It seems that the BJP government’s decision to illegalise the sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets has its roots in a PIL that quotes the five-yearly Gadhimai festival in Nepal, where thousands of buffaloes are taken from India to be sacrificed to ‘appease’ Gadhimai, the goddess of power.
The contradictions that emerge from cattle – here encompassing all bovines – slaughter rules in Nepal perplex many: despite being predominantly Hindu, animal sacrifice continues to be practised. Cow slaughter is explicitly prohibited even in Nepal’s new constitution since it is the national animal, yet the ritual sacrifice of buffaloes and the consumption of their meat is not frowned upon. There is also, in marked contrast to the Indian government’s blanket approach to cattle terminology, a lucid distinction between cows (both the male and female) and other ‘cattle’ species (such as buffaloes and yaks).
The emergence of this contradictory, often paradoxical, approach to cattle slaughter in Nepal is the result of a careful balancing act by the rulers of modern Nepal. The Shah dynasty and the Rana prime ministers often found themselves at a crossroads to explicitly define the rules of cattle slaughter. As rulers of a perceived ‘asal Hindu-sthan’, their dharma bound them to protect the cow – the House of Gorkha borrows its name from the Sanskrit ‘gou-raksha’ – but as they expanded into an empire, their stringent Brahminic rules came into conflict with des-dharma, or existing local customs, where cattle-killing was a norm. What followed was an intentionally ambiguous approach to cattle slaughter, an exercise in social realpolitik.
Answer: I would contend that the right answer is the B) It rejected the authority of the monarch as legitimate.
Explanation: Just to elaborate a little bit on the answer, it can be added that the authors of this text were clearly inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment, such as its criticism of the corruption of the monarchy. Rousseau, for instance, pointed out that kings had been granted power by the will of the people, not by God, and, by the same token, that people could also take their power away from them if they were not doing their job right. In this excerpt, it is said that if a government, which derives its power from the "consent of the governed," that is, from the will of the people, destructs the rights that it is meant to protect (life, liberty, and happines), then that people have the right to alter it, abolish it, or institute a new one.
Answer:
Could you please attach the excerpt..?
Explanation:
Answer:
feeling the need for food
Explanation:
"it comes back for seconds"
The overall tone of the passage "Caius Julius Caesar, the first Roman that came into Britain" is that, Julius Caesar was proud and felt like he could conquer Britain and take it for his own. Hope this answers your question. Have a great day ahead!
