Comments by "Rutvik" (@rutvikrs) on "Politics, sociology u0026 geography of food, religion, caste, meat eating versus vegetarianism" video.

I hate this simplistic narrative. 1. Vegetarianism is caste agnostic: it has to do with regional traditions. For instance in Karnataka, the Halmadi (translates quite literally to milk-avoidant/restricted and are vegans) and Urs(the royal family of Mysore) are both lower castes. While costal Brahmin communities particularly from Kashmiri heritage like GSB consume meat and fish as they are from Shakta traditions. You can find non vegetarianism in upper castes where ever there is a prominence of Shakta tradition. (Kashmir, Assam, Karnataka, Odisha and even pockets of Kerala). 2. Meat eating is an outside influence: This holds true only for Western India. The dominant Smriti for the traditions in West India is Parashara Smriti not Manusmriti. That is the reason a majority of people groups and castes are vegetarian. 3. Hindutva is pro vegetarianism: Somehow, we are asked to accept there is nuance to the Left(CPI-M and CPI- ML are polar opposites) Liberals(Welfarist and Globalists are opposites) but the same cannot be afforded to right wing. Why? There is a lot of silent as well as historical conversation on the right wing on vegetarianism. For instance, Savarkar himself advocated for eating meat as a prequisite for Hindus joining the erstwhile British Indian armed forces. There are a lot of Shaktas in the right wing who want revival of the sacrificial ceremonies. 4. Right wing wants complete ban on meat: There is intentional amplification of the pro vegetarian voices, then the same is used to showcase the "hypocricy" "double standards" of people on right wing. One thing that Shaktas also believe in is the abstainence of "secular"(as in nothing to do with religion) meat consumption during festivals(only sacrificial meat is to be consumed if any). So when there is a protest asking for closure of shops and restiction of non vegetarian food during festivals, the ask across the board(vegetarian and non vegetarian Hindus) is to restrict secular display and consumption as has been the social norm for centuries. 5. Hinduism prioritizes vegetarians: the standard archetype of diet is the 3 fold. Tamasic, Rajasic and Satvik. It's pretty clear both from texts as well as practice that on the social level, there is meant to be balance of people following the three diets with the Tamasic for the commoners, Rajasic for the rulers and Satvik for the spiritual. That is why you find what is today called "Non-hindu" traditions/communities of India which have a spiritual inclination to be vegetarian be it Veerashaiva/Lingayats or Jains. While Shaktas are Tamasic because their traditions are hyperlocal common man traditions irrespective of caste, that is why Shakta Brahmins are meat eaters and worshippers of hyperlocalized deities. The issue of hierarchy starts with the formation of one size fits all versions of Hinduism from within like Arya Samaj and Brahmo samaj which adopt the structure and issues of Protestant Christianity. Do recall that there is a major split within Arya Samaj in 1893 on the same issue. This vegetarianism debate has much to do with reformism than politics.
3
@2002georgezacharia i don't mean to attack you, even SG and the larger society is subject to these reductive arguments. It's no longer a North and west Indian phenomenon. It's a larger multifaceted issue which has multiple roots. That is why I went into details. In Karnataka for instance, the vegetarian argument finds acceptance when employed on specific festivals.
1