For quite sometimes, social
media was flooded with public opinions of varying disparity against the
introduction of slaughter houses. The loud echoes of unhappiness against it dwindled
gradually or seemingly decreased, may be, for the government clarified to the
public, it as an omission on the part of department of livestock or else, the Bhutanese
kind-of-compassion is not perennial enough to quench the once voiced thirst of
disparity. But either way; be it
government with its supposed superficial policy in introduction of slaughter
houses or the public on their unhappiness on governments decision, both did not
live long!
The government of the day
didn’t admit it as one of their decision and instead blamed the department of
livestock; maybe for having such policy or for having put that into public
domain. But, the logic behind the birth of any policy, which is either
governments initiative or with insights from the government, fails to
substantiate the blame-game. If it so happened with departments own initiative
and without any knowledge of the government, the precedence of bringing the
accountable offices under the rule of law for bypassing the government or the
cabinet had already been initiated with the surrendering of secretaries earlier
this year, and should be no exception here.
On the other hand, the whiff
of displeasure expressed either through media or at individual level faded with
time, though obscene in it succeeded in pushing the government to clarify, at
least. If, it is a genuine compassion and no political discernment, the need to
voice discontentment is avoidable. The ban on sale of meats’ or compulsory
closing of meat shops on auspicious months and days won’t have occurred only,
if we are not fan of Sha kam pa, Sikam, Ma-ru etc. Also, upon insight about
possibility of such policy, did any of us think of turning vegetarian? If, even
one of us did think of turning vegetarian, the chances of functionality of such
policy is minimum, and think! What if we all turn vegetarian? Definitely!
Supply will cease if demand does.
If we (those who are
against its introduction) in principle, carry pride in compassion and consider
ourselves unpretentious Buddhist, keep aside the policy, even a constitution on
introduction of slaughter houses will not see the light. Like a draconian
tobacco act that didn’t last long, a superficial policy will not be an
exception either.
Bhutan as a nation, whose
foundation being laid by no other than Zhabdrung; a Buddhist master, should
not, even in its wildest dream consider to trade the lives of less fortunate
beings, even if it cost its very existence, keep aside the already defunct
economy. In a Buddhist country, is the introduction of slaughter houses really
sensible? Is it the only way to boost the economy? Is it the only way to stop
the meat import? Is it the only way to stop rupee outflow? Or is it the only alternative?
Or is it the only solution? Can’t we turn vegetarian? From a holistic
perspective, imposing a higher tax on meat imports will be as sensible as
imposing green tax. Isn’t taxing on meat imports equally viable as exporting
meat to economy?
Every time we elect a
party and entrust the power, we do with a hope that at least they would care
the sentiments of the electorates, if not of the nation. In a democracy, to woe an electorate is a
daunting task, and by default, the policies and the system will incline towards
it. But at the end of the day, five years regime of superficial policies and
draconian acts to please a section of society won’t guarantee the ticket in the
next.
Should we continue to
blame the government for introducing slaughter houses or we blame ourselves for
being meat lovers?
