Why I Eat Meat

Today I was eating a "mutton kabab" roll minding my own, talking to my sister, in Jackson Heights. Did it taste good? I have no idea. I have no idea because as I was eating it, there was this woman who passed by and couldn't keep her eyes of me. She looked at me as if I was indeed subhuman. So low on the chain of things that I dared to eat meat. And she wasn't the only one. Another woman, as she was entering the restaurant, looked right at me and dipped her eyebrows as many an Indian mother would to scold her child. Oh, yeah, I forgot. I was eating this "mutton kabab" roll at RajBog, a strictly vegetarian sweets shop.

In Hindu India, there are many castes. But they can all be categorized into two varieties: "forward" and "backward" (yeah, there is no bias there). There is also a level lower than "backward" called scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, but that can be seen as just an extension of the backward castes, though it includes non-Hindus. The way these castes work is quite simple: the "forward" castes are those who were more integrated in power and, a result of power, "studies" or academia, so the lower castes consist of anyone who either are "not educated" or not powerful. The forward caste members pride themselves in their traditions and customs, assuming a higher role and duty in society; whereas, the lower caste, shunned by schools, remained obedient, blindly, to this system, quite literally for the same reason as the higher castes: to pride themselves in their own customs and traditions. I could go into further detail, but this all that is required for me to answer the question: why do I eat meat?
See, I am from a "backward" caste. I don't know what my ancestors did, but we do know at some point they were, judging from the name of the specific caste veeramushthi, farmers. Now indeed in spite the socioeconomic differences between the forward and backward (and scheduled) castes, there are some higher-ground implications. The forward castes consisted of, among other things, Brahmins, the priest caste. They were the educated bunch, those with access to the "schools" that sustained, among other things, a study of morals. In their doing so, and early on in Hindu culture, they decided the consumption of animals was immoral. This resulted in an acceptance of vegetarianism by forward caste Hindus. To this day, it is considered un-Hindu to eat meat. (Let it be known: my mother does not let me eat meat with my "rudraksha" beads on). And so Hindus of more backward castes are more “liberal”in their consumption of meat.

Hinduism and Vegetarianism

Indeed, this is very distasteful. Pun intended. Despite this seemingly pedagogical call to vegetarianism by these priests, they had no intention of "helping" the lower castes as they were adamant about the fact lower caste Hindus were intrinsically below them and in no need of their help, that is to assume that Hinduism is rooted in vegetarianism, in the first place. There is no piece of acceptable Hindu literature that should persuade someone to stop eating meat. People are quick to quote Krishna's words in the Bhagwat-Gita, when he says that food must be offered to Him before it is eaten. But by the interpretation cast by Meher Baba, this would mean that one must think of giving before taking (note: God is nothing but the collection of souls). But even if this interpretation were to be cast aside, the mainstream interpretation is still greatly flawed. Krishna suggests that

"The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice"

and only

"a leaf, a flower, fruit or water"

may be permissible. Indeed, if one were to argue that this leaf, flower, fruit or water are literally the only things man can eat, he or she would be very narrow minded. (Or, as Meher Baba said, "No one sitting here is so very important that God is standing behind your chair watching what you are eating.")

But besides that, there is no direct "do not eat meat" argument in the Bhagwat Geeta. Of course, the Vedas make direct reference to the eating and slaughtering of animals. But, by virtue of the Upanishads, these arguments can be set aside because a blind sacrament is not a justified one. So I argue that these sort of Brahmin-advocated belief systems are simply devices of caste-based powerplays, similar to those made by the bourgeois in economic policy. They wanted power despite the passage of Upanishads, which suggested that sacraments are not important. It was similar to the 15th century Christian revolutions. It sought to bring about the normative thinking process into religion, abandoning blind religion that seemed to and still does keep religion behind the more progressive secular thought. (But I'll leave that argument for another day). If all the lower caste members would have followed this sort of belief, then the Brahmins would obviously lose a great deal of accumulated power. Ha, great moral beings, indeed. The alternative was only obvious: create a sort of moral hierarchy.

Why we must not stop at vegetables

In the spirit of the Upanishads, we must look at eating meat in a normative way, that is by asking and answering questions. (Note: this sort of structure was established in the East years before Socrates and his Socratic circle). There is the question of killing and eating meat. It is a long practiced one...but can the practice be justified by its longevity? Of course not. War cannot, why should eating meat? Why must we not eat meat? It kills life. Killing life is the only thing the Vedas says that could possibly support vegetarianism. But do men not kill plants in eating vegetables and living a very vegetarian life? Yes they do. So therein lies the catch-22 of eating. If we can eat vegetables, we must be able to eat meat.

Why we must eat meat.

When it comes down to it, unfortunately, it is the only lasting thing we have. It is the last pride of Hindu Proletarianism. Tourists from around the world flock to Hyderabad to taste the world-renown Hyderbadi Biryani, a symbol of Indian Hindu-Muslim unity. The streets of Hyderbad itself are lined with biryani shops, none of which can even think of going out of business. It is a part of our culture, indeed, a part of India.

Eating meat more than just a socio-economic tradition. It is religious We eat it, not to be immoral, but just the opposite: to fight the injustices done to us by those who did not, a protest against all those who said it was the wrong thing to do. Those who greedily passed along the resources to "their own" and left the rest of us in the dirt. It is worst than authoritarian politics--to turn your back. Neither is it salutary neglect. It is a disregard for your very bretherin. Is that what Hinduism teaches? No. Hinduism rests on a belief that all souls are one in the same and a part of the greater force, the brahman, the paramahtma. Eating meat is an act, symbol and ritual of religious revolution. If we were to stop, it would be to accept these injustices as virtues. Vegetarianism is probably the closest thing to incorporating morals if we are to eat something, but there is no reason not to eat meat if it means you are unwilling to accept the barbaric practices of past wrongdoers. So let her scold me, I care not. I carry on the toil of my ancestors. I perpetuate my culture, not alienating my brothers. I am accepting of my brothers. I eat meat, but - mind you - I care not if you don't.