Jallikattu

Jallikattu Ban - A Ruthless Conspiracy By The West To Hijack India's Economy And Spoil Your Health! - Janani Vivek

Indian humped Cows Vs Western  humpless Cows 

Nutritious A2 milk vs toxic disease causing A1 milk - Autism, Type 1 diabetes & several other diseases linked with A1 milk - Divine Indian cows - Propaganda by western cattle industry - White revolution - Native breeds of Indian nearly extinct - Ruthless Cow slaughters - Hypocrite animal activism - Ban on Jallikatu a trickery to kill Indian bulls and more! 

In this post I'll expose what the dairy industry and the doctors doesn't want you know. This post could save you and your family from several health illnesses and save our country from an economical crisis. So pay attention! 

Western hybrid cows vs Indian Cows :

Many of us do not know the difference between an Indian cow and a western cow. The cows you see on the streets now are hybrid-western cows. The poisonous A1 milk you now drink is from this breed. The indigenous cow breeds of our country has a hump on it's back and it gives nutritious, safe A2 milk. We had about 70 indigenous breeds which is now reduced to 30, thanks to the lobbying west and our mindless corrupt politicians. And this 30 left overs are also waiting to go extinct, thanks to the slaughter houses and the ban on Jallikattu and bullock cart racing. 

'BCM7'  The Poison in the western cow's milk :

The milk you get from Aavin and other companies are toxic A1 milk. Cow's milk contains proteins, fats, carbohydrates (in the form of lactose), minerals and water. There are two types of cow's milk : A1 & A2. The main difference between the A1 & A2 milk is their protein component. The protein is of two types : Casein and Whey. There are different types of casein proteins and one particular type is called the BETA-CASEIN which has two variations : A1 & A2. The A1 beta casein is a highly toxic component while the A2 is harmless and safe. Your mother's milk is A2 and so is the Indian cow's. It has micronutrients like cytokines and minerals which enhances your immune system. But the western cow's milk which we drink today, is highly toxic and not suitable for human consumption. 

Bottom line is, once people drink milk, the western cow's milk (which contains A1 beta casein) digests differently than the Indian Cow's milk (which has A2 beta casein). With the A1 beta casein, there's a release of a 'peptide' which a small fragment of protein called " Beta-Caso-Morphin-7 " the devil in the milk.

The BCM7 is an opioid (psychoactive chemical) and when it gets through from the stomach into the blood, it can cause all sorts of problems. The human body simply doesn't like this opioid and it tries to react against it, and depending on the individual's genetic make up, one could get all sorts of diseases ranging from juvenile diabetes, autism, allergies and etc. To make it worse, BCM7 crosses the Blood Brain Barrier. Which means, it could get in to your brain, resulting in schizophrenia and auto-immune diseases such as MS and Parkinson's. In children, it could cause several issues for their psychomotor and physical development (a recent study made by Russian scientists has confirmed this). 

The west has now woken up to the truth and more and more people are going to A2 milk. This has made the western diary industry nervous. So they're in the process of converting their useless, toxic A1 cows to A2 cows. They come to India for the A2 cow embryos as a result of which, now some of our wonderful native breeds like the Punganur and Vechur cows are nearly extinct. And thanks to the lack of a mechanism to check the illegal export of embryos at Indian sea ports, they're doing this with no issues. Today we see western humpless cow in indian diaries , and Indian humped cow in western diaries. Aavin and other milks we get in India now is the toxic A1 kind. The Indian hospitals and doctors are well aware of the health issues caused by the A1 milk, but they keep quiet. After all the business is booming right?

The White Revolution Of India (should be read as 'The Ethnic Cleansing Of Desi Cows" ) :

Above : Thank you also for killing our indigenous cows Dr.Kurien! 

If you go ask a common Indian cow man why he has a western cow and not an Indian cow, he will say “Because it gives more milk than the native breed!”, This is a LIE propagated by the west funded NGOs & lobby groups to fool the gullible Indian farmer. It all began in the early 1960s.

So supposedly, back in the early 60s, India wanted to improve her milk production and wanted to become milk sufficient. So she started the 'White revolution" a project by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) which was the world's biggest dairy development program. Now, you may think this program was about improving the values, knowledge, ethnoveterinary practices, healers and the local biodiversity associated with the native Indian breeds to make the Indian cows more productive, but you're wrong. This was a program devised by the western cattle industries who wanted to make moolah out of the gullible Indian public. They propagated 'mix breeding' as a solution to improve the milk yield of the Indian cattle. And through heavy lobbying, there were able to make our government agree! So instead of improving the milk production of the Indian cows like any sane government would do, Our tax money was spent in buying the exotic western bulls and semen, which made the western cattle industry very happy. They even made our government pass laws that will prohibit breeding of cows with Indian bulls without a license! One good example would be the Kerala livestock act of 1962, which PROHIBITS the maintenance of productive, indigenous bulls by the farmers. If you happened to have a bull that can mate, the agri inspector will come and cut it's balls off!!. Such has been the power of the lobbying west!

Our agriculture and dairy policy makers who started the extensive crossbreeding programmes were treated like royalty by the west milk lobby. Free trips abroad, Scholarships in western universities for their children… and I wonder why..

Above : The Milk Man of India!

As a result of this indiscriminate mix breeding, the destruction of the Indigenous cow began. India lost it's nutritious and safe A2 milk, the ghee & urine of the Indian cow which has numerous medicinal properties, the dung of the A2 cows which was used as fertilizers by our farmers. The farmers are now forced to use chemicals fertilisers which has poisoned the very food we consume and resulted in many health issues including impotency.  

This mix breeding has caused more harm than good. The hybrid cows does give more milk, but with a poison (BCM7) in it. The number of litres of milk given in a DAY is computed only by fools. The number of litres per YEAR is computed by the wise . The Indian cow lactates three times more in a year than the humpless variety and hence gives more milk. Actually, the indian cow is capable of giving more milk in the daily basis than the Western cow if properly bred and maintained. In 2011, a pure Gir Cow (an Indian breed) in brazil, delivered 10,230 kilolitres of milk a year, with a daily yield of 56.17 kilolitres.

The hybrid western cows are very vulnerable to tropical weather and diseases. Unlike the indigenous cow, they have to be kept in very high-cost, air-cooled, all-weather shelters, and require expensive stall feeding and medical care.  It has been pumped with antibiotics and it farts methane gas which is the main culprit in global warming. 

The Cow and Indian Economy :

India was a vegetarian nation. She still has about 500 million vegetarians who rely on milk for their protein. Nearly 63 percent of animal protein in the Indian diet comes from dairy products. Cows are the one of the backbone of India’s rural economy. The Indian cow's maintenance costs are low, their milk is  a succour and source of nutrition for poor families.  Small farmers sell their cow's milk to State-run cooperatives and private companies, which further package it and sell it to the urban cities. My dad always says it was his mother's 3 desi cows which fed the whole family and not his father. 

The western cow's yield may be higher in the short term but they run dry much quicker. Millions of these crossbreeds are being abandoned by owners the moment they run dry as they cannot afford their high-nutrition diet and costly healthcare. Supporting these unproductive animals is stretching the country’s already limited resources.  

Since 1951, the milk production in India has increased from 17 to 122 million tonnes. This may look like a positive figure, but these numbers are deceptively misleading because India also has the highest number of cattle in the world : 200 million. Which brings the average yield in milk per animal down to only 3.23 kg. The global average is 6.68 kg.

 The National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) has warned that if India cannot keep pace, it will have to start importing milk, leading to higher consumer prices. And our government's plan to keep the pace : MORE MIX BREEDING!!!!! YAY!!!!!! 

In the next 10 years, as the new order of industrial dairy production begins to dominate, from being self-sufficient, India will not only have to import a large percentage of its milk demand, but will also become heavily dependent on importing everything from exotic semen to cattle feed for the exotic crossbreeds reared within the country. By controlling these key inputs, foreign markets will eventually decide the price we pay for exotic milk. 

THINGS NEED not have gone so badly wrong. Back in 1965, when an expert group was asked to formulate a cattle-breeding policy, they came up with a scientifically robust, multi-pronged approach: selective breeding of quality indigenous cows in their breeding tracts; using these improved breeds to upgrade the non-descript stock; and the use of exotic semen to upgrade non-descript cattle into exotic crossbreeds only near urban centres where dairy owners could afford to support such high-maintenance herds.

The policy was firmly against introducing exotic semen in the breeding tracts of indigenous milch breeds. So were our dairy farmers. When the NDDB was launched under Verghese Kurien, the proud Gir herders of Gujarat resisted the exotic cattle for years. One story has it that a group of local dairy farmers contemptuously dragged a few exotic crossbreeds to Kurien’s house on the day of his daughter’s marriage to give away in dowry.

But once artificial insemination became popular, the floodgates were thrown open. Like almost everything in India, the looming milk crisis is the result of a colossal planning mess. - Tehelka

So here we are, ruining the backbone of our agro-economy and handing the control of our dairy industry to foreign markets.

Ban on Jallikattu & bullock cart racing :

Unlike the western bull, one Indian bull can service up to 40 cows. The bulls which were raised for Jallikattu and bullock carts were a big problem for the western semen selling companies. So they found a way to get rid of them. Using the animal activist groups in India, they ran biased signature campaigns, started the a case in the supreme court and won. Our supreme court's logic : It's absolutely okay to abuse, torture, kill and eat cows but raising them for sport? Nooooo! Did the supreme court forget that cow slaughter is unconstitutional? Why didn't they ban cow slaughter first and then ban less cruel activities? They didn't ban horse racing which is far worse and cruel than bullock-cart racing, because you can't mess with them rich folks right? 

Above : Peta pushing the western propaganda using the gullible Indian animal activists.
How many of these animal activists know that peta killed 82% of Dogs and Cats in its Possession in 2013?
This hypocritical Animal Rights Group’s Body Count Exceeds 31,000.

Don't get me wrong! I'm against all forms for cruelty. I'm a vegan & an animal activist myself and I can tell you, Jallikattu sans cruelty is possible. Unlike the western bull fight, in Jallikattu, the bull runs the show. It spends barely about 20-30 seconds in the arena. These bulls were raised and treated like gods by the farmers.

Above : Worshipped. Like Gods.

           

  

But thanks to supreme court's ban, these ferocious bulls, who stalked jallikattu arenas like champions, are now boarding goods vehicles on their way to slaughterhouses. 

Above :The last trip of his life

 And when we ask these animal activist groups about the rehab for these bulls, they simply smirk. .

Above: A bull after a western bull fight

  

Above : A bull after Jallikattu.  

Food for thought : A professor from the Delhi University's department of physics and astrophysics came up with a theory that the increase of cow slaughter is the reason for earth quakes. He called it 'The pain wave theory". Everyone ridiculed this theory. But the recent increase of cow slaughter in South India and the earth shake we experienced yesterday.. makes me wonder..

The Limits to Growth

“People don't need enormous cars; they need admiration and respect. They don't need a constant stream of new clothes; they need to feel that others consider them to be attractive, and they need excitement and variety and beauty. People don't need electronic entertainment; they need something interesting to occupy their minds and emotions. And so forth. Trying to fill real but nonmaterial needs-for identity, community, self-esteem, challenge, love, joy-with material things is to set up an unquenchable appetite for false solutions to never-satisfied longings. A society that allows itself to admit and articulate its nonmaterial human needs, and to find nonmaterial ways to satisfy them, world require much lower material and energy throughputs and would provide much higher levels of human fulfillment.”


“Sustainability is a new idea to many people, and many find it hard to understand. But all over the world there are people who have entered into the exercise of imagining and bringing into being a sustainable world. They see it as a world to move toward not reluctantly, but joyfully, not with a sense of sacrifice, but a sense of adventure. A sustainable world could be very much better than the one we live in today.”

“We don't think a sustainable society need be stagnant, boring, uniform, or rigid. It need not be, and probably could not be, centrally controlled or authoritarian. It could be a world that has the time, the resources, and the will to correct its mistakes, to innovate, to preserve the fertility of its planetary ecosystems. It could focus on mindfully increasing quality of life rather than on mindlessly expanding material consumption and the physical capital stock.” 

“One of the strangest assumptions of present-day mental models is the idea that world of moderation must be a world of strict, centralized government control. For a sustainable economy, that kind of control is not possible, desirable, or necessary.”

 “But rules for sustainability, like every workable social rule, would be put into place not to destroy freedoms, but to create freedoms or to protect them. A ban on bank robbing inhibits the freedom of the thief in order to assure that everyone else has the freedom to deposit and withdraw money safely. A ban on overuse of a renewable resource or on the generation of a dangerous pollutant protects vital freedoms in a similar way.”

“The difference between a sustainable society and a present-day economic recession is like the difference between stopping and automobile purposefully with the brakes versus stopping it by crashing into a brick wall. When the present economy overshoots, it turns around too quickly and unexpectedly for people and enterprises to retrain, relocate, and readjust. A deliberate transition to sustainability would take place slowly enough, and with enough forewarning, to that people and businesses could find their places in the new economy.” 

Why do we over consume

Jared Diamond famously stated that “the biggest problems facing the world today are not at all beyond our control, rather they are all of our own making, and entirely in our power to deal with” when talking about his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

Source: World Bank Development Indicators 2008

But why have human ingenuity, technology, knowledge, and wealth grown step in step with unsustainability? If you compare the Human Development Index with resource use, we can see that as soon as countries meet the development standard of “high human development” they inevitably cross the line of unsustainability.

Opponents of this view will say that human well-being has on average increased in the world. However, while this is true, the indicators for species extinctions, habitat loss, greenhouse gas emissions and resource depletion have all been negative for a prolonged period of time.

Personal consumption data is even more telling. When the richest 10 percent account for 60 percent of all private consumption, we have to ask ourselves if these top-tier consumers could possibly improve their well-being any further through material gains?

Back to our pre-modern roots

Researchers like E.O. Wilson explain this paradox with a theory rarely incorporated into decisions – evolution.

The characteristics of human behaviour that became fixed in our population through natural selection occurred over the 95 percent of our pre-modern existence where we lived in sparsely populated hunter-gatherer bands with local community connections. Then the resource problem was one of local access.

Early human societies had primitive and inefficient ways of collecting resources, so those that thrived were ones that developed high rates of consumption and new innovations for resource gathering. They also had built up strong identity with their own community and competitiveness with others, and short-term thinking (discounting the future).

Why do we always need more stuff?

Those characteristics endure today, in concrete but perhaps increasingly extraneous ways.

One of the basic human needs is food: the accumulation of which, along with other resources, is directly linked to the ability to reproduce and provide for a family. In pre-agricultural times, it was unlikely that a single family or tribe could gather enough food to make any further consumption undesirable, so there was little need for the evolution of a trait to limit consumption.

The second greatest human need was to secure a partner for reproduction. Unsurprisingly, it seems that those that could secure more resources through their hunting skills or status also had the best choice of mates. Research shows that women in all cultures, more than men,prefer partners with higher social status and that flaunting what you’ve got helps to seal the deal, so to speak.

Acquiring enough resources is not the end of it. Status is a comparative mark (dependent on one’s immediate peers), and relates to competition. Often cited research by the likes of J.F. Helliwell shows that happiness levels peak at an income level of $10,000 per year in the US, after which happiness is determined by one’s relative affluence.

The over-consumption pattern just gets more intense as we move up the social ladder. Photo:David Levitz.

That most of us want to earn more is therefore very well explained by sexual selection: the process of choosing a sexual partner.  Some individual male birds — a species whose mating relationships most resemble humans — will spend a great deal of energy building elaborate, colourful and useless displays on the forest floor to attract females. But in doing so they signal to the female counterpart that they get along just fine nonetheless: a sign of a healthy, capable individual.

Researchers think that people buy yachts, numerous cars and expensive jewelry in the same way. This over-consumption pattern just gets more intense as we move up the social ladder, and seems to have little to do with satisfying living needs. That is, when we become successful enough to own yachts and expensive cars, the absolute amount of possessions does not dull the drive to consume — because we tend to hang out with other people who own yachts and expensive cars and they put a damper on our relative status.

Today, advertising and marketing professionals exploit this drive, as they do many traits of human nature, to keep the consumption train going. This may in part explain the continued wealth disparities between individuals.

Why can’t we all just get along?

Competition is closely linked with consumption, as it produces social hierarchies among members of a group depending on their ability to secure resources. The idea of “us” and “them” was a very important one when humans lived in territorial bands and formed allegiances against common enemies.

Membership in a group provided security against aggression from other groups and means to cooperate. Internally, there was still a hierarchy that enabled the strong to control relationships and resources.

From the perspective of evolutionary fitness, the strongest individual had the opportunity to pass along the most genes, while receiving the protection of the group. Since evolutionary pressures act on individuals, competition and consumption do not have a shut-off point when the survival of the species is at stake, and there are many examples of human societies (think Easter Island) that likely competed themselves to extinction.

Today, we can look at political divisions to see how competing loyalties and different identities stall our efforts at cooperation. One reason why the United Nations organisation could not unanimously interfere in acts deplored by members (like genocide in Sudan or Rwanda) is that it is a collection of leaders whose allegiances lie elsewhere, such as with their in-group that provides security and shares commonalities like language, religion or culture.

In federal states like Canada, the national government has little power to enforce national policies in Alberta, where oil sand development is provincial jurisdiction, even though it may impact aboriginal communities falling under national protection. There inter-provincial and intergovernmental competition is a defining feature of that country’s politics.

Is it any wonder we are just now beginning to attempt to halt carbon dioxide emissions, nearly 20 years after the need was demonstrated?  How will any deal reached at COP15 in Copenhagen be implemented in countries with competing sub-national identities?

With new global problems like poverty, climate change and biodiversity loss, we are now being asked to be global citizens, and care about those we have never met, and areas we will never visit. This runs counter to our evolutionary past.

Evolution of culture and ideas

But are we slaves to our genes? No serious biologist believes that is the case regarding behaviour, we simply have genetic predispositions to do some things and not others. So the question is: how can we put our ingrained traits to benefit, or even overcome them?

There are certainly ways that human characteristics can be considered and utilised in working towards sustainable future paths.

The melting Antarctic ice sheet — no matter how bleak the images on TV — does not seem able to provoke wide enough behaviour change, because most of us can all go back to our daily lives, unaffected. Our individual interests have to be tapped to create the political support for implementing progressive ideas, and one way to do this is with money.  The recent call for rich nations to put up at least $10 billion a year to entice developing countries into an agreement at COP15 is a starter because dollars can easily be mentally translated into benefits.

Regulation can also be swallowed more easily with the aid of self-interest — like the very recent EPA announcement that GHGs are health dangers, clearing the way for laws restricting their release.

Environmental education for the world’s children is indispensible to nurturing an identity that recognises the intrinsic value of nature and equality of cultures. Photo: Woodley Wonderworks.

Other ways of playing to individual interests is through reputation — rewarding and shaming. Or by setting an extreme baseline for policy and then intermittently moving it back. For example, like closing the tuna fishery and then opening it back up slowly. Expectations for improvement from an undesirable baseline can be more acceptable than an unsustainable benefit with dire future predictions.

Another manner of influencing behaviour is perhaps the most obvious. Environmental education for the world’s children, that builds on human-nature relationships, is indispensible to nurturing an identity that recognises the intrinsic value of nature and equality of cultures.

Such education is bound to pay off. We often point to that which makes humans unique — our language, intelligence, art and culture — as the root of cultural evolution. In other words, the development and passing down of ideas and values by societies that have lots of spare time after they have met their livelihood needs.

There is evidence that shows we increasingly live for ourselves, forego reproduction, enjoy life past reproductive age (thanks to the evolution of menopause), turn to cooperation over conflict, and choose partners based on humour and personality — traits that may not be indicators of reproductive success and survival.

Cultural evolution is quicker and can be more powerful than our ingrained instincts. Our modern environment has changed from locally centered to global, and biologically we have not caught up. Our ideas have to make up the difference.