Comer carne na Índia é uma questão de liberdade?

As proibições de comer carne de vaca e porco na Índia são polêmicas. Manav Bhuhshan discute a questão sob o ponto de vista da discriminação de castas e da restrição à liberdade de expressão.

Os hindus acreditam que as vacas são sagradas e os muçulmanos consideram o porco “haram” (proibido). Ambos os tipos de carne são alimentos básicos da casta Dalits, uma das mais baixas na Índia, que consideram as recentes proibições que entraram em vigor em alguns estados como resultado de preconceitos que restringem seus direitos fundamentais de livre expressão. Em abril de 2012, alguns estudantes da Universidade de Osmania em Hyderabad iniciaram uma campanha para que a carne de vaca fosse servida na cantina da universidade. Integrantes dos grupos estudantis de direita reagiram com uma forte oposição e violência. Contudo, a campanha de Dalits se espalhou para a Universidade Jawaharlal Nehru, que tem sido um dos bastiões dos estudantes de esquerda há décadas.

Tanto a discussão política quanto os vereditos dos tribunais foram se tornando cada vez mais conservadores em relação ao assunto do abate de bois e vacas nos últimos anos. Importantes partidos políticos e até mesmo o supremo tribunal da Índia foram favoráveis às restrições impostas pelos governos estaduais. Além de questões de casta e religião, o debate sobre o abate de vacas tem dimensões de classe. O renomado acadêmcio Praful Bidwai argumentou que “a ausência de carne bovina vai aumentar o custo dos alimentos para os não privilegiados”. A liberdade de comer o que você quiser é algo muito delicado, e as perspectivas futuras parecem ser mais incertas do que antes.

Leia mais:


Comentários (0)

As traduções automáticas são feitas pelo Google Translate. Essa ferramenta pode lhe dar uma idéia aproximada do que o usuário escreveu, mas não pode ser considerada uma tradução precisa. Por favor, leia estas mensagens levando isso em conta.

  1. O seu comentário aguarda moderação.

    I, for one, have no problem with ban on cow slaughter. Infact, I might even support the reasoning behind the ban only because a significant section of Hindu society considers it sacred and if banning sustains the cultural and religious kaleidoscope, which India is, then so be it. Having said that, cow slaughter was already banned by many state governments long ago and it is not a new issue. However, this ban doesn’t, shouldn’t, mean ban on slaughtering of bulls and bullock (which were included in the slaughter ban in Maharashtra recently) as they are not considered sacred and thus shouldn’t offend anyone. Another point which should be noted is that beef in India traditionally has been buffalo’s, bull’s and bullock’s meat and is known as poor man’s meat. It serves as a protein source for less privileged section of the society which can’t afford mutton or poultry. By a blanket ban, one of the very few sources of protein for malnourished in India would dry up reducing the already insufficient per capita nutrition intake of the poor.
    Another social/economical aspect which one must consider before committing ourselves’ to the blanket ban is that only old bulls , which were unfit for farming, were sold by farmers to the slaughterers. Farmer in India, who are usually under tremendous financial strain, simply can’t afford to take care of the old bulls till they die and it was a source of a small income to them. Now, after the beef ban, they would be forced to leave the beast in open and these stray cattle would further obstruct the traffic in already congested Indian roads. For tackling this, the government will have to make many shelter houses which would again cost the exchequer a fair bit.

  2. O seu comentário aguarda moderação.

    Why does a community have to eat a particular animal? Is it only about taste or is it about their right to offend the other religion?

    Why is it almost always the case that in India an overwhelming majority of those who want to protect their right to eat beef always get violent when someone talks about his right to eat pork? Both are just animals with four legs.

    There are certain Indian cities like Haridwar that are strictly vegetarian. It has been so for centuries and no one complained about it ever. There are certain Indian cities like Deoghar where mouse traps are not sold because the little creature is supposed to be the carrier of Lord Ganesha !!!

    Why in the name of freedom do you want to hurt millions of people’s religious sentiments, as long as it is not hurting anyone in any significant way?

  3. O seu comentário aguarda moderação.

    I think to kill any species of the world for our test is not a natural way.For Example – If a lion kill any antelope then it is a natural way and then he eat it. By this way, there is no any disturbance in life cycle. But when we kill any species of the world which is not any natural way then it increases the disturbance in the natural system. Now when we are talking about Humanity, we know that human is most intelligent species of the world , then it is our responsibility to think about every species and their protection so that there is no disturbance in the nature. Now if i am talking about beef ,Killing any species for beef will generate a great disturbance in the natural system for humanity.
    Thank You!

    • O seu comentário aguarda moderação.

      I have to objections: firstly, whatever is natural is not necessarily ethical or preferable. In some denominations and religions, blood injection is prohibited because it is assumed as non-natural against the god’s will. However, is it ethically acceptable to leave a child to die in the basis of such belief? Piercing is another example. Men and women in most of the communities had used piercing throughout the history. But is piercing really natural? Then the second question will come up: what is natural and what is non-natural. While in some societies, circumcision is assumed as necessary for sexual pleasure of men and women – which is a natural desire- in some others it is defined non-natural and even brutal in case of infants. All in all, defining ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’ not only doesn’t help us to solve the dilemma but also it leads us to more complicated dilemmas.

Deixe um comentário em qualquer língua

Destaques

Deslize para a esquerda para navegar todos os destaques


Liberdade de Expressão em Debate é um projeto de pesquisa do Programa Dahrendorf para o Estudo da Liberdade de Expressão, do Colégio St Antony's na Universidade de Oxford. www.freespeechdebate.ox.ac.uk

A Universidade de Oxford