Stop Animal Slaughter in the Name of Hinduism

[Guest guest]

Reforming Hinduism

By Kamath

from Organiser

IS there any difference between killing animals for meat and killing

them as sacrifices to God? Does God require animal sacrifice to

bestow grace on his devotees? What kind of religion is it that

demands the killing of animals for whatever reason? This question has

been worrying reformers for decades now. Many temples in India have

given up animal sacrifice but many still remain where the killing of

animals is routine. Mahakali needs blood. Isn't it time for our

religious leaders to get together and come to some understanding on

this issue? Sacrificing animals is a barbaric practice but not many

will agree to it, some out of conviction and some out of sheer fear

of hurting the sentiments of co-religionists. In Tamil Nadu, there

apparently is a law banning animal sacrifice but to date no one has

dared to enforce it. Early in September, Chief Minister J.

Jayalalithaa ordered a clampdown on the bloody ritual but apparently

few officials are willing to implement her order. The Federation of

Village Temple Priests in Tamil Nadu has urged the Government not to

enforce the law. According to the Federation president S. Vedantam

the move is impractical. As he sees it, animal sacrifice can only be

banned when a majority of people stop eating non-vegetarian food. In

Tiruchi, Tamil Nadu, members of the Peoples Art and Literary

Association (PALA) and the Revolutionary Students and Youth Front

caused a flutter in the city on September 8 by slaughtering a goat in

front of the Sappani Swamy Temple to register their protest against

the reimposed ban on bird and animal sacrifice by Jayalalithaa, even

as the Madras High Court heard a petition challenging the legality of

the Tamil Nadu Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act,

originally passed as long ago as 1950. In the course of arguments,

Chief Justice B. Subhashan Reddy wanted to know the motive behind

the `urgency' in enforcing the Act. He is quoted as saying: "You may

enact a law to prohibit certain activities, and the Court may attest

its veracity. But what is the urgency in enforcing the impugned Act

when it was not enforced during the past 53 years?" Good question.

But then one may ask a counter-question: why was the law passed if

there was no possibility of enforcing it fully? And if a law has been

passed shouldn't it be enforced whenever such a demand has been made?

What is surprising is that having passed the law, the Government of

the then Madras State did not bother to see that it is enforced. What

is shocking is that it has not been enforced for 53 years. And if

Chief Minister Jayalalithaa had not suddenly raised the issue, people

would not even have known that such a law existed in the Tamil Nadu

statute book. Justice Reddy wanted to know

from the Advocate General N.R. Chandran whether it was correct to

ban, all of a sudden, an activity which had been practised for

generations. To that Shri Chandran's reply was that animal sacrifice

was a social menace such as sati and untouchability and had to be

stopped at some stage. The Chief Justice apparently was not

convinced. Two questions arise: Is animal sacrifice wrong in

principle and, if that is so, can the state prohibit Muslims from

making such sacrifices on certain occasions? Two, what religious

sanction is there among Hindus permitting animal sacrifice? The

Advocate General in Chennai made the point that "unless it is

established that the practice is essential for the religion (he

professes), it cannot be permitted. What he apparently was trying to

stress is that animal sacrifice is part of Islamic religion and

cannot, therefore, be refused to Muslims. But what Vedic—or non-Vedic

injuction is there that sanctions animal sacrifice? Isn't this a case

for Hindu social reform? There is a reference to animal sacrifice in

Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with

Truth that is very revelatory. Once, during his stay in Calcutta

(Kolkata) in the 1920s, he was taken to the Kali Temple. Wrote the

Mahatma: "On the way I saw a stream of sheep going to be sacrificed

to Kali... . We were greeted by rivers of blood. I could not bear to

stand there. I was exasperated and restless. I have never forgotten

that sight... . To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious

than that of a human being... . I hold that the more helpless a

creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the

cruelty of man... . It is my constant prayer that there may be born

on earth some great spirit, man or woman, fired with divine pity, who

will deliver us from this heinous sin, save the lives of innocent

creatures, and purify the temple. How is it that Bengal with all its

knowledge, intelligence, sacrifice and emotion, tolerates this

slaughter?" But animal sacrifice is not practised in Bengal alone. As

we see it, it is practised in that most orthodox citadel of Hinduism—

or, shall we call it, Brahmanic Hinduism—that is Tamil Nadu. And if a

law prohibiting animal sacrifices is hard to enforce in Tamil Nadu

where else can it be possibly enforced? And may it also be stated:

Not all Hindus are pure vegetarians; indeed, not all Brahmins are

pure vegetarians. In parts of North India, Brahmins also eat meat. So

what is this vegetarian Hinduism that we talk about? Here is a tough

question to the champions of Hinduism, especially the Vishwa Hindu

Parishad: Does it condone non-vegetarianism among Hindus?

The

 

Moving

 

Finger

 

Writes

 

M.V.Kamath

 

And where does it draw the line? At the consumption of eggs only? Or

fish only? Or meat like venison? If the VHP is opposed to killing of

animals—any animals—why doesn't it start an agitation in Tamil Nadu,

demanding the banning of animal slaughter? There is nothing to

indicate that the Mahatma had this lying heavily on his mind for all

his devotion to non-violence. Hindus are not as a rule strictly

vegetarian. But can one draw a line between killing for meat and

killing for sacrifice? This is not just an academic question. It goes

to the very heart of defining what Hinduism is and what it permits

and what it does not. When so much is being made about banning cow-

slaughter, shouldn't the same rule apply to other animals as well?

What sort of Hinduism are we practising? What kind of double

standards are we observing? And why are our religious leaders silent

on so vital an issue as animal sacrifice in a temple—admittedly only

a Kali or Siva temple? Hindus need to discuss this issue threadbare,

instead of ducking it. One must admire Jayalalithaa's courage in

wishing to enforce the ban on animal sacrifice. But it is already

becoming clear that failure is written in her effort. What, in the

circumstances, would a true-blue Hindutvavadi say? Or should say?

Hasn't the time come to demand total ban on any kind of animal

sacrifice, instead of prevaricating on the issue? There is a great

need to cleanse Hinduism. And the time is now.

 

 

 

Why are our religious leaders silent on so vital an issue as animal

sacrifice in temples and mosques. What kind of double standards are

we observing?

 

 

----

----------

 

Copy Right © 2003 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd.

===============================================================================

RSS seeks ban on animal slaughter

article from Indian media on topic

New Delhi, Oct. 9: Animal sacrifices remain a part of Kali puja, but the RSS

mouthpiece Organiser appears to be in favour of banning such “barbaric

practices.” And this is where the RSS and Maneka Gandhi apparently join hands.

 

“Mahakali needs blood. Isn’t it time for our religious leaders to get together

and come to some understanding on this issue,” the Organiser states.

 

As West Bengal gears up to celebrate Kali puja, the mouthpiece is all praise for

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha for trying to clamp down on animal

sacrifices.

 

The RSS journal argued that if there was an agitation demanding a ban on cow

slaughter, why should other animals be slaughtered?

 

The Organiser also questions the VHP’s concept of Hindutva and wonders why it

does not start an agitation in TN, which refuses to accept Jayalalitha’s move to

ban animal sacrifices.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

do not get blinded by that old smoke-screen politics. Media and political

parties are discussing at length about Hinduism and some few animal sacrifices a

year in India – and at the same time most of them fully accept or tolerate

killings of thousands of innocent animals DAILY at McDonalds and similar

restaurants - “sacrificed just to fill the stomach”.

 

If they are so worried: Why they don't outlaw non-vegetarianism?

 

Moreover, Hinduism is so diverse and pluralistic that if some members perform

sacrifices – on whatever scriptural basis - it should not bother anyone. It

might be just a facet in the wide scale of Hinduistic practices.

 

First discuss and plan how to stop the materialistic feeding on animals in

restaurants and homes and then start, if necessary at all, criticizing practices

of some small religious groups.

 

With best wishes,

 

Shaas A. Ruzicka

 

 

_____________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

The most personalized portal on the Web!