I am not sure if it is a majority or not. The population is majority Hindu and non-Dalit certainly (despite their 160-odd million strength), but we have no idea how many take the dietary code seriously, how many put up with it grudgingly for tradition's sake, and how many ignore it either openly or covertly. While we have to consider the affects of cultural influence, the diaspora of Indian people gives us some clue. I grew up in a Yorkshire estate wheere whites were a small minority. The many Indian restaurants sold beef to a one, and I doubt it was only to the few Anglos. IIRC just one of my dozen or so Indian classmates did not eat beef at school dinners - and he was a strict enough Hindu to be entirely vegetarian. Funnily enough I work and live now in an area of the US with a minuscule Indian population, but two of them are in my department. One beef eater. One veggie. I certainly know full well these are not people in India surrounded by its culture, they are adventurous enough to be emigrants, and educated enough to have escaped many superstitions. They are not representative of India's population. They are also however Indian by race, by origin and in most cases by birth, and do give us a clue as to how fungible the prohibition is.
There is no similar food morality in British or Americam culture. Perhaps a closer parallel may be in vegetarians, but here it is reversed, where a sizeable minority has an objection to something the majority (again, assuming there is one in the beef case) feels is acceptable. Few however would find the vegetarians' appeal for a non-meat option in their cafeteria to be a problem - but again there is no cultural ethos against vegetarianism, notwithstnding some lower-echelon antipathy.
The horse/dog is not relevant even though it fits the latter aspect as it would not be an accommodation of real subcultural norms, but a faked affectation for no reason.
= new reply since forum marked as read
