Answering the Beef Ban

http://agniveer.com/beef-lover-ripped-apart/#comment-502890 (this post is an answer to this link where in the writer had tried to support beef ban in all his humility and reason. I had though to intervene and try to point out the apparent flaw given my finite understanding) Dear agniveer,
 1. First of all i congratulate your for your tredding on the path of truth and seeking it on the same time.
 2. I am a muslim and strongly advocate of voluntary giving up of beef eating by Indian muslims to appreciate our hindu brother’s emotions.
 3.Now i am simply going to put forth my own view and it is not because i am a muslim but because i am a seeker of truth like you. a. As you said if someday a group come with the call for love for potato should india ban potatoes? You cannot discount the emotions and sentiments of such group by telling that you people have come up with this love in recent years not like thousands of years like us hindus regarding beef. If someday there arise people amongst us (somewhat like certain sects of jains) who say that we consider nature as our mother who has a soul and life and we cant see it being killed. So should India ban eating everything that is nature, that has soul to say? 
b. Muslims consider it the biggest crime and it hurts them the most when they see any one in the world associate partner with god (doing idol worship and worshipping multiple gods). So should india then ban idol worshipping to appease muslims emotions and sentiments?
 c. Sikhs do not like halal butchering and vegans do not like butchering at all. So should we ban it altogether to appease them? 
d. I am a proud Indian and love the diversity, plurality, acceptance and unity of my motherland.I am a proud Indian muslim because the freedom to practice Islam is nowhere to be find in any other muslim ruled states. But when such bans are created (snatching away the valid rights of other citizens), when such thinking are promoted to appease a certain section of people and by debarring the rights of other groups, when government and legislative bodies support such discrimination i see diversity, plurality and acceptance of my nation fail.
(watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmsWVuCmYZ4) And the inheritor of truth knows what truth really is. We can only seek its closeness. Reply of this above argument by someone named Shray at agniveer.com post in question (http://agniveer.com/beef-lover-ripped-apart). <> My response to the above reply: Dear shray, I completely believe in vedic philosophies like: 1. walk together in the path of truth without bias, injustice and intolerance 2. Oja – Bravery in following truth 3.Vaak – To speak sweetly for propagation of truth Your reply has shown that there is an absence of a wish to learn/discuss/debate/seek truth but simply an effort to throw up what ever the established believes are. Why do i say this? 1. You have not touched upon the basic premise (banning a thing to appease one group sentiment) of my argument in your criticism of my views. 2. You have filtered two words from my argument (appeasement and plurality) and used both the words in a contradictory and unscientific manner. a. With Plurality plurality you construed that it would lead to allowing Jihadi terrorism. Before i give you an insight on plurality i would advice to please check up that word and enlighten yourself. b. For appeasement you have taken an altogether contradictory stance to the one you are basically challenging. You said appeasement would mean that india should allow freedom of rights like equality and expression to the extent that it gives it even to criminals. Where as I completely in my argument said the opposite that we should not appease a group whether it is for banning beef or allowing jihadi mindset, philosophy, literatures etc. 3. You have made claims where you have tried to be a gyaani by saying that my logic is based on Dr. Zakir naik and Ahmed Deedat’s. I would love to know from your gyaan as to how did you come to such a construct (idea). For your information just like i disagree with agniveer at few points (for whatever i have read his views) i disagree with zakir naik at many points (for whatever i have heard him on youtube). "History tells that societies based on adoration of persons fall prey to mental thraldom which leads to moral, intellectual as well as spiritual emasculation." A truth seeker is not a slave to person, beliefs, religion or ideology but is a slave to truth. 4. You have put your words in my mouth by saying that i am trying to enter people’s home and teaching them what to keep in their kitchens. I have never said that and more so nowhere have i even given an inkling to that effect. Rather i am a firm believer for freedom and liberation (of one’s customs, culture, religions, diets) unless it curtails that of others. Now. Democracy means rule of majority. The ban on beef in Maharashtra is democratic as it is the decision taken by the majority of Maharashtra people (through their representatives in the assembly). But it is the beauty of democracy that the moment the majority changes or is challenged to change the decisions change. The indirect democracy that we have adopted in India creates a situation that the will of majority inhabitants of state and the will of majority of representatives of the state at times collide and contradict. It is here the intelligentsia, the civili society, the leaders need to come up and take the voice of the representatives (MLAs) in the state to echo the voice of the people. Again even if the majority of people stick to a decision which is in its spirit against Truth and correctness it is the job of the enlightened minority to voice their opinion and bring the truth in open so that the voice of truth is echoed by the voice of majority. Hence for democracy to function in its truest sense: 1. Voice of people’s representatives must echo the Voice of majority of people. 2. Voice of majority must echo the voice of truth. Ironically neither of the two happens in our country most of the times owing to absence of truth seekers like Agniveer and presence of (sorry to say) people who are slave to their whims, desires, beliefs and dictums. to be continued....