Union Rural Development Minister Giriraj Singh, during a public address in his parliamentary constituency Begusarai, called on Hindus to abstain from consuming halal meat and instead opt for ‘jhatka’ meat, emphasizing adherence to religious traditions. Singh urged his supporters to take a pledge against eating halal meat, framing it as a matter of preserving the sanctity of “Sanatana Dharma.”
Addressing the gathering, Singh stated, “Sanatana Dharma has had ‘bali pratha’ (animal sacrifice) for ages. If Bakri Eid is in their religion, then Bali Pratha is in our religion. I respect my Muslim brothers who are committed to their religion and only consume halal meat. To protect and respect our own religion, I request that my Hindu brothers stop consuming halal meat and instead only consume jhatka meat. If you don’t get it, don’t eat, no matter how long you don’t get it.”
Singh, a prominent BJP leader, underscored the need for Hindus to adopt a similar commitment to their religious traditions as he admired Muslims for their dedication to halal meat consumption. He reiterated that the Hindu way of slaughter is ‘jhatka,’ a single-stroke method associated with rituals like ‘bali.’
Expressing his vision for a new business model, Singh advocated for establishments dedicated solely to selling ‘jhatka’ meat, proposing a shift away from halal meat consumption.
However, Singh’s statements have sparked a debate, with Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MP Mahua Maji questioning the relevance of such religious discussions before elections. Maji commented, “Who will eat what? Who is he to decide that? I don’t know why such religious issues are brought up before elections. The country has many significant issues; there are scientists and professionals working in various fields. Discussing these petty matters, which have no sense, feels weird. How can educated people engage in conversations about such things?”
The Minister’s remarks have ignited discussions about the intersection of religious beliefs, dietary choices, and political discourse, with opinions varying on whether such matters should take precedence in public addresses, especially in the context of electoral politics.
