradable fuel, fertiliser, has excellent coolant properties (prevents Indian summer heat from reaching indoors) . Cow's husband can be used in agriculture. The couple together can be made a part of bullock-cart (zero emission transportation) . A perfect green couple factory with ZERO carbon footprints. Now, this can't be explained to general pubic. So, it was decided was to religiousify cow. Label it as sacred, so common man will worship cow and thus save society.

Religion is a common man's opium. You can make him do anything in the name of religion, just as you can make any engineer believe anything that has facts and figures. In this way, you indoctrinated common man follow the right path, but slowly we forgot the reason and now the debate has started.

However, even after writing so much the points I have put forward could be extended and diversified. Personally, I am against killing any living creature, but in this write-up I have tried to restrict my pro vegeterian feelings.