There is a popular notion around the world, especially in India, that eulogises the act of being a ‘Vegetarian’ and derides the ‘Non-Vegetarians’. Vegetarianism is acknowledged with reverence whereas non- vegetarianism is considered barbaric and inhumane. Non-vegetarians include those ‘soulless monsters’ who eat anything from mammals, aquatic beings, insects, to everything which can walk, jump, shout, irritate, and are fleshy. With the exception of human beings.
In India, especially in recent years, vegetarianism has become the Rorschach test of the populace. Those who acknowledge the establishment’s view of matching vegetarianism with piety are considered ‘good-citizens’ and others have been denounced as ‘bad’, sometimes ‘anti-Indians’ and ‘invaders’. Or if one’s luck permits they could get a ticket to pakistan. Certain fringe groups, covertly supported by the establishment have taken a virulent stand on these issues such as the infamous ‘lynch mobs’, who lynch innocent people in the name of ‘gau-mata'(‘holy cow mother’). These ‘gau-rakshaks'(‘cow- protectors’) act with impunity and have lynched many for the sole reason that they had consumed beef. It is no travesty that it is more safer to be a cow in India than being a woman or a minority. Justifiably the political leaders of the ruling establishment have pandered to such jingoistic feelings. And what becomes more annoying is when frontline celebrities come out heaping encomiums about being a ‘vegan’. This props up a serious question, is being a non-vegetarian really barbaric? Are vegetarians really pure souls, as they claim?
This should bring the concept of ‘Animal Rights’ to the centre table. The concept of animal rights is an eastern world concept. A solace to the former slaves on how their former masters have become slaves to their philosophy. Traditional attitude in the western world has always rested on the principle- ‘god given domination over the world’ by human beings. Christianity teaches that human is the centre-piece of the Earth and other living beings exist to ‘serve’ and ‘provide’ for ‘human needs’. Islam also makes no qualms about the superiority of man over other living beings. Simplistically, animal rights is connected to the pagan notion of ‘mother earth’ and the eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, that emphasizes the oneness of all forms of life. So how the western world, which also has equal sympathizers of ‘vegan morality’, has allowed an eastern concept to infiltrate them is another curious study.
What are the so called animal rights? Literally animal rights hinges on the narrow examination of how rights and why rights, are demanded and guaranteed to human beings. The most popular and substantive reason is because they are living individuals, that is, human beings can walk, talk, procreate, or say they show evidences of physical growth and motion. Hence, the point of animal rights theorists is that even animals show all evidences of being able to move, procreate, hunt and show physical growth. Succinctly- if the ability to live, to be born and die is the factor which gives human beings ‘human-rights’, then the same must be extended to animals is the argument of the animal rights theorists. Tom Regan passionately argues in “The Case For Animal Rights” that all creatures that are ‘the subjects of a life’ qualify for rights. An essential question rises here: What is life then?
Evidences from the studies of biologists such as Bose and Lyall Watson suggest that in contrast to popular assumptions, plants have life and experience pain. So if rights belong to humans and animals due to some vague definition of life, it is preposterous and highly absurd to deny the same to plants. Animal theorists and the right wing groups make distinction between plants and animals by pointing how the latter can run, make noise and make rational choices like to hunt, mate, etc. But such a fickle interpretation of life gives rise to more contentious questions. There exists within the human society, some ‘Marginal Cases’, humans with disability and mental incapacity who cannot run, make noise or make rational choices. However marginal, they still exist. So by the narrow definition of life which animal theorists and right wing groups espouse, should rights be denied to these ‘marginal cases’. If Yes, can these marginal cases be denied of rights and be killed or made use for research. If No, cannot plants be also accommodated in marginal species. In fact plants mate and some like insectivorous plants make rational choices, they hunt.
Another popular explanation for eulogising the virtue of vegetarianism is attributed to the ecological and health benefits it provides. It is no hidden fact that animal breeding requires a lot of water and increased consumption of meat will further increase the use of already diminishing potable water. But does this make any reasonable point. All over the world the highest consumption of water is by the agriculture industry. In India, agriculture uses about 93% of the groundwater and 89% of the other water resources. So doesn’t this make a similar point to reduce agriculture and plant consumption to save water. And for the health benefits, there has been no study which has shown that being a vegan has only pros and no cons. Hence, being a vegan is no glorious deed and any such expositions is just a sham. Impulsively, if eating animals is barbarous then the act of eating plants is also barbarous. We cannot pick and make rational choices, science has rationality written evenly for everyone to see.
Reasonably, it is worthy to remember how human species have evolved and achieved their present domination. Our evolution in each generation has always depended on a willingness to treat other species, and indeed the natural world as a resource available for our use. To alter this relationship in the name of morality and humanity is just a subterfuge. And such an alteration will be cataclysmic and have profound implications on the future of human civilization. Studies have proven how modern human beings evolved from their ancestors hominids, homindae by the ability to make tools to kill animals. If not for killing, human beings would have long been extinct.
There is no good in being a vegetarian and no great bad being a non-vegetarian. It is purely an individual choice in which the opinion of society must be least adhered to. If religious groups start dictating individual choices, I wonder what is left in an individual to continue to live. Let ‘Vegetarianism’ shed its cloak of virtuosity. To be a ‘Non-Vegetarian’ is no act of being immoral or un-patriotic to the country.
