There are interesting articles in the ToI today ... In the View-Counterview section ... about animal sacrifice. This is a topic which is quite controversial, so let me just write my two bits on this.
Actually, on second thoughts, maybe i dont want to write about animal sacrifice, because i dont have an opinion about it. I believe that if someone doesnt like the idea, they are welcome to abstain from doing it, while on the other hand, anyone does believe in it, they are free to do as they choose. Either way, when something is sanctioned by religion, it becomes a part of personal belief and hence, must be looked at, as such. For, if this was a universal reality, we should all have been Vegetarian. Of course, my personal view on this is not material to this blog, so i am not mentioning it.
What i wanted to write about, instead, is the way certain journalists treat the idea. We are a secular country, and one would expect journalists, who are responsible for forming public opinion, to be secular too. But when animal sacrifice at Kamakhya makes them write about the barbarity of the act, and this is the only occasion when they feel that it is a barbaric act, this brings into question their standing as being truly secular. Though i would like to applaud the newspaper in bringing this out in the form of a debate, the concern is the occasion, or the reason behind the debate, which seems to be restricted to only one dimension of our society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A very sensitive subject which is equally controversial as well, good that you have brought this out on a public forum. I absolutely, agree with you on the point that journalists should behave sensibly and responsibly as they have the power to make or break a society. Its tragic how they conduct themselves now a days, specially the Indian breeds...
thanks for the thoughts. though i think you might have missed the secular aspect of the debate?
i didnt miss it, i jus chose not to comment on that aspect. ofcourse what sums up is that the fact tht whether we support or condemn killing of animals (the motive can be religious, entertainment, or food habit)is an individual aspect, and we should remain constant with our viewpoint irrespective of what the circumstance is. i agree to you when you say that if we, as individuals, condemn the killing of animal, then we should refrain from doing it ourselves, and more importantly, condemn everyone who does so, ie, our view point in that case should not be partial.
thanks. in fact, this is the largest issue, that is the partiality of the whole debate to particular circumstances, and to a particular community.
Post a Comment