It’s regrettable to say that such bans are nowadays more for political considerations than anything else. For instance, in Maharashtra there was already the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 which prohibited the slaughter of cows (defined to include a male or female calf ) but permitted the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes upon obtainment of a ‘fit for slaughter’ certificate. But now by a new law effective from the 2nd of March, 2015, sale and export of beef has been totally prohibited, causing large-scale unemployment

Those who raise a commotion and cry against cow slaughter are not at all bothered by the suffering of tens of thousands of cows which are not properly fed. When cows grow old or for some other reason can no longer give milk, they are often driven out and left to fend for themselves. In India it’s common to see cows eating filth and garbage from roadsides. Indians have seen cows so thin that their ribs protrude out of their flesh. If cows are made to starve is that not also cow slaughter? Is the government really bothered about that?

The Union Home Minister, Mr Rajnath Singh, at a speech to Jain saints in Indore said that he supported a national ban on cow slaughter, and would try for a consensus on the issue. Being part of this consensus and supporting the ban against beef is wrong for the following reasons :

1. Beef is a source of cheap protein, and in the North Eastern states of Nagaland, Mizoram, Tripura, etc., and in some other states like Kerala, beef forms the major portion of the staple diet. What if the rice or wheat (staple diet of present Hindu fanatics) is banned?

2. There should be freedom to eat what one wants in an independent, secular and democratic country.

3. There is nothing wrong in eating beef. Most of the world eats beef. Are they all wicked people?

In many states of India, beef consumption is legally banned, because of a false religious myth. According to the myth propagated by Hindu nationalists, cows were worshipped in ancient India and it was the invaders, both Muslims and Christians, who brought beef eating to India. But, facts and religious scriptures prove that it was the Vedic Hindus who were among the world’s first urban consumers of beef. This was even before Jesus Christ was crucified and 1,000 years before Islam was formed. The following sources support this:

1. Mahabharata, 500 B.C.: Hindu King Rantiveda slaughters 2,000 cows a day in his royal kitchens and distributes beef along with grains to apparently grateful Brahmins, the Hindu priests.

2. Charaka Samhita, 100 B.C.: Cow flesh is being prescribed as a medicine for various diseases. It is also used for making soup and advised as a cure for irregular fever and emaciation. The fat of the cow is recommended for debility and rheumatism.

3. Taittiriya Brahmana, 500 B.C.: Verily the cow is food.

4. Yajnavalkya, one of the most popular Hindu sages: ‘Some people do not eat cow meat. I do so, provided it’s tender’.

5. Sacrificial offerings for Indra (the rain God) and Agni (the fire God), were bulls and cows.

6.Vedas have mentioned 250 animals out of which at least 50 (cows included) are fit for sacrifice and human consumption.

7. Manusmriti did not prohibit the consumption of beef.

The cow worship is not done out of animal love, as the same ‘God’ that exists in cows also exists in cockroaches. By this logic, we should be worshipping insects too. The central focus of the beef ban is to create a Hindu-Muslim divide, so that the power holders can simply divide and rule. What is not a myth, is that the so-called holy cow is used for unholy purposes.

Just because you believe in something or you don’t, the people shouldn’t be made into idiots. Indians should not get instigated by such leaders who always look to securing a vote bank at any cost. The cow is called mata (mother) because of the benefits it brings to human beings.

Toleration and accommodating each other’s faith can only bring peace to a nation and this applies across all religions in a country.

Most of the present Hindu leaders, who are always in search of triggering communal divide through their foul statements, have Muslim son-in-laws. They do so because they consider that the majority of the population of this nation is a pool of fools that can easily be ruled just by dividing on communal, caste, or other contentious grounds.