Turning out to be a good discussion so far.
Agnivayu, yes you are right about Hindu tradition being 'do what you want, let others do what they want'. World would be a much peaceful and wonderful place if everyone minded his or her own business and never bothered about what others were doing. Hindus, and why only Hindus, almost all ancient civilizations lived that kind of attitude for long long time. ("Life is a toothbrush, you do yours let me use mine")
But unfortunately world is neither idealistic, nor so simple as that. We live in a world of influences. We like it or not, want it or not, the world of isolation is long over. Now we live in a world, where every "kind" of philosophy, ideology, thought-process, practice musters and practices influence upon all other.
Take for example our own discussion of 'veg vs non-veg'. Once upon a time, say about 200 years back, majority of non-veg parents will pass on non-veg eating preferances to their children; just like veg preferring parents will do so to their next generation. And why only eating habits, all other traditions will be passed along from one generation to the next. This way a continuity and co-existance was guaranteed for all of the traditions in a harmonious environment.
However, today, you can not guarantee that the eating preferances of next generation would be the same as previous generation - this is just like other traditions including even faith system. Today, people are increasingly more influenced by the peer culture and 'horizontal vibes', rather than parental influence and 'traditions'. This is the age of information and influence.
So, whats the point?
Point is, if one is passionate about certain ethical code or ideology (here vegetarian ethics), and wants to see that this ideology progresses in the world, it is far from sufficient to just raise one's children in those ethics. The way influences are there in our world, next generations of veggie parents may take to the conflicting ideology. It may be fine too for some parents. But, at the same time, one has all the right to do all one can, to explain why one is following the ideology one is following. And I see nothing wrong in influencing and encouraging others in joining in - through ethical, legal, acceptable, moral means of course. This is different from "conversion" as you have put it, since there is no involvement of falsehood, coercion, force, ambition, organized-church-like body or commercial interests. This is just making a thought popular.
Also you should observe, non-vegetarianism is NOT an ideology, while vegetarianism actually is, from times forgotten! So you may say vegetarianism is NOT conflicting or offending any particular ideology. It is only negating the habits and practices. Situation is somewhat similar to the difference between Buddhist monks preaching religion to no-religion people 2500 years ago Vs Christian missionaries converting people of other faiths in year 2006.
I hope I was able to convey what I think.
Shambhu, thank you. You may want to share how and why you turned to become vegetarian and your experiences of doing so. (You don't have to)
Bengurionji...Yes you are right, India is more vegetarian than 20%, though there is no single agreed upon figure. US foreign markets research (link) says: "Indian vegetarians, primarily lacto vegetarians, make up about 20-30% of the population in India, while occasional meat-eaters make up for another 30%. Indians are estimated to make up more than 70% of the world's vegetarians."
About taste, also I agree. Vegetarian dishes are very tasty. They have got to be more tasty to keep vegetarians - vegetarians!
But I agree with Shambhuji about thinker part. Meats have been knows to be tamasik, and make mind sluggish. This is very nicely explained by Bhagwan Sri Krishna in Gita and Bhagwan Buddha in Dharma Pada. Even Jesus and Mohammed agreed on this point. Any thinker of some worth has got to be sattvik eater - not just vegetarian. And this is probably why not only in India, thinkers world over have tended to be vegetarians rather than non-vegetarians.
About poverty and meat-eating. On one hand you say you agree to vegetarian food being healthier, so why do you insist upon poor being fed on unhealthy food? There are ample options for poor. Let me give you some examples.
In Bihar and UP, do you know what is the basic staple diet in rural areas? It is called 'Satua' or 'Sattoo'. Basically it is a powder prepared from mixture of different types of pulses and wheat. The labourers, farmers, travelers, just mix this in water, and eat it with Jaggery, Chilly, Salt, boiled potato. This makes up for almost all the protein, vitamin, carb needs. When they have time at hand, they make 'laddoos' of it and bake it on fire, and eat with oil/ghee. (This lunch costs less than Rs 5, is very handy, takes no time to prepare, does not perish easily, no bad-smell or messy stuff)
Likewise in Maharashtra, there is Jhunka Bhakar, which is staple diet of labourers and lower working class. This too provides very good nutrition at very affordable cost.
Let us be practical. Yes our country needs to take care of the impoverished mal-nutritioned children. Meat eating may be just an option - I am not denying it - but nothing will justify this as THE solution. There are other practical, healthier solutions.
Agnivayu, yes you are right about Hindu tradition being 'do what you want, let others do what they want'. World would be a much peaceful and wonderful place if everyone minded his or her own business and never bothered about what others were doing. Hindus, and why only Hindus, almost all ancient civilizations lived that kind of attitude for long long time. ("Life is a toothbrush, you do yours let me use mine")
But unfortunately world is neither idealistic, nor so simple as that. We live in a world of influences. We like it or not, want it or not, the world of isolation is long over. Now we live in a world, where every "kind" of philosophy, ideology, thought-process, practice musters and practices influence upon all other.
Take for example our own discussion of 'veg vs non-veg'. Once upon a time, say about 200 years back, majority of non-veg parents will pass on non-veg eating preferances to their children; just like veg preferring parents will do so to their next generation. And why only eating habits, all other traditions will be passed along from one generation to the next. This way a continuity and co-existance was guaranteed for all of the traditions in a harmonious environment.
However, today, you can not guarantee that the eating preferances of next generation would be the same as previous generation - this is just like other traditions including even faith system. Today, people are increasingly more influenced by the peer culture and 'horizontal vibes', rather than parental influence and 'traditions'. This is the age of information and influence.
So, whats the point?
Point is, if one is passionate about certain ethical code or ideology (here vegetarian ethics), and wants to see that this ideology progresses in the world, it is far from sufficient to just raise one's children in those ethics. The way influences are there in our world, next generations of veggie parents may take to the conflicting ideology. It may be fine too for some parents. But, at the same time, one has all the right to do all one can, to explain why one is following the ideology one is following. And I see nothing wrong in influencing and encouraging others in joining in - through ethical, legal, acceptable, moral means of course. This is different from "conversion" as you have put it, since there is no involvement of falsehood, coercion, force, ambition, organized-church-like body or commercial interests. This is just making a thought popular.
Also you should observe, non-vegetarianism is NOT an ideology, while vegetarianism actually is, from times forgotten! So you may say vegetarianism is NOT conflicting or offending any particular ideology. It is only negating the habits and practices. Situation is somewhat similar to the difference between Buddhist monks preaching religion to no-religion people 2500 years ago Vs Christian missionaries converting people of other faiths in year 2006.
I hope I was able to convey what I think.
Shambhu, thank you. You may want to share how and why you turned to become vegetarian and your experiences of doing so. (You don't have to)
Bengurionji...Yes you are right, India is more vegetarian than 20%, though there is no single agreed upon figure. US foreign markets research (link) says: "Indian vegetarians, primarily lacto vegetarians, make up about 20-30% of the population in India, while occasional meat-eaters make up for another 30%. Indians are estimated to make up more than 70% of the world's vegetarians."
About taste, also I agree. Vegetarian dishes are very tasty. They have got to be more tasty to keep vegetarians - vegetarians!
But I agree with Shambhuji about thinker part. Meats have been knows to be tamasik, and make mind sluggish. This is very nicely explained by Bhagwan Sri Krishna in Gita and Bhagwan Buddha in Dharma Pada. Even Jesus and Mohammed agreed on this point. Any thinker of some worth has got to be sattvik eater - not just vegetarian. And this is probably why not only in India, thinkers world over have tended to be vegetarians rather than non-vegetarians.
About poverty and meat-eating. On one hand you say you agree to vegetarian food being healthier, so why do you insist upon poor being fed on unhealthy food? There are ample options for poor. Let me give you some examples.
In Bihar and UP, do you know what is the basic staple diet in rural areas? It is called 'Satua' or 'Sattoo'. Basically it is a powder prepared from mixture of different types of pulses and wheat. The labourers, farmers, travelers, just mix this in water, and eat it with Jaggery, Chilly, Salt, boiled potato. This makes up for almost all the protein, vitamin, carb needs. When they have time at hand, they make 'laddoos' of it and bake it on fire, and eat with oil/ghee. (This lunch costs less than Rs 5, is very handy, takes no time to prepare, does not perish easily, no bad-smell or messy stuff)
Likewise in Maharashtra, there is Jhunka Bhakar, which is staple diet of labourers and lower working class. This too provides very good nutrition at very affordable cost.
Let us be practical. Yes our country needs to take care of the impoverished mal-nutritioned children. Meat eating may be just an option - I am not denying it - but nothing will justify this as THE solution. There are other practical, healthier solutions.