Prime Minister Narendra Modi today said that the killing of people by cow vigilantes is unacceptable. "Killing people in the name of Gau Bhakti is not acceptable," he said, stressing, "No person in this nation has the right to take the law in his or her own hands in this country." While saying that protecting cows, sacred for Hindus, is needed - "No one spoke about protecting cows more than Mahatma Gandhi and Acharya Vinoba Bhave," he said, "this (violence) is not something Mahatma Gandhi would approve of."

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/killing- ... di-1718368

This news has both the potential to give heart attack to some, and the opportunity for the same people to shout Modi doesn't shoots cow vigilantes in their head.
But, the fact is such people are anti-social elements, which exist all around the world and nothing else.

what's Gau Bhakti?

TIL India has cow vigilantes

mad99 wrote:

what's Gau Bhakti?

TIL India has cow vigilantes

Gau = Cow
Bhakti = Devotion towards something (like god).

Both are hindi words.

ok
cheers for that

anshabhi wrote:

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today said that the killing of people by cow vigilantes is unacceptable. "Killing people in the name of Gau Bhakti is not acceptable," he said, stressing, "No person in this nation has the right to take the law in his or her own hands in this country." While saying that protecting cows, sacred for Hindus, is needed - "No one spoke about protecting cows more than Mahatma Gandhi and Acharya Vinoba Bhave," he said, "this (violence) is not something Mahatma Gandhi would approve of."

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/killing- ... di-1718368

This news has both the potential to give heart attack to some, and the opportunity for the same people to shout Modi doesn't shoots cow vigilantes in their head.
But, the fact is such people are anti-social elements, which exist all around the world and nothing else.

Its all nice and all, but I think its sad that such statement had to be made by a Prime Minister. Some things should not need reminders or statements. The fact that people are more important than cows is one such thing.
The essence of Hindu vegetarianism and cow/ animal devotion is the respect , empathy and being good stewards of the nature. Activism to curb noise/air pollution, civic cleanliness and awareness of factory farming would be more inline with Hindu scriptures than these random acts of vigilantism.

Glad he cleared that one up - I had been wondering. Does that mean it's alright to go buy a Big Mac now?

Most hypocritical statement coming from a man whose career has been based on instigating communal violence. Dear Leader was CM of Gujarat state when the 2002 communal riots broke out, which cemented his position as a "Hindu Icon" and boosted his profile to the national stage. He made similar statements last year as well, but has failed to back up these tweets with action against these Cow Vigilantes from his own party which means the near daily lynchings continue. Over 14 this month alone.

What makes Dear Leader's tweets even more hypocritical, is that it was he as CM of Gujarat, who first initiated "Gau Rakshak cells" (Cow protection vigilante cells), instituting cash rewards for people lynching minorities in the name of cow.

Can’t kill in name of cow, says PM Modi now but as CM gau rakshaks thrived in his Gujarat

Couple of critical articles in international newspapers (BBC, WaPo and NYT all ran stories about Dear Leader's incompetence the past week) has gotten him to undertake some damage control. But will tweeting about this be enough? Will he take action against those killing Muslims, Christians & Dalits in the name of cow , when many of the terrorists indulging in this violence come from his own party? Can he?

Even this tweet from him was enough to set of uproar on Social Media groups loyal to the Right Wing: calling on the RSS to replace Modi with the current CM of UP, a despicable human being called Yogi Adityanath.
THIS GUY:


And when it comes to competing for who is the bigger semi-literate assh***e, Yogi trumps Dear Leader in every way!

PS: I have been documenting the near daily occurences of lynching of minorities by RSS terrorists on this thread.
Muslim man lynched in India by Hindu extremists

Meanwhile there are still many peace-loving Hindu's who think Dear Leader and his Muslim baiting hordes do not speak for all of us. We are the silent majority. Dear Leader does not speak for us!

Proud to have been part of the #NotInMyName protests that were held across India yesterday. Thousands of Hindu's, including myself participated in this momentous occassion: when Hindu's finally stood up and said "ENOUGH!" Not In My Name!

Stop this Violence against Muslims, Christians & Dalits in the name of Hinduism! Enough is Enough!

https://thewire.in/152756/photo-essay-thousands-new-delhi-gathered-say-notinmyname/

https://thewire.in/152470/protests-lynching-notinmyname/

I have written to many of journalist friends in the West asking them to help raise awareness about the growing Talibanisation of Hindu society by Dear Leader & the fascist RSS. Some of them are now helping stop this madness by writing about these to raise awareness.

I beseech my friends across the world to write to your Senators, Govt's and local journalists, and ask them to speak out against the organised violence by the RSS against Muslims, Christians & lower castes.

The international community cannot sit back and watch as yet another society gets radicalized to the point of no return. No action at this point will be setting the stage for a major civil war type situation that would kill millions!

Dear Leader must be pressurised to mend his ways.

That is an annual single liner meant for public consumption. Second year in a row.

What do you know? Hours after Dear Leader tweeted to his hordes to not indulge in violence, another horrific lynching again in Jharkhand. The second lynching from the state in 2 days!

Jharkhand man accused of carrying beef beaten to death

A man accused of carrying beef was beaten to death on Thursday in Jharkhand’s Ramgarh district.

Police sources said Alimuddin alias Asgar Ansari was carrying the “banned meat” in a Maruti van.

A group of people stopped him near Bajartand village and brutally attacked him, the sources said. His van was set on fire too.

Police personnel rescued him and took him to a hospital where he died during the course of treatment.

The madness continues.

I don't eat meat, am originally Indian, and see nothing wrong with banning beef. But holy hell lynching people for this is disgusting. Some serious problems....

Just wondering, what's the legal situation with gun ownership in India? Because victims of attempted lynching seem to have a case, if they shoot back, no?

N867DA wrote:

I don't eat meat, am originally Indian, and see nothing wrong with banning beef. But holy hell lynching people for this is disgusting. Some serious problems....

Exactly. With regards to the legal position, the CM of Southern States filed a petition with the SC challenging Dear Leader's imposition of a Beef Ban.
Kerala, where eating beef is legal, has opposed the centre's regulation that restricts sale of cattle for slaughter.

Majority of people in the Southern States like Kerala and North Eastern States, irrespective of religion have beef as a major source of protein. Unlike the Northern states, Beef is legal in southern states and most of the beef consumed in India is Buffalo not cow meat.

I am from the North, a Hindu but I do consume meat: including Beef, except perhaps during some festivals. The law gives me that freedom to eat what I want. But apparently in todays India, lumpen terrorists can take the law into their own hands and lynch people on streets in the name of Hinduism!

Phosphorus wrote:

Just wondering, what's the legal situation with gun ownership in India? Because victims of attempted lynching seem to have a case, if they shoot back, no?

There are 200 million Muslims in India, over 30 million Christians, and over 500 million Dalits. If each group took up guns to protect themselves we will end up with a bloody Civil War with carnage on a scale never seen before. The last time such carnage happened here was when British India was partitioned into Secular India and Muslim Pakistan. My grandparents who came from Bahawalpur in todays Pakistan have told me stories of the horror they went through. Hope I never get to see that in my lifetime.

I do hope it doesn't end that way. That is what some of us are trying to prevent. Violence is never the answer. Not in my Name. These people who instigating violence in name of Hinduism do not represent most of us.

There is also the real danger of India breaking up. When Dear Leader's govt announced the Beef Ban, South India rose in revolt. I saw my S Indian friends band up like I have never seen them do before! The language of "Dravidian Nationalism", that we assumed had been buried and forgotten has made a resurgence. Very worrying trend.

That is what we are fighting to prevent. Further escalation into what will be a bloody mess.

BawliBooch wrote:

N867DA wrote:

I don't eat meat, am originally Indian, and see nothing wrong with banning beef. But holy hell lynching people for this is disgusting. Some serious problems....

Exactly. With regards to the legal position, the CM of Southern States filed a petition with the SC challenging Dear Leader's imposition of a Beef Ban.
Kerala, where eating beef is legal, has opposed the centre's regulation that restricts sale of cattle for slaughter.

Majority of people in the Southern States like Kerala and North Eastern States, irrespective of religion have beef as a major source of protein. Unlike the Northern states, Beef is legal in southern states and most of the beef consumed in India is Buffalo not cow meat.

I am from the North, a Hindu but I do consume meat: including Beef, except perhaps during some festivals. The law gives me that freedom to eat what I want. But apparently in todays India, lumpen terrorists can take the law into their own hands and lynch people on streets in the name of Hinduism!

Really? I'm South Indian (and Keralite at that) and while the vast majority of South Indians consume meat unlike me, in my experience most Hindu South Indians do not consume beef. I think you live in a liberal bubble. It's sad that killing cows is an act of protest, but there you have it...

I will say though, better cows than people. There's still a hierarchy, however cruel.

N867DA wrote:

I think you live in a liberal bubble.

Maybe I do! I grew up in the North where eating meat, especially beef was considered taboo for upper castes. But my Southie friends in JNU all seemed to relish it. And when I visited Kerala, I saw everyone relishing meat, including Hindu's. So never thought of it as such a big issue.

Maybe I did live in a liberal bubble!

But thank you for standing against the violence in the name of cow. We can't let these bigots take over! The price for that will be too high!

While the BJP unleashes cow-violence in the rest of India, in Kerala the state unit of the party has been forced to promise "good quality beef" to get votes!

Give me your vote, I will give you good-quality beef, promises BJP's Kerala candidate

BawliBooch wrote:

N867DA wrote:

I think you live in a liberal bubble.

Maybe I do! I grew up in the North where eating meat, especially beef was considered taboo for upper castes. But my Southie friends in JNU all seemed to relish it. And when I visited Kerala, I saw everyone relishing meat, including Hindu's. So never thought of it as such a big issue.

Maybe I did live in a liberal bubble!

But thank you for standing against the violence in the name of cow. We can't let these bigots take over! The price for that will be too high!

This is what I don't get. Being a veggiesaur almost instantly identifies me--rightfully so--as a liberal in the US. But in India it seems that not eating animals is a conservative position. Makes no sense to me. Peace is peace, no? It seems people just don't like being told what to do, but liberalism inherently is telling people of means to give up some of what they have for the sake of the disadvantaged.

I don't know, man. Everytime I visit India it seems like it's trying so hard to find what being a Western country is--and then people of means immediately start trying to be western as much as possible. There's no identity or anything that's distinctly Indian. Maybe there never was, maybe it's just a part of globalization. There's all this strife of this mosque and that cow and that Maoist, but no one really gives a crap about improving the life of Indians. There's no thread talking about how rivers in Madras my father could wade in in 1960 are now more human feces than water. There is no talk about how polluted all of India's cities are. There is no talk in my Kerala hometown of how the trash collection service is essentially some underpaid schmuck collecting rubbish, throwing it in an empty lot, and once a month getting a kid to burn it.

I feel bad for the cows getting slaughtered and orders of magnitude more sorry for people who are getting killed over this nonsense...but India is in a weird place either way.

The best things about America (and the west at large) aren't that you can get a steak. The best thing about America is that 98+% of people can drink tap water and our lakes aren't full of shit. Maybe India should strive for that before aiming for the cattle.

N867DA wrote:

This is what I don't get. Being a veggiesaur almost instantly identifies me--rightfully so--as a liberal in the US. But in India it seems that not eating animals is a conservative position. Makes no sense to me. Peace is peace, no? It seems people just don't like being told what to do, but liberalism inherently is telling people of means to give up some of what they have for the sake of the disadvantaged.

Thats the whole point. Since when does diet-choice decide whether you are a liberal or not? Who made that rule? I have nothing against vegetarians: and I have nothing against people who choose to eat snails. But I wont be lynching people who make that choice. Or condoning the violence by others.

N867DA wrote:

I don't know, man. Everytime I visit India it seems like it's trying so hard to find what being a Western country is--and then people of means immediately start trying to be western as much as possible. There's no identity or anything that's distinctly Indian. Maybe there never was, maybe it's just a part of globalization.

Aaah! Identity koshun! Are Indian's vegetarian? Since when has that become "Indian identity"? A small percent of Brahmins (or pseudo-Brahmins)... sure! But since when do they speak for India as a whole? I have traveled to every part of the country on my job - and have found just one place where meat isn't the default option. Every part of India has a lot of variety in its meat dishes - From Kashmiri Wazwan to Kerala Beef Fry and Roast Duck. From Malvani Fish Fry to Assamese Manxo (delicious Pork preparation with Bamboo). And this has nothing to do with globalisation: cuisine has been part of our tradition for thousands of years for most of the population. Is that not part of our identity?

And when people start killing others for eating beef with state protection for their crimes - is that not imposing one culture on another?

Is Indian identity going to be defined by the RSS - much like the Nazi's tried to define German culture?

N867DA wrote:

There's all this strife of this mosque and that cow and that Maoist, but no one really gives a crap about improving the life of Indians. There's no thread talking about how rivers in Madras my father could wade in in 1960 are now more human feces than water. There is no talk about how polluted all of India's cities are. There is no talk in my Kerala hometown of how the trash collection service is essentially some underpaid schmuck collecting rubbish, throwing it in an empty lot, and once a month getting a kid to burn it.

The best things about America (and the west at large) aren't that you can get a steak. The best thing about America is that 98+% of people can drink tap water and our lakes aren't full of shit. Maybe India should strive for that before aiming for the cattle.

Exactly! Real issues are being buried beneath issues of identity. It is no surprise that State sponsored Lynchings over cow have gathered speed ever since Dear Leader's disastrous demonetisation exercise effectively robbed 40 lakh crores from the Indian economy. With the economy tanking, unemployment skyrocketing(30% loss in Manufacturing jobs) and the rupee in freefall, these other issues are useful in creating diversions.

Nothing like the opium of religion to keep the masses occupied. Dear Leader knows that well.

Aren't there a couple of hundred million to many Indians? Killing a few off to keep the cows alive sound like a good idea to me

Kiwirob wrote:

Aren't there a couple of hundred million to many Indians? Killing a few off to keep the cows alive sound like a good idea to me

There are 350 million cattle in India vs 1.3 billion humans. But I hope you were being sarcastic there!

BawliBooch wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Aren't there a couple of hundred million to many Indians? Killing a few off to keep the cows alive sound like a good idea to me

There are 350 million cattle in India vs 1.3 billion humans. But I hope you were being sarcastic there!

1.3 billion nuts its know wonder the country is in the mess it's in, far far to many people.

BawliBooch wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Just wondering, what's the legal situation with gun ownership in India? Because victims of attempted lynching seem to have a case, if they shoot back, no?

There are 200 million Muslims in India, over 30 million Christians, and over 500 million Dalits. If each group took up guns to protect themselves we will end up with a bloody Civil War with carnage on a scale never seen before.

Ahh, so lynching victims should be spending their last moments relishing in the fact, that their inability to shoot back, and try to stay alive, is actually very important for the greater good?

Kiwirob wrote:

Aren't there a couple of hundred million to many Indians? Killing a few off to keep the cows alive sound like a good idea to me

You and your neighbors are doing the good deed. Glad Mars is closer to planet earth than you guys.

Phosphorus wrote:

Ahh, so lynching victims should be spending their last moments relishing in the fact, that their inability to shoot back, and try to stay alive, is actually very important for the greater good?

Give some of the underlying intercommunal tensions and the way some people react to each other in India, I doubt giving everyone a gun for self defence will lead to them all being more wary of each other, but rather encourage some of them to actively engage in violence.

Have you ever seen how many terrorist groups are active in India? Not just Islamists but Maoists, regional nationalists, Hindus etc. They need a 2nd Amendment like an Astronaut needs a hole in his helmet.

Phosphorus wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Just wondering, what's the legal situation with gun ownership in India? Because victims of attempted lynching seem to have a case, if they shoot back, no?

There are 200 million Muslims in India, over 30 million Christians, and over 500 million Dalits. If each group took up guns to protect themselves we will end up with a bloody Civil War with carnage on a scale never seen before.

Ahh, so lynching victims should be spending their last moments relishing in the fact, that their inability to shoot back, and try to stay alive, is actually very important for the greater good?

The 120 black people shot and killed in the US so far this year by police officers must definitely have been relishing in the fact that they had the ability to shoot back, granted to them through the Second Amendment of their countries Constitution which allows them to bear arms, and yet still died...

moo wrote:

The 120 black people shot and killed in the US so far this year by police officers must definitely have been relishing in the fact that they had the ability to shoot back, granted to them through the Second Amendment of their countries Constitution which allows them to bear arms, and yet still died...

Your point being? That this particular part of US populace is underarmed, despite the Second Amendment, or that US police is racist and shoots black people for no reason?

BawliBooch wrote:

There are 200 million Muslims in India, over 30 million Christians, and over 500 million Dalits.

Are you using the term Dalits in reference to Hindus?

According to Wikipedia, using the word Dalit for a person or group has been outlawed. Not so?

BobPatterson wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

There are 200 million Muslims in India, over 30 million Christians, and over 500 million Dalits.

Are you using the term Dalits in reference to Hindus?

According to Wikipedia, using the word Dalit for a person or group has been outlawed. Not so?

"Dalits" is a blanket term to refer to India's lower castes. The British called them "untouchables" - because upper castes considered touching them to be impure and "against religion". (Raping their women though was perfectly ok). Gandhi preferred the term "Harijan" - People of God. He united Indians of all castes, religions and languages allowing us to take on the British Empire. It was an Upper Caste RSS man, Nathuram Godse who murdered this saint.

Dont believe everything on wikipedia. The BJP IT Cell people have edited all articles relating to India & Hinduism and replaced it with #AlternativeFacts.

Dalit term is not illegal. However there are laws put in place by secular govts post 1947 to protect the Dalits from Atrocities & Discrimination - many of them heavily inspired by legislation to protect blacks in America. Laws that are being read down if not repealed in todays RSS ruled India.

Phosphorus wrote:

moo wrote:

The 120 black people shot and killed in the US so far this year by police officers must definitely have been relishing in the fact that they had the ability to shoot back, granted to them through the Second Amendment of their countries Constitution which allows them to bear arms, and yet still died...

Your point being? That this particular part of US populace is underarmed, despite the Second Amendment, or that US police is racist and shoots black people for no reason?

If you can't see the point, discussing it with you is pointless...

Adding more guns to any situation does not make it better, ever.

moo wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

moo wrote:

The 120 black people shot and killed in the US so far this year by police officers must definitely have been relishing in the fact that they had the ability to shoot back, granted to them through the Second Amendment of their countries Constitution which allows them to bear arms, and yet still died...

Your point being? That this particular part of US populace is underarmed, despite the Second Amendment, or that US police is racist and shoots black people for no reason?

If you can't see the point, discussing it with you is pointless...

Adding more guns to any situation does not make it better, ever.

I can think of a few historical examples, where at least one of the participating party would have disagreed with the latter statement.

1) Genocide, Armenians, 1915. Due to Islamic laws (only Muslims can bear arms), Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were mercilessly slaughtered. Death count above a million, with no harm to the perpetrators. If Armenians were properly armed, a lot of them would have survived, plenty of Young Turks would be put down, the abomination of Ottoman Empire would probably go down in flames.
2) Holodomor, Ukrainians, 1932-33. Due to Soviet laws, no guns for peasants. Millions of Ukrainians were first robbed of their food by the Commies, and then mercilessly starved to death. If Ukrainians were properly armed, a lot of them would have survived, plenty of Commies would be eliminated, the communist experiment abomination (USSR) would probably go down in flames.
3) (probably most famous) Holocaust, WWII. Due to German laws, no guns. Millions of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and other "lower races" were mercilessly slaughtered. Death counts in millions. If these were properly armed, a lot of them would have survived, plenty of Nazis would be eliminated, the whole Nazional Sozialismus abomination (Third Reich) would probably go down in flames.

Another historical example -- and this one is hated by most of historians on all sides, for a multitude of reasons.
Everyone probably heard the word "pogrom" -- it originates from the Russian Empire, and is typically used to denote "Jewish pogrom" -- a state-encouraged attack by underclasses on the local Jews. Classical inter-communal violence, with robberies, beatings, murders, and all kinds of other wholesale destruction of lives and property.
Despite multitude of these attacks, Jewish community of the Russian Empire did not disappear.
In fact, unbiased research shows that in some localities, death toll was comparable for perpetrators and victims of pogroms.
Why? The most reasonable answer is that gun ownership, at that time, was limited mainly by affordability. There was no specific anti-Semitic gun clause. Wealthier Jews would sponsor wholesale gun purchases, just in case. Thus, during a pogrom, an axes- and knives-wielding mob could either wreck havoc unopposed, or could be met by gunfire of a local self-defense squad, and retreat with losses.

Now, being a member of which Jewish community (on a verge of a pogrom) would be your preference, if you had to choose: a peaceful one, under the motto: "Adding more guns to any situation does not make it better, ever", or a one with a few rifles and pistols distributed to competent members of a self-defense team?

Phosphorus wrote:

I can think of a few historical examples, where at least one of the participating party would have disagreed with the latter statement.
:
:
In fact, unbiased research shows that in some localities, death toll was comparable for perpetrators and victims of pogroms.
Why? The most reasonable answer is that gun ownership, at that time, was limited mainly by affordability. There was no specific anti-Semitic gun clause. Wealthier Jews would sponsor wholesale gun purchases, just in case. Thus, during a pogrom, an axes- and knives-wielding mob could either wreck havoc unopposed, or could be met by gunfire of a local self-defense squad, and retreat with losses.

Now, being a member of which Jewish community (on a verge of a pogrom) would be your preference, if you had to choose: a peaceful one, under the motto: "Adding more guns to any situation does not make it better, ever", or a one with a few rifles and pistols distributed to competent members of a self-defense team?

I understand your point. But violence only begets more violence. As Gandhi rightly said "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.". And we have first hand experience of how bloody this violence can get.

When the British partitioned India, we saw horrific violence of the kind we hope we never have to see again.

My biggest fear now is that Muslims, Christians & Dalits will organise themselves into armed bands to protect themselves from these fascist RSS goons. It will result in a Civil War which will kill millions and set India back by decades! I have covered Civil Wars in African countries before, and know what it does to countries and people. Never thought I would have to see that in my own country!

India needs to go back to Gandhi - a man murdered by a RSS goon called Godse. What he taught us still holds relevance. Not just to India but to the world.