A brief reflection on political attitudes towards the protection of life.
I used to think that well, at least in India the right cares about animal welfare, unlike in the West where it is mostly an issue for parts of the radical left. In fact, there have been many cases in recent years where Hindu nationalists have killed or abused Muslims for eating beef. A curious alliance between Western animal rights activists and fanatical believers in Hindutva, eh? Then it struck me that it does seem to be a case of two different phenomena, after all. The right-wing Hindu nationalists beating up beef-eaters are not be likened to militant vegans in the west, but to fundamentalist Christians attacking abortion clinics.
The thing is, Hindu nationalists who want to protect cows at all cost do this because the cow is understood as innocent. The leftist vegan militants freeing animals from factory farms do so because the animals are construed as oppressed. Likewise, right-wing Christians opposing abortion do so because the baby, even as a mere embryo, is considered innocent, while the pro-choicers feel that if women do not have the right to abortion then they are oppressed. The slogan of the right remains, as always, that it is wrong to take an innocent life; the left responds that it is wrong to oppress others, innocent or not. In a spiritual sense, perhaps the right can be said to be more sattvic, always on the lookout for purity, while the left is more tamasic - materialistic in the true sense of the word. In following the philosophy of Tamas, "innocence" is not even an intelligible word or concept.
Now the question becomes, what is it that turns a sentient being into a “possessor of innocence”? Why would it be unintelligible for the Christian and Himdu right-wing militants to understand each other? Why would the statement “Don’t kill the cow, it is innocent!” most likely be unintelligible to the Christian? Perhaps because humans alone can possess the quality of innocence - but then, why is that? Food for thought.
I used to think that well, at least in India the right cares about animal welfare, unlike in the West where it is mostly an issue for parts of the radical left. In fact, there have been many cases in recent years where Hindu nationalists have killed or abused Muslims for eating beef. A curious alliance between Western animal rights activists and fanatical believers in Hindutva, eh? Then it struck me that it does seem to be a case of two different phenomena, after all. The right-wing Hindu nationalists beating up beef-eaters are not be likened to militant vegans in the west, but to fundamentalist Christians attacking abortion clinics.
The thing is, Hindu nationalists who want to protect cows at all cost do this because the cow is understood as innocent. The leftist vegan militants freeing animals from factory farms do so because the animals are construed as oppressed. Likewise, right-wing Christians opposing abortion do so because the baby, even as a mere embryo, is considered innocent, while the pro-choicers feel that if women do not have the right to abortion then they are oppressed. The slogan of the right remains, as always, that it is wrong to take an innocent life; the left responds that it is wrong to oppress others, innocent or not. In a spiritual sense, perhaps the right can be said to be more sattvic, always on the lookout for purity, while the left is more tamasic - materialistic in the true sense of the word. In following the philosophy of Tamas, "innocence" is not even an intelligible word or concept.
Now the question becomes, what is it that turns a sentient being into a “possessor of innocence”? Why would it be unintelligible for the Christian and Himdu right-wing militants to understand each other? Why would the statement “Don’t kill the cow, it is innocent!” most likely be unintelligible to the Christian? Perhaps because humans alone can possess the quality of innocence - but then, why is that? Food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment