Vegetaranism : For the Good of our Planet

Will Facts and Figures change your opinions?

Here we approach the issue from another perspective, examining the devastating harm caused by a meat-laden diet–not only to the animal which is killed and eaten, but also to the meat-eater himself, to humanity as a whole and to our very planet. The following presentation is based on the poster, “How to win an argument with a meat-eater,” published by Earthsave, of Felton, California, giving facts from Pulitzer Prize nominee John Robbins’ book, Diet for a New America. This version details ten arguments against meat eating.

1. The Hunger Argument

The world’s massive hunger problems could be greatly alleviated by reducing or elimination meat-eating. Vast quantities of food suitable for humans are fed to livestock for meat production–wasting most of its protein in the process; in addition, the huge acreages now used as pasture for meat animals would produce much more human food if converted to grains and vegetables.

This year alone, twenty million people worldwide will die of malnutrition. One child dies of malnutrition every 2.3 seconds. One hundred million people could be adequately fed using the land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by a mere 10%. Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the US is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%. One acre of good farmland can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250 pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all US farmland is devoted to beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16 pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed the hungry.

2. The Environmental Argument

Many of the world’s massive environmental problems—including global warming, loss of topsoil, loss of rain forests and species extinction—could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating. The meat industry’s voracious need for pasturelands is the primary force driving the destruction of old-growth forests–which are essential to the survival of the planet. Their destruction is a major cause of global warming and of the rapidly escalating losses of topsoil and endangered-species habitat. Two hundred sixty million acres of US forestland have been cleared for meat production. An alarming 75% of all US topsoil has been lost to date,and fullly 85% of this loss is directly related to livestock raising. Another devastating result of meat-eating is the loss of plant and animal species. Each year 1,000 species disappear due to destruction of tropical rain forests for cattle grazing and other uses—driven by US demand for meat. The rate is growing yearly.

3. The Cancer Argument

Those who eat flesh are far more likely to contract cancer than those following a vegetarian diet. The risk of contracting breast cancer is 3.8 times greater for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week; 2.8 times greater for women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week; and 3.25 greater for women who eat processed butter and cheese two to four times a week as compared to once a week. The risk of fatal ovarian cancer is three times greater for women who eat eggs three or more times a week as compared with less than once a week. The risk of fatal prostate cancer is 3.6 times greater for men who consume meat, eggs, processed cheese and milk daily as compared with sparingly or not at all.

4. The Cholesterol Argument

The average cholesterol consumption of a meat-centered diet is 210 milligrams per day. The chance of dying

from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol intake is 210 milligrams a day is greater than 50%. It is strange but true that US physicians are as a rule poorly educated in the single most important factor of health, namely diet and nutrition. As of 1987, of the 125 medical schools in the US, only 30 required their students to take a course in nutrition. The average nutrition training received by the average US physician during four years in school is only 2.5 hours. Thus doctors in the US are ill equipped to advise their patients in minimizing foods, such as meat, that contain excessive amounts of cholesterol and are known causes of heart attack .

Heart attack is the most common cause of death in the US, killing one person every 45 seconds. The male meat-eater’s risk of death from heart attack is 50%. The risk to men who eat no meat is only 15%. Reducing

one’s consumption of meat, processed dairy products and eggs by 10% reduces the risk of heart attack by 10%. Eliminating all of these products from one’s diet reduces the risk of heart attack by 90%.

5. The Natural Resources Argument

The world’s natural resources are being rapidly depleted as a result of meat-eating. Raising livestock for their meat is a very inefficient way of generating food. Pound for pound, far more resources must be expended

to produce meat than to produce grains, fruits and vegetables. For example, more than half of all water used for all purposes in the US is consumed in livestock production. The amount of water used in production of the average cow is sufficient to float a destroyer (a large naval ship).

While 25 gallons of water are needed to produce a pound of wheat, 5,000 gallons are needed to produce a pound of California beef. That same 5,000 gallons of water can produce 200 pounds of wheat. Thirty-three percent of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed

by the US are devoted to the production of livestock, as compared with two percent to produce a complete vegetarian diet.

6. The Antibiotic Argument

Another danger of eating meat is the fact that large amounts of antibiotics are fed to livestock to control staphylococci (commonly called staph infections). The animals being raised for meat in the United

States are diseased. The livestock industry attempts to control the various diseases by feeding the animals huge quantities of antibiotics. Of all antibiotics used in the US, 55% are fed to livestock. But the diseasecausing

bacteria are rapidly becoming immune to the antibiotics, thus endangering humans who depend on these antibiotics to combat disease. The percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin, for example, has grown from 13% in 1960 to 91% in 1988. These antibiotics and/or the super-resistant bacteria they were intended to destroy remain in the meat that goes to market. The European Economic Community banned the importation of US meat because of this routine feeding of antibiotics.

7. The Mad Cow Argument

In February, 2001, Cornell University reported, “Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, has now been officially identified  in a dozen European countries including the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Portugal, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands..

8. The Pesticide Argument

US-produced meat contains dangerously high quantities of deadly pesticides. Many people believe that the USDA protects consumers’ health through regular and thorough meat inspection. In reality, fewer than one out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues.A study of mothers’ milk in the US has clearly demonstrated that these chemicals are ingested by the meat-eater: 

a. Ninety-nine percent of the meat-eating mothers in the study produced milk with significant levels of DDT–compared to only 8% of the vegetarian mothers’ milk. This shows that the primary source of DDT

is the meat ingested by the mothers.

b. The breast milk of meat-eating mothers has 35 times more chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides than the milk of non meat-eating mothers.

c. The average breast-fed American infant contains nine times the permissible level of the pesticide dieldrin, which (though now banned in the US) continues to accumulate in the food chain and often exceeds safety

guidelines in fish and seafood.

9. The Ethical Argument

Many people have become vegetarians after reading about or personally experiencing what goes on daily at any one of the thousands of slaughterhouses in the US and other countries, where animals suffer thecruel process of forced confinement, manipulation and violent death. Their pain and terror is beyond calculation. Most slaughterhouse workers are not on the job for long and have the highest turnover rateof all occupations. It also has the highest rate of on-the-job injury. In the US alone, 1.14 million animals are killed for meat every hour. The average per capita consumption of meat in the US, Canada and Australia is 200 pounds per year! The average American consumes in a 72-year lifetime approximately eleven cattle, three lambs and sheep, 23   pigs, 45 turkeys, 1,100 chickens and 862 pounds of fish!

10. The Physiological Argument

The final argument against meat-eating is that humans are physiologically not suited for a carnivorous diet. The

book Food for the Spirit, Vegetarianism in the World Religions, summarizes this point of view as follows. “Many nutritionists, biologists and physiologists offer convincing evidence that humans are in fact not meant to eat flesh.…” The book gives seven facts in support of this view:

1. Physiologically, people are more akin to plant-eaters, foragers and grazers, such as monkeys, elephants and cows, than to carnivore such as dogs, tigers and leopards.

2. For example, carnivores do not sweat through their skin; body heat is controlled by rapid breathing and  extrusion of the tongue. Vegetarian animals, on the other hand, have sweat pores for heat control

and the elimination of impurities.

3. Carnivora have long teeth and claws for holding and killing prey; vegetarian animals have short teeth and no claws.

4. The saliva of carnivora contains no ptyalin and cannot predigest starches; that of vegetarian animals contains ptyalin for the predigestion of starches.

5. Flesh-eating animals secrete large quantities of hydrochloric acid to help dissolve bones; vegetarian animals secrete little hydrochloric acid.

6. The jaws of carnivora only open in an up and down motion; those of vegetarian animals also move sideways for additional kinds of chewing.

7. Carnivores must lap liquids, as a cat does; vegetarian animals take liquids in by suction through the teeth.

Nice Little Story - The Buddha and the Gift

Nobody could make Buddha angry very easily. Once when He was passing by, one man wanted to incite anger in Buddha’s heart. He went to Buddha and shouted at Him scorching, painful words of insult. Buddha still appeared to be smiling. It’s said there is aura around Buddha. Even if tiger and deer come into that circle, they would forget the enmity. He is so powerful. When the person is giving all these harsh words, He (Buddha) didn’t take it seriously. After sometime, this man felt great pain in this heart. He was surprised “I am giving such words to Buddha, instead of He feeling pain, why I am feeling pain?”

Buddha asked him “Do you ever get guests in home?. He said “yes”. “So when they come, do you offer some gifts to them?”. He said “yes”. “What will you do if they don’t accept?”. That Person said “who cares? I will keep with me only.” Buddha said “That’s what I did with you also; you offered me something(harsh words) which I didn’t accept”.

So Life is like a mirror. The words which you give will come back to you. We should be careful about what we give to others. Now somebody may say “I gave so much love to some person, still that person is rude with me”. No! If you give love to someone, don’t expect love from same person, it may come from somebody else. For example- Dhruva Maharaj is gentle to his step mother. But He is mistreated by her. He didn’t get love from his step mother, but he got love from Krishna later. His mother told him “Supreme Lord can give you so much love that millions of mothers like me cannot give”. Similarly in our life also, if we become vehicles of love n give love, we will get that love back.

Excerpts from IYF Lectures

Credit to Venkatesh Y

IS VEGETARIANISM THE CHRISTIAN THING TO DO?

History Of American Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism as a movement did not start with the hippies of the late 60′s and early 70′s as I would have imagined but rather it started long before that in 1817 with a small group of pilgrims who voyaged from Britain to the New World. Like the first Pilgrims, they were seeking escape from religious persecution and desired to practice their faith. They were serious about the Bible, and they took even more seriously the admonition in Genesis 1:29-30 which commands that the first humans only eat herbs and vegetables. They firmly believed that this was the original will of God. They called themselves the “Bible Christian Church” and one of the conditions necessary to become a member was being a vegetarian.

Does The Bible Command Vegetarianism

This author is also a Christian and a vegetarian but my marching orders did not come from Genesis 1:29-30 but rather I believe that although all the Bible is FOR us, it is not all written TO us, orABOUT us. I believe that the specific part of the Bible that is written directly to Gentiles in the Dispensation of Grace is found in the thirteen Gentile Epistles of Paul. As far as this writer is concerned Genesis 1:29-30 is not directly admonishing us regarding food but rather such verses as Romans 14:14 and I Timothy 4:4 in which Paul states by the Holy Spirit; I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (Rom. 14:14) For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving. (I Tim. 4:4)

Although as stated I am a Christian and a vegetarian, nevertheless I do not snatch a verse out of Genesis to the exclusion of many other verses and attempt to establish a religionbased on a single passage of scripture. Instead I attempt to Rightly Divide the Word of Truth (II Tim. 2:15) and find out exactly which part of the Bible is speaking directly to me. So although I believe strongly in the cause of vegetarianism for reasons of health, protection of the environment, and protection of the rights of animals, I do not feel it prudent to teach that God has commanded all men throughout the ages to practicevegetarianism. I also believe that although God is not commanding the practice of vegetarianism in this Dispensation of Grace (Eph 3:13), He would nevertheless have us to realize that under grace All things are lawful for me but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me but all things edify not. (I Corinthians 10:23) Therefore I must choose that which is expedient and that which edifies. In regards to the consumption of animal flesh and their by-products as far as I am concerned the expedient and edifying thing to do is to abstain.

I hope the reader will be clear of at least one thing in regards to my stance on vegetarianism. It is my firm conviction that if all the evidence regarding human health, environmental issues, and animal cruelty are weighed in the balances, the only reasonable choice would be to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. I attempt to be intellectually honest about my convictions and offer evidence to support my conclusions. I do not however, seek to use an obscure passage of scripture to back up my strong intellectual belief in the many merits of a vegetarian lifestyle. It is not necessary to do so. Actually from my study of the Bible, I am fully persuaded that each of us must come to our own conclusions about this matter based on objective evidence. God is not condemning the practice of eating meat nor is He championing the merits of vegetarianism. Therefore if you are a Christian meat eater, I would not be so foolish as to try and prove to you from the Bible that you are out of God’s will.

I must admit however, that I secretly wish that the Bible did condemn the eating of meat as a sin in this present dispensation because as far as this writer is concerned, if it did it would end allarguments. But unfortunately it does not. In reality it asks Christians to weigh all the verses in the Bible as to God’s will in a matter and to pay specific attention to the verses that speak directly to us. As for the consumption of meat, it is clear to this author that God does not condemn the practice.

That said, I also believe that farm factories which treat animals as mere commodities and raise them under the cruelest conditions and then slaughter them in the most barbaric fashion imaginable would be very much condemned by God. Greed is the major force behind the raising and slaughter of animals in the present factory system and this is clearly not in God’s will. I also believe that God would have us to be good stewards of the environment as well as our own bodies and as far as food is concerned this in my opinion can best be accomplished through adopting a vegetarian lifestyle, but Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5b)

In conclusion it is my opinion that there are many compelling reasons to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle but I cannot in good conscience use the Bible as my reason for championing the cause. I also think that when someone uses one verse from theBible to try and make others believe that it is actually God who is commanding vegetarianism that they do more harm to the cause of vegetarianism than good. We who believe in the merits of a vegetarian lifestyle do not need to play fast and loose with the scriptures in order to make our point. We are better served by presenting a searching soul with the mountains of evidence in favor of the vegetarian way and let such a person make an intelligent decision based on the facts.

I am passionate about health issues, and the state of the health of our wonderful America. I believe the American diet is literally killing us and that a steady flow of money and perks from the meat, egg, and dairy

Copy from http://theblogisdead.com/2010/is-vegetarianism-the-christian-thing-to-do/

Brahmanas, Dog Eaters and the Holy Name!

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.33.7

aho bata śva-paco 'to garīyān

yaj-jihvāgre vartate nāma tubhyam

tepus tapas te juhuvuḥ sasnur āryā

brahmānūcur nāma gṛṇanti ye te

SYNONYMS

aho bata — oh, how glorious; śva-pacaḥ — a dog-eater; ataḥ — hence; garīyān — worshipable; yat — of whom; jihvā-agre — on the tip of the tongue; vartate — is; nāma — the holy name; tubhyam — unto You; tepuḥ tapaḥ — practiced austerities; te — they; juhuvuḥ — executed fire sacrifices; sasnuḥ — took bath in the sacred rivers; āryāḥ — Āryans; brahma anūcuḥ — studied the Vedas; nāma — the holy name; gṛṇanti — accept; ye — they who; te — Your.

TRANSLATION

Oh, how glorious are they whose tongues are chanting Your holy name! Even if born in the families of dog-eaters, such persons are worshipable. Persons who chant the holy name of Your Lordship must have executed all kinds of austerities and fire sacrifices and achieved all the good manners of the Āryans. To be chanting the holy name of Your Lordship, they must have bathed at holy places of pilgrimage, studied the Vedas and fulfilled everything required.

PURPORT

As it is stated in the previous verse, a person who has once offenselessly chanted the holy name of God becomes immediately eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices. One should not be astonished by this statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. One should not disbelieve or think, "How by chanting the holy name of the Lord can one become a holy man to be compared to the most elevated brāhmaṇa?" To eradicate such doubts in the minds of unbelievers, this verse affirms that the stage of chanting of the holy name of the Lord is not sudden, but that the chanters have already performed all kinds of Vedic rituals and sacrifices. It is not very astounding, for no one in this life can chant the holy name of the Lord unless he has passed all lower stages, such as performing the Vedic ritualistic sacrifices, studying the Vedas and practicing good behavior like that of the Āryans. All this must first have been done. Just as a student in a law class is to be understood to have already graduated from general education, anyone who is engaged in the chanting of the holy name of the Lord — Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ HareRāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare — must have already passed all lower stages. It is said that those who simply chant the holy name with the tip of the tongue are glorious. One does not even have to chant the holy name and understand the whole procedure, namely the offensive stage, offenseless stage and pure stage; if the holy name is sounded on the tip of the tongue, that is also sufficient. It is said herein that nāma, a singular number, one name, Kṛṣṇa or Rāma, is sufficient. It is not that one has to chant all the holy names of the Lord. The holy names of the Lord are innumerable, and one does not have to chant all the names to prove that he has already undergone all the processes of Vedic ritualistic ceremonies. If one chants once only, it is to be understood that he has already passed all the examinations, not to speak of those who are chanting always, twenty-four hours a day. It is specifically said here, tubhyam: "unto You only." One must chant God's name, not, as theMāyāvādī philosophers say, any name, such as a demigod's name or the names of God's energies. Only the holy name of the Supreme Lord will be effective. Anyone who compares the holy name of the Supreme Lord to the names of the demigods is called pāṣaṇḍī, or an offender.

The holy name has to be chanted to please the Supreme Lord, and not for any sense gratification or professional purpose. If this pure mentality is there, then even though a person is born of a low family, such as a dog-eater's, he is so glorious that not only has he purified himself, but he is quite competent to deliver others. He is competent to speak on the importance of the transcendental name, just as Ṭhākura Haridāsa did. He was apparently born in a family of Muhammadans, but because he was chanting the holy name of the Supreme Lord offenselessly, Lord Caitanya empowered him to become the authority, or ācārya, of spreading the name. It did not matter that he was born in a family which was not following the Vedic rules and regulations.Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Advaita Prabhu accepted him as an authority because he was offenselessly chanting the name of the Lord. Authorities like Advaita Prabhu and Lord Caitanya immediately accepted that he had already performed all kinds of austerities, studied the Vedas and performed all sacrifices. That is automatically understood. There is a hereditary class of brāhmaṇas called the smārta-brāhmaṇas, however, who are of the opinion that even if such persons who are chanting the holy name of the Lord are accepted as purified, they still have to perform the Vedic rites or await their next birth in a family of brāhmaṇas so that they can perform the Vedic rituals. But actually that is not the case. Such a man does not need to wait for the next birth to become purified. He is at once purified. It is understood that he has already performed all sorts of rites. It is the so-called brāhmaṇas who actually have to undergo different kinds of austerities before reaching that point of purification. There are many other Vedic performances which are not described here. All such Vedic rituals have been already performed by the chanters of the holy name.

The word juhuvuḥ means that the chanters of the holy name have already performed all kinds of sacrifices. Sasnuḥ means that they have already traveled to all the holy places of pilgrimage and taken part in purificatory activities at those places. They are called āryāḥ because they have already finished all these requirements, and therefore they must be among the Āryans or those who have qualified themselves to become Āryans. "Āryan" refers to those who are civilized, whose manners are regulated according to the Vedic rituals. Any devotee who is chanting the holy name of the Lord is the best kind of Āryan. Unless one studies the Vedas, one cannot become an Āryan, but it is automatically understood that the chanters have already studied all the Vedic literature. The specific word used here is anūcuḥ, which means that because they have already completed all those recommended acts, they have become qualified to be spiritual masters.

The very word gṛṇanti, which is used in this verse, means to be already established in the perfectional stage of ritualistic performances. If one is seated on the bench of a high court and is giving judgment on cases, it means that he has already passed all legal exams and is better than those who are engaged in the study of law or those expecting to study law in the future. In a similar way, persons who are chanting the holy name are transcendental to those who are factually performing the Vedic rituals and those who expect to be qualified (or, in other words, those who are born in families of brāhmaṇas but have not yet undergone the reformatory processes and who therefore expect to study the Vedic rituals and perform the sacrifices in the future).

There are many Vedic statements in different places saying that anyone who chants the holy name of the Lord becomes immediately freed from conditional life and that anyone who hears the holy name of the Lord, even though born of a family of dog-eaters, also becomes liberated from the clutches of material entanglement.

A Tradition of Sharing

Recently, in view of reports of foodgrains rotting in godowns, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Central Government to distribute these grains free of cost to the starving millions of our country, rather than to let them rot. Our Agriculture Minister(who recently declared that the ministry cannot be held responsible for rising food prices) reacted to the judgment by saying that food grains cannot be distributed free of cost. Pitiless statement. Grains can be left to rot, but cannot be given to one those who seek it. The article looks at the traditions in India till recently which emphasize greatly on the sharing of food - food as a necessity which cannot be sold or bought.It shows as to how even in 1900s, food was distributed freely to those who needed it the most, without any strings attached.

A Lost Tradition

The discipline of sharing in India continues till almost the present times. Texts of all ages from different parts of India emphasize the importance of ensuring an abundance of food and sharing it widely before eating for oneself. Even a Buddhist Tamil text like the Manimekalai, tells the touching story of Aputran who, being left alone on an uninhabited island with an inexhaustible pot of food in his hands, prefers to die of hunger rather than eat for himself from that pot, without sharing it with anyone else. And the older people in at least the state of Tamilnadu still remember how their parents used to wait outside the house before every mealtime for some seeker to come and accept food from their hands, and on the days that no seeker appeared the parents went hungry too.

The story of Harsavardhana, the renowned seventh century Indian king, who used to empty his treasury every few years and share his riches with his people, is well known.And when Hiuen-Tsiang, the revered Chinese scholar who visited India during the reign of Harsavardhana, describes the festivals of sharing that Harsavardhana organized, it reads almost like the descriptions of grand giving and sharing that happened unceasingly during the great yajnas of Srirama and Yudhisthira and other celebrated kings of classical antiquity.

Even as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century,the kings of Thanjavur seem to have cared as deeply about assuaging the hunger of all within their kingdom as the kings of Indian antiquity. In a fascinating letter written by Raja Sarfoji, the king of Thanjavur, in 1801 to the British who had by then set themselves up as the colonial overlords, the Raja describes the chatrams that abounded in his state, especially along the road to the great pilgrim centre of Rameswaram, which had been running since the times of his ancestors. In thesechatrams all comers received food throughout the day, and at midnight bells were rung to call upon those who may have been left behind to rush and receive their share. The Raja goes on to describe in detail how the chatrams took care of those who fell sick during their stay, and of the dependents of those who happened to die there. The running of the chatrams, the Raja felt,was what gave Thanjavur the title of dharmarajya, and this was the title, the Raja told the British, he valued above all other dignities of his office. And he implored the British to ensure that whatever else might happen to his state, this tradition of providing for the hungry was not abridged or eliminated.

This king of Thanjavur, it seems, was amongst the last representatives of not only the tradition of feeding the hungry, but also the Indian tradition of growing a plenty.Historical evidence from different parts of India from around the tenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century indicates that lands throughout India used to yield an abundance. Inscriptions from the Thanjavur region from 900 to 1200 A.D. record yields of between 12-18 tons of paddy per hectare. An 1100 A.D. inscription from South Arcot, neighbouring Thanjavur, mentions yields of 14.5 tons per hectare, and another inscription of 1325 A.D. from the relatively dry Ramanathapuram records production of 20 tons of paddy on a hectare of land.

Similarly high levels of productivity were reported by the European observers from many parts of the country. Thus, for productivity of foodgrains in the region around Allahabad, one such observer in 1803 reported a value of 7.5 tons per hectare, and another reported a yield of 13.0 tons of paddy from Coimbatore in 1807.

We have fairly detailed information about production and productivity that prevailed in about two thousand localities in the Chengalpattu region thatsurrounds the city of Madras in the 1760s. The best lands in the region, according to this information, produced as much as nine tons per hectare at a period when the British and French armies were crisscrossing the region and subjecting it to much devastation. The average of the region was a modest 2.5 tons of paddy per hectare, nevertheless it amounted to the availability of as much as 5.5 tons of foodgrains a year for an average household of between four to five members, which represents a very high level of prosperity, not merely by the Indian standards of today — which happen to be abysmally low — but also by the standards of the most prosperous in the world.

A ‘Wasteful’ Habit

With the coming of the British the abundance of the lands disappeared almost overnight as it were. In the Chengalpattu region, which was one of the earliest in India to come under the British rule, the relatively modest average yields of 2.5 tons per hectare observed in the 1760s had come down to a mere 650 kg per hectare already by 1788. The yield of lands seems to have persisted around this low level throughout most of India during the whole of the British period. Average productivity of paddy in India in 1947 at the end of the British rule was less than a ton per hectare, that of wheat around 700 kg, and of the coarse grains much below that figure.

Availability of food per capita also declined precipitously, leading to the unending series of famines that kept visiting India throughout the British period. In 1880, when the British had their first serious look at the problem of famine, they estimated the available food to be around 280 kg per capita per year, which is to be compared with the availability of around 5.5 tons per household in the Chengalpattu of 1760s. Estimates of actual production in the 1890s, when the first systematic data were collected, turned out to be nearer 200 kg per capita per year. And our production remains near this figure even today. Thus did the British convert the traditional plenty into a scorching scarcity that persists with us till now. And they institutionalized the scarcity by forcibly deflecting the Indian polity away from its traditions of sharing. The institutional arrangements that the Indian kings had made for providing for the seekers, like thechatrams that the Raja of Thanjavur mentions in his letter of 1801, were unacceptable to the British from the very beginning. They insisted on withdrawing with a heavy hand the resources that used to flow to these institutions. Their insistence on such withdrawal of resources was so great that Richard Wellesely, the governor-general of the East India Company at the time of the conquest of Mysore in 1799, found it necessary to warn Diwan Purniah of dire consequences in case he indulged in the alienation of state revenues to such institutions. Purniah, who had been re-appointed the Diwan by the British to administer Mysore on their behalf but in the name of the hereditary ruler of Mysore, promptly reduced the resources assigned to such institutions from 2,33,954 to 56,993 controy pagodas in the very first year of the new administration.

In addition to scorching the lands and stunting the polity, the British polluted the minds of the Indians by turning them away from their discipline of giving before eating and towards a callous indifference to the hunger and want of others. The sharing that the Indians practised as a matter of the inherent discipline of being human, was disdained by the British as a wasteful habit. And their disdain had such impact on the newly emerging elite of India that already in 1829, William Bentinck, the then governor-general of the Company could write that, “...much of what used, in old times, to be distributed among beggars and Brahmins, is now, in many instances, devoted to the ostentatious entertainment of Europeans; and generally, the amount expended in useless alms is stated to have been much curtailed...”

The Indians who came under the sway of the British soon internalised the British judgments on the Indiandiscipline of sharing; the very first issue of Keshub Chandra Sen’s Sulabh Samachar, dated November 15, 1870, carried an article against the evil of giving alms. “Giving of alms to beggars is not an act of kindness,” the article proclaimed, “because it is wrong to live on another’s charity.” And the article went on to suggest that incapacitated beggars should instead be trained to do “useful things for society.” This attitude of demanding work of those who do not have enough to eat has over time become a cliche among the relatively well-off Indians, especially those who claim to have acquired a modern, rational consciousness.

However, in spite of all the efforts of the British, the habit of sharing before eating remained widespread enough for the Famine Commission of 1880 to fret about its consequences on what they described as the administration of famine. They were afraid that such caring by the people themselves may detract from the majesty and the sovereignty of the state and recommended:

“Native society in India is justly famous for its charity....Such charity is to be encouraged at the beginning of distress;... but when famine has once set in with severity it may become a serious evil unless it can be brought under some systematic control. ...When once Government has taken the matter thoroughly in hand and provided relief in one shape or another for all who need it, and a proper in closed place of residence for all casuals and beggars, street-begging and public distribution of alms to unknown applicants should be discouraged, and if possible entirely stopped.”

Incidentally, in the Indian scheme of things it is indeed the uninvited and unknown seeker at the door who is honoured by the name of atithi and who has to be sheltered and fed with great ceremony and respect by the householder for his daily discipline, of feeding others before eating for oneself, to be properly accomplished. As against the great ceremony and respect that the Indian tradition insisted must be bestowed upon a seeker, the relief that the British administration provided in times of famine, and which according to the famine commissioners justified their discouraging, if not completely banning, the Indian tradition of caring for others, consisted in providing a survival wage, “sufficient for the purposes of maintenance but not more”, in return for a day’s hard labour at specially organised work sites. For those whose health had deteriorated beyond the possibility of work, the commissioners recommended provision of “dole” after due examination by inspecting officers, and the dole was to be withdrawn as soon as a person, in the eyes of the inspecting officer, began to look fit enough for work. Even from women “who by national custom” were “unable to appear in public”, the commissioners expected work, in the form of spinning cotton for the state, in return for the dole of grains provided to them and their children.

Such was the horror that the British administrators felt for the “gratuitous” giving out of food, which for the Indians is the very essence of being human. And, the famine commissioners’ report of 1880 became the basis for the creation of an elaborate bureaucracy for the management of relief and distress, and the judgments and sensibilities of the British thus became institutionalized into state controlled mechanisms for commanding the supply and distribution of food, that remain with us till today.

In spite of all this the ordinary Indians till recently retained some sense of the discipline of endeavouring to have a plenty of food and sharing what one has with others before partaking of it oneself. However, the continued scarcity and the almost total conversion of the mainstream of Indian public life to the western ways have so befuddled our minds that even the residual memory of the Indian ways seems to be finally fading. And amongst the more resourceful of the Indians there is not even a feeling of shame for the continuance of extreme scarcity or for the all pervading hunger of men and animals around them.

We, who, as a people, used to be so scrupulous about caring for all creation, have become callous about the hunger and starvation of people and animals. We know of the hunger around us, and we fail to care. We, all of us together, all the resourceful pople of India, bear this terrible sin, in common.

But we cannot continue to live in sin. No nation with such a sin on its head can possibly come into itself without first expiating it. We shall be liberated from the sin only when we begin to take the classical injunction of annam bahu kurvitaseriously, and begin to grow a great abundance of food again. We have not so far taken to the task with proper application. It is true that during the last fifty years, productivity of foodgrains has improved sufficiently to lift the national average to near two tons per hectare. But this average is quite below what was achieved in the eighteenth century in a relatively difficult and dry coastal terrain like that of Chengalpattu, and it is far below the level of productivity today in almost any other region of the world. And, in any case, all increase in productivity has taken place on about 30 percent of the Indian lands, which have high resources of capital and modern technology and which produce for the market. The remaining about 70 percent of the lands, large parts of which lie in the fertile plains of the bounteous Indian rivers, continue in the state of deprivation and neglect to which they were reduced during the British rule and continue to produce barely one indifferent crop a year.

With care and application these lands can produce the abundance that classical India cherished, and in the process can enliven large numbers of Indians who have been forced into economic idleness because of the idleness of the lands. Much is said about the growing population of India that has made it difficult for the lands to feed them all. But India is a country endowed with rare natural abundance. Unlike almost any other major region of the world, India is a country, where more than half of the geographical area is potentially cultivable, where almost every major geographical region is traversed by a great perennial river, and where the climate is so fecund that crops can grow throughout the year in almost every part. Notwithstanding her density of population, arable land per capita in India is still twice that in China and only marginally less than that in Europe. The sin of scarcity shall be wiped off the face of India only when the idle lands begin to be looked after with care and attention once again, and the bounty that nature has bestowed upon India is converted into an abundance of food.

Therefore, even before we begin to undertake the great task of bringing the abundance back to the Indian lands, we have to bring ourselves back to the inviolable discipline of sharing. We have to make a national resolve to care for the hunger of our people and animals. There is not enough food in the country to fully assuage the hunger of all; but, even in times of great scarcity, a virtuous grhasthaand a disciplined nation would share the little they have with the hungry. We have to begin such sharing immediately, if the task of achieving an abundance is to succeed.

To us, Indians, sharing of food comes naturally. We do not have to be taught how to share, how to perform annadana because, we have been taught the greatness of anna and of annadana by our ancestors, and we have practised the discipline of growing and sharing in abundance since the beginning of time. For such a nation to obliterate the memory of a mere two centuries of scarcity and error is a simple matter. Let us recall the inviolable discipline of sharing that defines the essence of being Indian. Abundance will inevitably arrive in the wake of such annadana.

References and Extracts are from Annam Bahu Kurvita:Recollecting the Indian Discipline of Growing and Sharing Food in Plenty - Published by Centre for Policy Studies, Chennai.