Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
mad99 wrote:what's Gau Bhakti?
TIL India has cow vigilantes
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.
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.
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....
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?
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!
N867DA wrote:I think you live in a liberal bubble.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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?
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?
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...
BawliBooch wrote:There are 200 million Muslims in India, over 30 million Christians, and over 500 million Dalits.
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?
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?
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.
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?