Taslima Nasreen on eating beef and Pakistan's role in Nepal earthquake

Cow meat is the tastiest of all meat, I'll state frankly. Of course, this is my humble opinion. Beef eating, for me, isn't out of any disrespect towards animal rights, but a food habit passed down through generations, with its own distinctive identity markers. Not that I care much about markers, but since they exist, I remember to respect the other person's opinion when eating out or inviting someone over to dine with me at my residence.

Yet, cow meat was the centre of a diplomatic storm between the earthquake-ravaged Nepal and the aid-sending Pakistan. The latter, in what seems to me only utter callousness in hindsight and not exactly an act bearing any intentional malice, sent off packaged "beef masala" as food grant to the country reeling under one of its worst natural disasters in several decades (Mail Today broke the story on April 29, 2015).

Callous neglect

Now what Pakistan conveniently forgot was that Nepal, like India, is a Hindu-majority country, where people, while they have practically no problem killing hundreds of thousands of buffaloes as sacrificial offerings to their gods, simply can't comprehend eating cow meat. For it "offends" their conscience, whatever is left of it. The cow is regarded as a manifestation of god.

It is another matter that while everyone in grief-stricken Nepal, as well as in cacophonous India, went into a tizzy over the insensitive nature of the faux pas, blaming the Pakistani establishment for utter incompetence, no one paused to think why is there such a lack of care for these bovine divines in the two countries? In India, proponents of cow urine supposedly possessing therapeutic qualities abound, and even though many would willingly drink cow urine out of awe or faith, hardly anyone gives two hoots about cows roaming around on empty stomachs, undernourished and often dying painful deaths coming under plying trucks. Yet, the general idea continues to be that if a person cares for animals, or is an advocate of animal rights, s/he must abstain from eating animal meat of any kind. That's just absurd.

In my Kolkata house, meat eating is an everyday affair. Once, after a Hindu friend had expressed his wish of eating beef at my place, I had cooked cow meat in my own kitchen. But Sujata, my household maid, a Hindu as well, didn't realise that it was cow meat and not regular chicken or lamb that I was stewing on my stove. Of course, I ensured that she never laid a hand on the "offending" meat. But since she didn't ask, I didn't tell that it was beef either.

Had I duped her? I don't think so. I'm sure if she had been apprised of the "truth", she'd have left my employment in a huff, deeply offended, even though there was no way she would have landed another equally lucrative job in Kolkata's slump any time soon.

Individual choices

Not that I solicited any help from her. The meat was prepared at a separate time. I just relied on her naïveté and our mutual goodwill so that no one is hurt. But it's not in me to fall back on lies and deceit whenever it suits the occasion.

I call it basic courtesy. And I extend it even to my Muslim friends when I am eating pork at my place. I never expect or insist that they share my meal. Imagine a plausible scenario: What if Bangladesh had been struck by a massive earthquake or cyclone, and a country sends truckloads of pig meat to its ailing, wounded thousands! Wouldn't that too be deemed horrifically insensitive as well?

Is it always about religion, though it begins from that end only, but in the course of time, the issue basically becomes all about respecting individual choices and personal opinions of everyone, irrespective of whether or not you share them.

While the decision to send aid was a commendable one, coming from Pakistan at that, which is itself reeling under the throes of countless terror attacks and bomb blasts, what could have possibly been the root of the fiasco? Surely, it was a collective decision, since such efforts are never the fruits of any one generous soul. Yet, how did Pakistan arrive at the decision of sending beef masala to quake-shaken Nepal? Did it not occur to anyone in the decision-making body that Nepal, a Hindu-majority country, considers the cow holy and will not take it well? And if indeed it was a diplomatic blunder, doesn't it merit some introspection on the part of Pakistanis as to who all are paid by taxpayers' money to commit such grievous errors at such huge scales?

Basic courtesy

It's only when disaster strikes that we humans are reminded of our frailties. That we too are a vulnerable species. While some may argue that discriminating on the basis of food products during such emergencies might be a tad foolish, others may cite deep-seated beliefs and choices, which sometimes even trump the desire to self-preserve.

Don't you care to find out, before inviting someone to eat with you, what he or she would or would not eat? I recall the folk story of the fox who invited the stork to eat with him once. The fox served food on a flat utensil, and the stock, in a tit-for-tat move, served the fox on a long-funnelled receptacle. Both couldn't enjoy the food the other served for them. So what was the point of sending across the invitation after all? Is watching someone leave dissatisfied a satisfying emotion by any stretch?

Diplomatic callousness on Pakistan's part bears the stench of such apathy. It's certainly not "beef jihad" as some zealots had suggested. But one must remember that it's better to give nothing at all than offering something that is bound to cause pain in others.