Ghar-Wapasi (Reconversion to Hinduism) or Harakiri?

 

 

Ghar-Wapasi (Reconversion to Hinduism) or Harakiri?

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

Hindu society has been at the brunt of Conversion or Proselytization since over 1400 years ago, with the first arrival of Islam on its borders and shores. Millions of people were converted to Islam forcibly during the course of the centuries. Christianity entered India more or less at the same time, with the arrival of Syrian Orthodox Christian refugees from West Asia, and actual Evangelistic Christianity came to India only with the Portuguese and the European colonial powers (though I stand open to correction about whether or not there were Evangelist attacks on Hindu society before the arrival of the Portuguese). Nevertheless the very ideology of Christianity which demands conversion of "heathens" was in the consciousness of many of the much earlier Christian refugees and made them naturally receptive to the preaching of the later Portuguese Evangelists, Crusaders and Inquisitionist elements. While large scale conversion to Islam became a trickle (to be replaced by the equally or more effective tactics of population-explosion and infiltration from neighboring countries), Christian Evangelist conversion in India has been shooting up since India became "independent": Take the upward changes in the comparative figures of the percentage of the Christian population in the northeastern states from 1951 (i.e. after the British left) to 2011 (some of the states were formed out of Assam at later dates, so the figures start from those dates):

 

STATE	1951	1961	1971	1981	2001	2011
Manipur	11.84	19.49	26.03	29.68	34.04	41.29
Nagaland	46.05	52.98	66.76	80.21	89.96	87.93
Mizoram	–	–	–	83.81	86.97	87.16
Meghalaya	–	35.21	46.98	52.62	70.25	74.59
Arunachal Pradesh	–	–	0.79	4.32	18.72	30.26

 

While the slower rate of childbirth among Christians as compared to other communities has effectively camouflaged the results in respect of the comparative all-India percentage in religious populations, the conversions have been going on at an accelerating pace, and the number of people of all castes and communities that can be seen everywhere (from urban footpaths to mofusil rural hamlets and remote jungles), sporting crosses around their necks and tattooed crucifixes on their bodies, tells the tale effectively. Since 1947, the problem has been escalating with every passing decade. The poison of collaboration with the missionaries, which was part and parcel of Nehruvian Secularism and Leftist anti-nationalism in India, is not over. It is functioning through a more sinister medium: the pseudo-Hindutva of the BJP Parivar which is financially dependent on the same foreign sources as the Evangelists and the Leftists, and which has the added advantage (which the Secularist forces never had) of being able to muffle, or snuff out, the voices of "Hindu" opposition to the conversion of Hindus — or worse, the power (which the Secularist forces never had) to convert "Hindu" opposition into "Hindu" apologism and support for anti-Hindu activities.

Recently, the BJP Parivar made this clear once more by setting up a Commission to decide whether SC (Scheduled Caste) converts to Christianity and Islam should get the same entitlement to reservations as SC (Scheduled Caste) Hindus. With this measure, the floodgates of conversion from Hinduism to Christianity and Islam will be opened wider to the members of the Scheduled Castes among Hindus and this will give an even greater fillip, if any were needed, to the accelerating drain-out from Hinduism. As the whole thing will be portrayed (if at all any explanations are called for by gullible Hindu voters) as a judiciary-imposed measure, the BJP Parivar has no need to fear repercussions from "Hindus".

 

In this context, some concerned Hindus (the emphasis is on the word some, since Hindu society is probably one of the most self-neglecting and self-destructive societies in the world and certainly within India, and most Hindus would prefer to ignore all such issues or to join with the bhakts in deemphasizing their magnitude and importance) have been wondering: "what is the answer to all this? How does Hindu society salvage its depleting numbers?" And one solution which seems to be doing the rounds is "Concentrate on ghar-wapasi or the reconversion of ex-Hindus"! I was asked by some people to make some comments on the subject of ghar-wapasi, and hence this article.

Before going into detail, let me first give my answer to the question in the briefest possible words: "I am a strong advocate of ghar-wapasi in respect of Christians, but not in respect of Muslims except where large sections of ex-Hindu Muslims inside heavily Hindu majority areas can quietly be brought back into the Hindu fold". If any individual ex-Hindu Muslim were to ask my advice on whether he/she should individually reconvert back to Hinduism, my advice would be "No! I respect you and love you for your desire to return back to Hinduism, but my sincere advice to you, born precisely out of that respect and love, is: do not commit harakiri. Hindu society is not worthy of this sacrifice".

Firstly, it has always been correctly pointed out by many people (from both, or all, sides) that a person who reconverts back to Hinduism will face all kinds of problems of community identity within a caste-bound Hindu society, as no-one will be able to point out which caste-group would be able to accept that person into its fold without internal repercussions. I will not however go into this point, strong though it is. It is possible (though I am not in a position to say how much of a possibility it would be) that, with the emergence of class identity as a strong competitor to caste identity in certain sections of modern metropolitan Indian society and the increasing incidence of inter-caste, inter-religious and even inter-racial and international marriages (among these classes), there would be certain classes where reconverted Hindus would be able to find acceptance.

More than acceptance, the problem to an ex-Hindu, or rather, I repeat, to an ex-Hindu Muslim, would be the very serious personal repercussions of reconversion on his/her life and liberty. I know that certain scholars, like Koenraad Elst, have been advocating ghar-wapasi as the only solution to the spiraling demographic problems threatening the future of Hindus. And, before I started devoting serious thought to the subject, I would have been in two minds on whether to agree or not, since there are both pros and cons to reconversion to Hinduism. But, as I said, after giving serious thought to the subject, my answer is "Ghar-wapasi of ex-Hindu Christians (to the extent feasible and possible), a very strong YES. Ghar-wapasi of ex-Hindu  Muslims, a very strong NO".

 

It would be very easy for me to fake a display of my love for Hinduism by advocating reconversion of ex-Hindu Muslims to Hinduism. It has, after all, often been noticed that the attitude of people faking love for Hinduism and concern for its future goes somewhat like this (as a Marathi expression puts it): "Shivaji janmālā  yāvā, paṇ śezaryācyā gharāt". That is: "Shivaji should be born (to fight for Hinduism and save it from its enemies), but in my neighbor's house, (not in mine: in my house let only a future doctor, computer engineer, Machiavellian politician, business tycoon, share market mogul, or green-card holder be born)".

When people like Koenraad Elst advocate ghar-wapasi, it is purely out of their genuine love and concern for Hinduism, which, in prevailing circumstances, seems to leave them with no other feasible solution in sight. If common non-politicized Hindus advocate it, it could be out of a similar love and concern, accompanied by general lack of deep thought on the possible repercussions of reconversion on the life and liberty of the said reconverted. When politicized "Hindus" advocate it, it is that age old syndrome encapsulated in the above Marathi expression: "Shivaji should be born (to fight for Hinduism and save it from its enemies), but in my neighbor's house, (not in mine: in my house let only a future doctor, computer engineer, Machiavellian politician, business tycoon, share market mogul, or green-card holder be born)" With another additional unspoken clause: "(Or even better, in the house of some ex-Hindu. They should reconvert and fight the battle for Hinduism; leaving us free to indulge in jingoistic statements and antics, and to vote our favorite 'Hindutvavadi' politicians to power, cheering them on as they play their cat-and-mouse games with these reconverts)".

Recently, we have had a very prominent example (definitely not the first and very definitely not the last) of the kind of treatment that even a heroic Hindu (Nupur Sharma) daring to show a pro-Hindu attitude gets from everyone, including and most pointedly the mercenary "Hindutvavadi" politicians. Even a Hindu daring to be pro-Hindu in non-electoral contexts gets thrown to the dogs. Can a Muslim who dares to reconvert to Hinduism, and arouse the violent anger and attacks of his ex-coreligionists, expect anything different?

 

No, this is not a hypothetical question. Recently we have had two cases where prominent Muslim individuals reconverted to Hinduism in December 2021:

One was the former chief of the Shia Waqf Board of U.P., Wasim Rizvi, who was reconverted to Hinduism by a Hindu sage Yati Narsinghanand Sarasvati (the priest of Dasna temple in Ghaziabad), and renamed Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi. He immediately became the object of death threats and slanderous news items. An article in the Times of India of 8th December by a Hindu, Kumar Shakti Shekhar, opined "No wonder, his polarizing comments have been met with extreme reactions and even threats to life". Not just Muslims, but Hindu Woke-Leftists and Secularists, and even the most powerful among the "Hindutvavadi" leaders and thinkers, find it perfectly natural, inevitable, understandable and excusable that "comments" against Islam by a Muslim who reconverts to Hinduism should make him eligible for "extreme reactions and even threats to life". A Hindu who converts to Islam or Christianity, and makes remarks against Hinduism, on the other hand, is cited approvingly and feted for his "comments", which moreover automatically become tangible evidence of the inherent bad features in Hinduism. Also, a flurry of corruption cases have apparently been foisted on him (I say "apparently" because the omnipotent Woke-leftist media is expectedly reticent on his current status, and there is a conspiracy of silence even on what is happening to him at the moment): when a corrupt politician joins the BJP, all corruption cases melt away into nothingness, when an ex-Hindu Muslim reconverts to Hinduism, he becomes one of the most disgustingly corrupt persons in India. 

The case of another Muslim, Ali Akbar, an eminent film director from Kerala, who reconverted to Hinduism, and took on the name Rama Simhan, is even more telling. Urged by many people, he directed a film "1921 Nadī Se Nadī Tak" depicting the large-scale killings of Hindus in Kerala a hundred years earlier, in 1921, in the events of August 1921 known as the "Moplah Riots" as part of the "Khilafat Movement" , based on the detailed reports of the riots as penned down by K Madhavan Nair and K Gopalan Nair. I wrote a review of the film on 8/8/2022 as soon as I was honored by the privilege of seeing a preview of the film in a private theatre in Mumbai:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-kerala-files-1921-nadi-se-nadi-tak.html

This film was not just a worthy successor to The Kashmir Files by Vivek Agnihotri,  but even (with due apologies to Vivek Agnihotri) surpassed it in many ways in presenting the true history of events in India. As expected, it evoked large-scale condemnation from all Woke-leftist and Secularist scribes in the media and social media, and from every section of the Breaking India Forces, but this time the negative tirade was muted and concealed: caution and strategy (and the experience of The Kashmir Files) dictated that it was unwise to give too much publicity — even negative publicity — to the film.

And it was not even necessary for the Breaking India Forces to trouble themselves: the same authorities who gave so much positive publicity to the The Kashmir Files have joined hands with their alleged critics in completely stonewalling and destroying this film. It is as if it never existed! The makers of some of the science fiction films and serials doing the rounds on Netflix and other such sites at the moment could take a lesson on the occurrence of strange psychic or metaphysical phenomena from these real events.

[One major difference between this film and The Kashmir Files is that this film only seriously depicted the blanked-out portions of India history of a hundred years ago: this film did not bring in a mention about how the present dispensation in India has resulted in a changed and more positive situation for Hindus. But while I would like to say that that is the reason for its abandonment by all and sundry, that would not be a complete answer. The entire political situation in India has changed for the worse for Hindus and Hindu issues, and the more that both the sides join hands in proclaiming that India is going Hindu, the more Hinduism stands in mortal danger. 

Incidentally, The Kashmir Files also gave us that classic apologism for the activities of the BJP Parivar (through the mouth of a Breaking India activist): "Sarkar unki hai to kya hua, System to apni hai"].

There will be an even more Orwellian cloud of silence when (I say when, and not if) the maker of this film gets assassinated. Today it is not only India but the major part of the world, and certainly of the western world, which is under the control of the Orwellian Deep States. Remember the wide range of reactions which shook the world when Ayatollah Khomeini passed the death sentence edict on Salman Rushdie in 1988. All the progressive forces in the world rose to his support. Today, when he has actually been attacked by an Islamic terrorist, it is a changed world. The whole world is now under the control of Woke-leftist ideology and his near-assassination has become non-news. There is effectively an absolute silence even on the subject of his current life status.

 

Without going further into all this, I will just conclude by repeating the advice that I gave earlier to Muslims thinking of reconverting to Hinduism: Your lives are too pure and precious to be committing harakiri for a Hindu society which simply does not care, and simply does not deserve to have noble people sacrificing themselves for it.

 

On Vegetarianism as a Virtue

 

On Vegetarianism as a Virtue

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

The following tweet was brought to my notice by a friend:

I have never spoken/written anything about Jains being "intolerant towards meat-eaters". I am not saying they are not: all believers in any religious, moral or ethical principle or belief are generally unsympathetic to acts which go against those principles or beliefs, but "unsympathetic" does not automatically mean "intolerant", and only a small percentage of those believers (or rather, different small percentages of those believers, depending on the particular case in point) would generally translate their lack of sympathy into active intolerance — and only the Abrahamic religions preach intolerance to the point of hatred towards those who do not share the same beliefs. I have not made a study of how many Jains are intolerant in this respect, but the main point is that I have never said or written anything suggesting that they are. For example, in my article on "Are Indian Tribals Hindus", I have pointed out:

"If there are some religions born out of mainstream Hinduism (Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism) which have acquired distinctive identities over the centuries, they have still remained part of the Hindu cultural stream (having a common history, a common viewpoint towards life, common religious symbols like Om, respect for Sanskrit as a Sacred language and for the saffron colour as a Sacred colour, vegetarianism as an ideal ethic, similar religious-philosophical terms and institutions, etc., and, as Dr. Ambedkar pointed out: “The application of the Hindu Code to Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains was a historical development, and it would be too late, sociologically, to object to it. When the Buddha differed from the Vedic Brahmins, he did so only in matters of creed, but left the Hindu legal framework intact. He did not propound a separate law for his followers. The same was the case with Mahavir and the ten Sikh Gurus” (Keer, p.427).)"

Elsewhere, in my article "Parameters for Writing Indian History", I wrote: "vegetarianism is a noble concept which entered Hinduism only after Buddhism and Jainism".

In my very first book published in  1993, in a small sub-section ("Non-Vegetarianism vs. Vegetarianism") of my third chapter illustrating the basic difference between Indian and Abrahamic religions, I put it as follows:

"Non-vegetarianism is a basic feature of Semitic religions. While Christianity did not retain the Judaic system of ritualistic slaughter of animals, Islam not only retained it, but even made it compulsory. However, so far as vegetarianism is concerned, the concept is as alien to Christianity as it is to Judaism and Islam. Islam, in fact, specifically prohibits vegetarianism (Sahih Muslim, hadis 3236) alongwith celibacy and physical austerity. And both Islam and Christianity require that a convert from another religion be compelled to eat the flesh of the particular animal prohibited by his earlier religion, in order to set the seal on his conversion. (For this, also, Islam provides specific precedents, as, for example, an incident quoted from Tabqāt-i-ibn Sa'd by Ram Swarup in Understanding Islam through Hadis p. 191).

Hinduism, on the other hand (including its major sects like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, and barring only some minor sects and cults) considers vegetarianism to be a major virtue.

The "Aryans", however, are supposed to have been non-vegetarians. The Leftists are never tired of declaring that the "Vedic Aryans" were meat-caters and even beef-eaters. Vegetarianism was introduced as an ethical reform by Buddha and Mahavir, and has been an intrinsic part of Hindu ethics ever since. But as per the Aryan invasion theory itself, vegetarianism was an important concept among "pro-Aryan Dravidians".

The concept of vegetarianism has deeper connotations. It is based on a basic respect and reverence for all forms of life. Along with the zoomorphic aspects of Hinduism, and the concept of transmigration of souls into animals and plants, it represents a practical manifestation of the basic Hindu philosophy of Pantheism, which is anathema to Semitic religions. These religions believe in a man-centered creation, devoid of inherent divinity, with the plant and animal kingdoms, in fact the whole of nature, created by God for use and exploitation by man."

 

So yes, Vegetarianism is certainly a great virtue according to the philosophical tenets of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and even Sikhism (an amritdhari Sikh is supposed to eschew eating non-vegetarian food), and also in the eyes of all people who become vegetarians, which is increasingly happening all over the western world in significant numbers. And equally, even within Hinduism, there are many sects which are non-vegetarian even in many religious practices: many Shaktic and Tantric sects have the offering (to a Deity) and eating of meat as a part of their religious ritual, and we also have the undeniable fact that before Jainism in particular made it a matter of ethical-religious purity, even the Vedic religion was more or less a non-vegetarian religion or at least not a vegetarian-advocating religion.

It is not Jains or Vaishnavas, or any other Hindu sect which prizes Vegetarianism as an ideal, that has displayed the most extreme intolerance towards meat eaters or ritual slaughter in Indian history: it is the Breaking India Forces (particularly the fake NGOs and Animal-rights activists, and the secular politicians and judges from within "Hindu" society) who have made selective Humanitarianism a weapon in their fight against everything Hindu, and effectively achieved the greatest degree of success in targeting Hindu sects in such matters. And the way in which they have done this is almost unbelievable and could only happen in India. I refer to the case of the ban on ritual slaughter at the Tripureshwari temple as ordered by the High Court of Tripura in response to a petition by an "animal-rights" lover:

On 27/9/2019, on a petition filed by an "animal-rights lover", a "Hindu" named Subhas Bhattacharjee, a bench of the Tripura High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Arindam Lodh, both "Hindus", passed an order completely banning animal sacrifice in all Hindu temples in the state. Some of the golden words of wisdom from that judgment are worth reading: "It is the duty of the state to bring changes by eradicating all ill practices to bring reform in society [….] The state should enact a law banning slaughter of animals at temples, as it runs against public order, morality and health". Further, the learned judges, who seemed to have read and memorized the religious texts of all religions, ruled: "Unless it being essential, sacrifice of an animal for religion cannot be considered to be a moral act. All religions call for compassion and no religion requires killing. Sacrifice of animal in the temple with which we are concerned is seriously morally wrong, for it is an act of illegally taking away of life". After ruling that "No person including the state shall be allowed to sacrifice any animal/bird within the precincts of any of the temples of Tripura", the judges kindly made a concession: "Any devotee desirous of offering any animal out of personal faith, belief or desire may do so, but shall take back the animal and under no circumstances any activity of animal sacrifice shall be permitted to be carried out".

The various aspects of this whole case and judgment must be noted:

1. The petitioners and judges first appointed themselves as judges as to what constituted Hindu practices, and then appointed themselves as Hindu Inquisitioners or Religious Authorities banning such "un-Hindu" practices in Hindu temples.

2. The court indirectly said, without saying it in so many words, that Islam (and likewise Judaism) is not a religion, since "no religion requires killing", or alternatively that Muslims are not following their religion when they sacrifice animals in millions during Bakri-Id.

3. At the same time, again without saying it in so many words, it also said that a Hindu ritually slaughtering even one animal is an "ill-practice" which is "seriously morally wrong, for it is an act of illegally taking away of life", and "runs against public order, morality and health". But the ritual slaughter of millions of animals by Muslims on Bakri-Id is none of these things.

4. Or, alternatively, that restrictions and state/judicial control of religious practices, based on the views and beliefs of political activists and judges, should always be applied only to Hinduism, but never ever to any other religion in India.

5. Finally, the judges made it clear that the inclusive Hinduism that is known to all of us, which includes thousands and thousands of mutually contradictory beliefs and practices, many carried forward from the countless local religions and traditions from all over India which got united under the umbrella identity of Hinduism, has now to be radically transformed and changed into an Abrahamic religion where certain practices must be declared correct and all contradictory practices must be legally banned.

 

I have no knowledge about whether the petitioner or either of the judges was a Jain, but I am sure they were not, and even if any of them were indeed a Jain, it would still be slanderously incorrect to say that Jains as a class "were intolerant towards meat eaters", and even more slanderously incorrect to say "talageri says jains were intolerant towards meat eaters". I am sure the tweeter had no such slanderous intention and it was just a wrong interpretation of something I wrote, but I felt it necessary to write an article clarifying my views on Vegetarianism in response to that tweet as well as for another reason: this Diwali of 2022 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the day I completely gave up meat-eating (on the day of Diwali 1972), and so this is an opportunity to relate my autobiographical details regarding Vegetarianism as well as to express my views on the Ethics of it.

Most of my community has resided in Mumbai since more than a hundred years, and a result of modern urban settlement, combined with high English education, has been a general abandonment of Vegetarianism as a practice. Most of my relatives on my father's side (all lifelong residents of Mumbai) are non-vegetarians, and most of the older relatives from my mother's side (my mother's family, for the first eighteen years of her life, lived in Mangalore) were/are vegetarians. My mother had never tasted even an egg in her entire life, but, as per practice, after marriage she learned to cook non-vegetarian food for my father and for us (their children).

I personally used to love eating non-vegetarian food (especially mutton, chicken and pomfrets, and yes, we even used to eat ham) although I somehow never liked prawns and other fish. In fact, in my school days (1964-1975) which I spent in St. Xaviers' High School at Dhobi Talao, I used to particularly love the mutton sandwich that we used to get in our school canteen and usually spent my 15-25 paise daily allowance on buying it. My father used to take us to an Irani hotel at Kemp's Corner near his Bank of India branch, and I still remember declaring that when I started earning money I would go and eat the kheema-salli-pao at that shop every day. My brother still reminds me that my idea of a perfect party menu was apparently tandoori chicken from Sher-e-Punjab, cream puffs from Kayani's, and cassata icecream.

It was when I was in the ninth standard in school that something made me aware (or made me feel) that it was wrong to take away (and so cruelly) the entire life of animals, birds and fish to satisfy a one-meal pleasure. I started regularly thinking of giving up non-vegetarian food, but found it very difficult to break habit and taste. A surprising incident which pushed me to a final decision was a class school picnic: before the picnic, the class-master (who always used to make pointed jokes against Hindus, and especially Jains and Gujaratis) took a census of how many students would eat "veg." and how many "non-veg." at the picnic. "All grass-eaters put up your hands" he said, and only most of the Gujaratis raised their hands. Something impelled me to raise my hand also, and I saw a surprised look on his face. At that moment, I decided that I would finally give up flesh-eating for good.

It was not an easy decision. I felt tempted daily to buy the mutton-sandwich in the school canteen. One day, I gave in to that temptation. Then I took a compromise decision: I would try to give up non-veg. food from that very day, but even if I broke my resolution occasionally, I would stick to it like glue from the muhurat of Diwali (which was two months away). And I have stuck to that decision to this day. For many years, it was torture when non-veg. food was made, or ordered, in our house, or when we went out to eat, but eventually I managed to harden myself. Even then, the mind is willing but the senses are weak: just ten years ago, in 2012 (forty years after giving up non-veg. food), I was walking along some street when suddenly an intoxicatingly mouth-watering smell assailed my nostrils. As I walked on, I realized it had been exactly like the smell of the mutton sandwiches in school!

It is a matter of principle with me. I very much love to treat people to food in hotels (even more than I love to eat food in hotels myself, which also I love very much indeed), or to take eatables whenever I go to visit them. But I absolutely refuse to treat anyone to non-veg. food of any kind. This led to a peculiar personal incident in our house in 1978 when I got a job in Central Bank of India. Naturally I had to give a big party in the house. My father (who was a unique personality in his own way, besides being a body-builder and sports-lover, both of which traits have not been inherited by me) was the only strict non-vegetarian that I have ever known in my life: he was allergic to flowers in general — my mother could never indulge in wearing flowers in her hair, a very Mangalorean habit, or even using flowers in pooja except on Ganesh Chaturthi day and on shraddha days — and to fruits, leaves and vegetables in his food! He only ate and liked legumes-dals, potatoes, milk, sweets and non-veg. food) insisted playfully that I should give a non-veg. party to him and to my brother and sister. My mother, who had never eaten non-veg. food in her life, also suggested that if I wanted them to really enjoy my job-party, I should give them what they wanted. So I did. But then, I assuaged my guilt by fasting (one meal only) for three days. After that, no-one has ever insisted that I should treat them to non-veg. food.

From all this, I learnt a few basic truths about Vegetarianism as a principle and a virtue:

1. The first is that eating or not eating non-veg. food is a very personal decision. I never treat anyone to non-veg. food, but nor do I ever preach Vegetarianism to anyone. This is a decision everyone has to take (or refuse to take) on their own. In fact, not only do I not preach Vegetarianism to anyone (although I have great respect for vegetarians, and even more for people who used to eat and have given it up and yet do not feel any pangs of desire for it, unlike myself ), but I actually even feel a bit sorry for people who take the decision to give up non-veg. food. In this, I admit, I am projecting my own weakness on them, and feeling that they will regret it and feel like eating it again, and will consequently lose some of their pleasures in life. But I know that most of them must be people who have much greater control over their senses than I do.

2. The second is that there are all kinds and levels of ethics in this matter, and each person can have (whether they actually follow it or not) their own level of ethics. My level is that I avoid eating anything which involves the killing of a "sentient being" (or rather, a member of the Animal Kingdom in zoological terms: members of the Plant Kingdom may also be sentient beings, but I eat them). I also (like all living creatures) consume "mineral" substances like water and salt, and I even consume milk and eggs (the second of which is traditionally non-veg., but it does not involve the killing of a living and feeling creature. I initially gave up eating eggs also, which I never really liked, but after analyzing my principles logically, I resumed eating them after a few years. I am therefore, technically, an "ovo-lacto-vegetarian"). I also try to avoid consuming things if I am told its manufacture involves the killing of animals, but then perhaps only as far as it is possible in the complicated modern world: I consciously avoid buying or using silk and gelatine-based products, but then does one really know all the processes and ingredients used in all the things that we eat or use every day? Practically everyone uses all kinds of medicines, many of which may contain "non-veg." ingredients, or may have involved the torture of animals in their testing and manufacture. I am told even the manufacture of white sugar and sago involve such processes!

And, let me frankly state: I am all for the killing of creatures like rodents, cockroaches, mosquitoes, bed-bugs, lice, termites, etc. which invade my house or self! As I said, there are all kinds of levels, and I can articulate my level, but I cannot condemn those who are on other levels, or enforce my views on them.

But there are all kinds of other levels, some arguably "lower" than mine and some arguably "higher". Some eat "white meat" (fish only, or fish and chicken) but not "red meat" (mutton). Some (Hindus) eat all non-veg. food except beef, and sometimes except beef and ham/bacon/pork, and sometimes even beef. Some totally eschew all animal products, including not just eggs but even milk: they are known as "vegans" and the number of vegans is also apparently on the rise in the west. Many eschew onions and garlic, classified as tamasik food (supposedly because it ignites sexual desires, or simply because of tradition). Jains refuse to eat all roots (even potatoes) for other reasons of ahimsa, and Jain monks and nuns even wear masks or avoid footwear apparently to avoid harming small insects. Some follow various food restrictions only on certain festival days, family occasions or religious days, or certain week days or specific months.

So, let each one follow his own level. But at the same time, it is the duty of every Hindu person, specifically vegetarian or non-vegetarian, to stridently and unitedly oppose all attempts by anyone (whether the openly vocal and active "Breaking India" forces or their foot-soldiers in the judiciary and political administrations, or any self-appointed moral or ethical police) to impose their own biased views, and particularly biased anti-Hindu views, on everyone else.