A few days back I was invited by Career Economy to provide my views on the topic “Should we all be vegetarians?” This, as their mail said in no uncertain terms, was in “sincere praise for your [my] exemplary expertise on the topic”. My reply, or more aptly a rant, was as follows:
No one can decide for everyone. Whether one chooses to be a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian (or a bit of both) is purely a personal choice. Neither a spouse, family, state or religion have the right to impose upon an individual their will in this regard. Unfortunately that’s not what happens. But that’s a different topic altogether.
It is a well known fact that both Veg and Non-veg food have their benefits for the human health. My question to the supporters of vegetarianism then is, on what basis has it been concluded that Veg food is better than Non-veg?
In India, religion and caste play a key role when it comes to the food one is allowed to eat. Hindus are considered to be largely vegetarian. But there are castes that eat Non-veg. Brahmins have to stay away from meat. The ‘lower-castes’ need not. Then there are the Bengalis, who, irrespective of their position in the caste-based hierarchy are ‘certified’ to eat fish. Might one ask on what basis were these rules put in place? May be if a convincing answer came by, one could argue that religion and caste are the right criteria for deciding what food one eats. One will have to curse his / her destiny then for not being able to eat the food of one’s choice. Till then, however, individuals should be allowed to choose what they eat.
OK. May be I degressd a bit by bringing in religion, but then I had to make my point. What you say?
Recent Comments