The Sudha Murty "Vegetarian" "Controversy"

The Sudha Murty "Vegetarian" "Controversy"

 Shrikant Talageri

 

This strange "controversy" came to my attention just today.  I was not surprised by it, and no-one should be surprised at this being "controversial". By the very basic act of daring to remain a Hindu and not immediately getting converted to some other religion, every single living Hindu who is proud, or even not ashamed, of being a Hindu, is automatically stoking "controversy" and laying himself/herself open to justifiable criticism and condemnation for bigotry. It is an act of bigotry for a Hindu to even exist as a Hindu in India.

As Hamid Dalwai pointed out in his book "Muslim Politics in Secular India" (chapter 3, p. 69), put up on my blogspot in full: "They [Muslim spokespersons] claim that the Hindu majority in India treats them with injustice. They fail to realize that their definition of Islam is twisted and strange, for these leaders believe that the greatest injustice to Indian Muslims is the simple fact that there is a majority of Hindus in this country."

Well, in this case, Sudha Murty did an unforgivable thing: she claimed to be a vegetarian who was so finicky about avoiding even inadvertent contact with non-vegetarian food that she always carried her own cooked food about with her in order to avoid any unintended morsel of non-vegetarian food to cross her lips! Immediately, all hell was let loose on the internet and even in the international media. How dared she say such a thing??!!

I will not go wading through all the woke-leftist and anti-Hindu muck on the internet. The following article in Khaleej Times (Dubai) will show how great a sin or crime was committed by Sudha Murty when she dared to express such views (or rather to narrate such a criminal trait in herself) in public:

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/offbeat/indian-author-sudha-murtys-pure-vegetarian-remarks-leave-internet-divided

The article relates : "Murty said whenever she travels outside India she looks for a 'pure vegetarian restaurant' and carries her own food. "So when I travel, I look for a pure vegetarian restaurant. And I carry an entire bag full of food. I used to tease my grannies decades ago when they would carry their own food. I used to ask them why can't you eat the food that's available there? But now I behave like them," the wife of Infosys co-founder NR Narayana Murthy said." The article, further on, elaborates: "Sudha Murty says she carries food from India while travelling abroad: "I'm pure vegetarian. What if same spoon is used for non-veg?""

Here are three exemplary tweets given in the article from among the vapid outpourings of countless trolls who chose to attack her over her actions and words:

"Pure vegetarians should not even drink water. Pretty sure a fish would have touched it sometime".

"Similar to Sudha Murty, I also take my own Glass when I go to Bar, Hotel or Restaurant. What if same glass was used by Non Alcohol drinker to have Water".

"If Sudha Murty were invited to the White House, she would not be allowed to carry her own spoon or plate on security grounds. Nor her own food. So what would she eat? The house plants with a dash of tomato sauce?"

I am sure that there must have been Muslims also among those who trolled her. But I somehow do not think these three tweets were by Muslims − a fourth one in the article, which derisively quotes her "spoon" statement, is definitely not: it is by a Sabnis ("caste"-wise, a Saraswat like myself). They were by outright woke-leftist Hindus, or by self-hating "deracinated" punks who were born of Hindu parents. To be fair, the above article appears in a Muslim paper published in Dubai, but the article itself does not have anything outright and direct to say in her criticism − it is only giving "news" − whatever their motive, if any, behind giving the issue publicity. The enemies are not "out there": they are "within".

Muslims do not eat pork, ham, bacon, or any form of meat derived from pig. But they do not stop there: they do not eat meat of any animals killed by the "jhatka" method (where the animals are killed with one stroke), but by the "halaal" method (where the animals are killed slowly and painfully).

But they do not stop there either − what they eat or do not eat would, strictly speaking, not be the business of anyone else. They classify not just food, but a wide range of items as "haraam" and "halaal" (such as soaps, cosmetics, medicines), and systematically see to it that ordinary Muslims are taught not to use or purchase "haraam" things but only "halaal" things. Going some steps further, the Islamic priesthood has established "halaal committees" all over the world who classify products as "halaal" and give stamped registration for the products. The political power of "halaal" certifiers is so great that all people who want to make money from their products have to get their products stamped with the "halaal certification" of these committees: right down to Baba Ramdev for his Patanjali ayurvedic products!

The woke-leftist and deracinated "Hindu" trolls who make so much hoo-ha over the religious restrictions and taboos of religious-minded Hindus would not have the guts to similarly attack any prominent Muslim who said he avoids eating meat in a Hindu restaurant since it is possible that the meat may be "jhatka" meat and not "halaal" meat, although the logical difference between "jhatka" meat and "halaal" meat to a meat-eater could not possibly be the same in intensity as the difference between "veg" and "non-veg" food to a vegetarian.

I myself am a vegetarian by choice for purely ethical reasons (as I believe it is not right to kill animals for food, although I have no objection to killing bed-bugs, mosquitoes, cockroaches, and other pestilential forms of life). I used to eat non-veg. food till I was in the ninth standard in school, in the year 1972. I was extremely fond of eating non-veg. food (I have written an article on the subject of vegetarianism on my blog), and although I stopped eating it on ethical grounds, I have no objections at all to eating eggs (and eating them, moreover, in Muslim restaurants) since eating eggs does not constitute killing and eating a sentient living thing. I do not preach vegetarianism to anyone since I feel it is a purely personal choice, and while my reasons for becoming a vegetarian are not religious ones, I have the highest respect for people who are vegetarians for religious rather than ethical reasons, or even simply because they have never eaten a single morsel of non-veg. food in their lives and are sticklers to that habit: my mother was a strict vegetarian all her life, avoiding even eggs.

Since my reasons for being a vegetarian are ethical and not religious, I do not feel guilty or disturbed if I happen to eat a piece of non-veg. food by mistake: I only make a personal resolve not to repeat the mistake which led to my inadvertently consuming it in the first place. But for strict vegetarians by religious belief or strict habit, I am sure it is a much more serious matter. Sudha Murty is not wrong when she says "What if same spoon is used for non-veg?". I used to eat a particular dish in the Muslim Bhendi Bazar area for many years. It is a street food, with a kind of spicy chana preparation with chutneys and big pieces of crisp fried onions (I don't recall the exact name of this dish), and used to love it. But one day I realized that the vendor also had a vessel containing kaleja (liver) in a pot, and, if specifically asked to do so by a customer, he also added a few pieces of kaleja to the bowl of chana. And, as his customers were probably local Muslims who had no objections to such things, he dipped the same spoon/ladle into the pot of kaleja that he regularly dipped into the pots of chutneys. As soon as I realized this, I stopped eating the chana dish for good. I was not racked by any guilt or misgivings: I just decided to stop eating it. But for a stricter vegetarian, it would have been a much more serious matter. And it is absolutely natural that such a vegetarian should take precautions to see that such a contingency would not arise.

What stands out from all this is the strong power of the anti-Hindu fervor of woke-leftist retards: their anti-Hinduism does not take into consideration things such as money and political status! The woke-leftist who would not have the guts to utter a word if he saw the poorest of Muslims refusing to eat meat from a Sikh shop (where the meat would definitely be jhatka meat) has no compunctions in letting loose all his venom, bile and satanic "wit" in attacking a Hindu − even a Hindu as rich, powerful and popular as Sudha Murty: in fact herself the mother of a probably woke-leftist son who finances woke-leftist chairs in American Universities! − who shows signs of emphatically being a Hindu in some way such as being a strict vegetarian.