On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:59 PM, . <svaks...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Zainab Bawa <bawazaina...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Not really so. In Bangalore, a Belgian friend of mine was told that she > > would be allowed to take up the place only if she promised to stay > > vegetarian. Another American friend in Mumbai, married and with kids, was > > refused housing on grounds of vegetarianism. > > Assuming that your Belgian and American friends are not Muslim, the > claim that its a plot to keep out the whole Muslim community does not > stand. It seems like an individual's bias about who should live in his > private property. Should he be hauled to jail for that? I dont think > so. He is just yet another narrow-minded person I'd would rather avoid > even if the property was rent-free. Its also a misnomer that "all > Hindus are vegetarian" which is more of individual choice or a > family's choice in some cases, but definitely not a religious one. > Religion per se is not evil, rather its the people who use (any) > religion to control and grab power or dictate terms to others that are > the root of the problem. What happened to your friends (and you) are > an individual's bias and by stretching that line of logic I can think > of gazillion personal instances when I have been discriminated against > on the basis of my gender, age, nationality, skin color, religion, > .... I happen to know a Sikh family who are staunch vegetarians and > would not wish to mingle or marry a person different from them. I > also know Jains who eat meat outside the house but toe the line and > would not dare risk offending the better half (or his parents) by even > mentioning "chicken tikka or kebab" at home. > > And yet, stretching that line of reasoning and argument is a scary > double-edged sword, as in, any women could easily take offence at any > matrimonial sites because they encourage Indian men to advertise for a > bride thus : "Male, 31 yrs, 5'10" very fair (brown-skin is so not > metro-sexual when you have skin-whitening products for men modeled by > the Badshah of Bollywood himself), handsome, highly educated > Phd/Engineer/Doctor/add education, add religion (category, subcaste no > bar. Wow, a broad-minded bloke !) seeks a mutually compatible > accomplished (read, willing to be my lifelong unpaid housemaid who > will provide sex-at-my-command) educated/working (another unsaid > euphemism for dowry in monthly installments) bride. The opposite is > also true but they dont sound very logical to me. Would it be > illogical and unfair to label every Indian male who advertises his > personal preferences as a racist and chauvinistic pig or claim that > "ALL men are rapists" because the proportion of men who rape is more > than the opposite ; which does seem like stretching logic a wee bit > too much for half the world's population being discriminated against, > if numbers count. > > Does'nt discrimination start the moment we divide, classify and > sub-classify things, people, animals, [add your poison of choice], > along various criteria? Being "different" is a form of discrimination > too but the last I heard, the politically correct name was > "diversity". In a biological sense, each of us is uniquely different, > if DNA matters. > > -- > . > > Dear . Discrimination in the rental housing market is not limited to religion. It extends to caste, sex, nationality (and is there anything else under the sun?). When I was hunting for a house, in two instances I was openly told that Muslims will not be entertained in particular households. In one case, a broker asked me if it was okay that the landlord was Muslim!?!?!?
My friends in my Ph.D. center have faced discrimination on the basis of caste. In one case, the landlord openly asked my peer what caste he was. When my peer said he was not brahmin, the landlord said, "but you non-Brahmins have the urge to eat non-veg. How will you control it?" Now, this was seriously offensive. In a city like Bombay, there is very clearly discrimination based on religion - Muslims not allowed. In Delhi too, Muslims are not rented out properties because of the terrorism issue - any Muslim is a threat lest he or she turn out to be a gun sporting terrorist at the end of the day. In Bangalore, the discrimination operates on the basis of caste and Christian and Muslim sounding names are a no-no in South Bangalore (I know only of South Bangalore). I have come to realize that people are very afraid of what they see as overstepping traditions and therefore, non-vegetarians are not allowed on ancestral properties. This applies to people of whatever religion they are from. In some cases, I was told you can eat non-veg outside, but cannot cook inside the home. There is a certain belief about sanctity of tradition and property which operates in most of the cases. Sure, we need to respect people's sentiments of vegetarianism. My father refuses to eat non-veg in the aircraft if the passenger seated next to him is ordering a vegetarian meal. But I am afraid that vegetarianism is coming to be imposed and it is seen as being morally superior when you eat vegetarian food. I also agree that being veg or non-veg is not a matter of religion, but more a cultural thing and also a matter of personal and family choices. But unfortunately, the whole non-vegetarian issue is being made out to be a religious one. And that I find very discomforting. -- Zainab Bawa Ph.D. Student and Independent Researcher Between Places ... http://zainab.freecrow.org
