By Nithin Sridhar
Part 1- Hinduism and Cow
India has
witnessed a continued controversy over Beef and Cow-slaughter in the last few
months. The latest incident that has added to the controversy is the police
inspection of the Kerala House in Delhi after receiving complaints about beef
being served there. Many Kerala MP’s and political workers have protested
against this inspection terming it as “an attack on the federal structure of
Indian constitution.”
Few days
back, an Independent lawmaker of Jammu and Kashmir Engineer Rashid was attacked
with ink for hosting beef party in protest of the beef ban in the state. The
ghastly Dadri lynching happened over rumors about killing and consumption of
cow. Previously, there was a great uproar over meat ban in Maharashtra during
the Jain festival of Paryushana.
In each of
these incidents, there has been a massive outrage that not only spoke about the
rights of people to have freedom to decide what to eat (which is absolutely
right), but also in a sense celebrated the people’s right to kill animals in
general, and cows in particular. The discourse that has been created around the
controversy of beef tries to uphold beef consumption as a virtue, and the
concerns for cow protection as vice and communal; the celebration of violence
as virtue, and adherence to ahimsa
(non-injury) as vice.
Further,
there has been attempts to justify beef consumption and hence the massive cow
slaughter (much of it illegal) that is being carried out, by claiming how
beef-consumption was extensively practiced by Hindu ancestors and hence current
opposition to beef consumption amounts to hypocrisy.
Therefore, it
becomes vital to not only counter the narrative of violence that is being
promoted in the name of ‘rights’, but also to set the record straight regarding
the status of the cow in Hindu religion and history. Hence, let us first take
up the issue of the position of cows in Hinduism.
It has been
argued by various scholars that the cow was not considered ‘holy’ in the Vedic
period and they were frequently sacrificed and consumed during those periods.
They point towards various verses present in Veda Samhitas, Brahmanas, Manu
Smriti and other Dharma-Shastras
to paint the Hindu ancestors as beef and meat consumers who upheld and
celebrated beef consumption. At the same time, they tend to either ignore or
brush aside those references in the Hindu scriptures that speak about Ahimsa
and cow protection. They further try to portray cow-slaughter and beef
consumption as a central philosophy and practice of Hinduism.
Before
proceeding to examine some of the major arguments given in support of prevalence
of massive beef consumption, let us first briefly deal with the Hindu view of
cow.
Hindu view of Cow
To properly
understand the Hindu perception of Cow, one should first understand how Hindus
perceive the environment. The Isha
Upanishad (verse 1) considers the entire universe with all its objects as
being inhabited by God. Similarly, Lord Krishna in Bhagavad Gita (10.20) says, that he is seated in the hearts of all
creatures. Thus, Hindus do not view environment as consisting lifeless objects
and inferior life forms that exist so that humans can conquer and exploit them.
Instead, the Hindu view of environment is “deeply rooted in the
understanding that the trees, the animals, the air, the water, the land and
every other object in nature are permeated by divinity, and hence they are all
worthy of our love, respect, and preservation.”
Thus, we call
earth as ‘Mother earth’; we believe that Lord Vishnu manifested as fish, tortoise,
or as a boar; and our Gods are always associated with animals which serve as
their vahanas (vehicles). Among all
the animals, cows hold a special place in the heart and psyche of Hindus.
A cow is not
only perceived as an animal that is extremely useful from economic perspective,
it is also considered as a mother who loves and nourishes the entire family
with whom she lives.
This
sentiment has been beautifully brought out in the words of Mahatma Gandhi who
says: “Mother Cow is in many ways better
than the mother who gave us birth. Our mother gives us milk for a couple of
years and then expects us to serve her when we grow up. Mother cow expects from
us nothing but grass and grain. Our mother often falls ill and expects service
from us. Mother cow rarely falls ill.”
Though it is
true that the Cow was central to agricultural society, and hence she was given
high place, but this in itself does not capture the entire understanding of the
Hindus.
Hindus
recognize the Cow as the most Sattvic
of all animals. She is particularly loved and respected for her attitude of
love, selflessness, innocence, and loyalty. For this reason, Atharva-Veda
(3.30.1) says that people should love one another as cow loves its calf. The
popular story of the Punyakoti further brings out all these
characteristics of a cow in a beautiful manner.
Cow in Hindu scriptures
While
describing the motherly aspect of the Cows, Rig-Veda (6.28.1-8) calls them as
‘bringers of fortune’ whose milk can be fed to Gods in sacrifice and also to
the guests. The mantras further say that the cows should be kept happy and
should be protected from any injury or harassment or theft.
At another
place, Rig-Veda says: “May the cow eats
best of the grass, may she be blessed, and by her may we also be blessed with
wealth. O inviolable cow, ever feed on grass, and come back and drink water.”
(Verse 1.164.40)
These verses
reveal that the cows are to be treated with love and respect and they must be
provided with freedom and protection from harm. People should make attempts at
giving happiness to the cows, in the same way in which cows provide happiness
and wealth to us.
In the Itihasas and the Puranas, Kamadhenu- the
divine cow is portrayed as an abode of various Gods and as a wish-fulfilling
cow. The name ‘wish-fulfilling’ not only points towards how nourishing cows
resulted in economic prosperity, but it also points towards how nourishing them
was considered a Dharmic (righteous) act
leading to Dharmic wealth as well. Hence,
the cows which are earthly manifestations of the Divine Kamadhenu are all considered as the abode of material and spiritual
prosperity. Thus, the Atharva-Veda (11.1.34)
calls cows as the home of all bounties.
Further, Lord
Krishna in Bhagavad-Gita (10.28) says
that, among the cows he is the Kamadhenu.
Similarly, Rigveda (6.28-1-8) equates
Cows with Lord Bhaga and Lord Indra.
These clearly
establishes the sacredness of the cow. Therefore, contrary to the claims of
certain scholars, cows are indeed considered as holy and as manifestations of
divine, which are worthy of love, reverence, and worship in Hinduism.
It is this
sacredness of the cow and its ability to grant prosperity to the people that
has made Vedas to refer to cow as ‘aghnya’- one which should not be killed.
The Vedic lexicon Nighantu further gives two synonyms for cow- ‘ahi’ and ‘aditi’ that means ‘not to be killed’ and ‘not to be cut into
pieces’ respectively.
Regarding,
why Cow is called ‘aghnya’ that which
should not be slayed, Shukla Yajur-Veda
(13.43) says: “harm not the cow which is pure and illustrious.” The same Veda
further says (13.49): “harm not the cow which gives ghee.” Reiterating this, we
find Mahabharata (Shanti Parva 262) as saying: “The very name of the cow
is ‘aghnya’- that which must not be slaughtered. Hence, who can slay them?
Those who kill a cow or a bull commit a most heinous crime.”
We find
further references in the Vedas themselves, wherein it is explicitly stated
that cows and bulls are not to be slayed (Rig-Veda
-8.101.15) or that those who harm cows must be punished (Rig-Veda- 10.87.16). Manu Smriti
(4.162) reiterates such instructions as well.
Thus, it is
clear that in the Hindu world view, Cows are sacred, pure, and manifestations
of divine. But, their Sattva (purity)
has also made them defenseless. Therefore, to provide protection for such
innocent defenseless animals, the Hindu scriptures have not only instructed
people to not cause harm to them, but also to protect them. This can be
understood as the ultimate expression of Ahimsa
(non-injury).
With this
background, let us try to understand how this fits with assertions of use of
cow meat during Yajnas, Shraddhas and
Madhuparkas that can be seen in some Hindu scriptures in the next part.
_____________________________________________________________
Part 2-Yajna, Madhuparka, and the use of beef
The current
controversy over beef consumption has again provided an opportunity for the
seculars and liberals to mount their attack on the Cow and its relevance in
Hinduism. The liberals make two major assertions regarding the issue:
1.
Cow
is not considered sacred or holy in ancient Hindu scripture.
2. Beef
Consumption was widely practiced by ancient Hindus.
In the
previous article, it has been shown how the assertion that the Cow was not
considered as sacred in ancient times is incorrect. The Hindu scriptures not
only speak about Cow as a mother, a bringer of fortune, and a provider of
nutrition, but also perceived the Cow as the very manifestation of the Divine. The
Cow was considered worthy of people’s love, respect, and worship due to her
purity and was called as Aghnya- one
who should not be killed.
Now, let’s
take up the second assertion. It is often portrayed that hordes and hordes of
cows were slaughtered every day for the purpose of consumption in the Vedic as
well as post Vedic period.
To illustrate
this, the examples of slaughter and consumption of cows during Vedic Yajnas (fire worship), in rituals
related to pitrs (the spirit of
ancestors) like Shraddha, in Madhuparka (the ritual feeding of the
guests), and certain other rituals like marriage and cremation are quoted. It
is insinuated that the sacrifice of cows in all these religious rituals and
ceremonies were done for the sake of consuming beef.
Thus, it is
pointed out that Ahimsa as a tenet was only in theory and not in practice, as a
Cow despite of being called “inviolable” was mercilessly slayed. Further, these
examples are also used to justify the current practices of beef consumption by
showing how they are in sync with ancient practice.
Let us now
briefly examine each of these illustrations.
Meat Consumption during Yajnas
It is often
alleged that thousands of animals including Horses, cows, and bulls were
regularly sacrificed during Yajnas
and then their meat was used for consumption. It is further asserted by some
modern scholars that the Yajnas were
only a pretext for consuming meat. There are serious issues with these
assertions.
One, most of
the Yajnas were optional and were
rarely performed by people. For example, out of 400 Yajnas mentioned in Vedas, only 21 Yajnas are enjoined to be performed regularly and the rest are to
be performed only for fulfilling specific desires like Putrakameshti for having a child or Ashwamedha for establishing an empire.
Second, even
among the 21 Yajnas prescribed to be
performed regularly, none of the Yajnas
that are to be performed daily, fortnightly or even once every four months
contain animal sacrifices. Only seven Somayajnas
(Yajnas in which Soma juice is given as oblation) and 2 Haviryajnas (Yajnas in which mainly ghee is used) include
performing animal sacrifice. These Yajnas
though preferably must be performed once a year, it was considered enough if
one is able to arrange the enormous resources required and perform it just once
in a lifetime. Hence, most people never managed to perform these Yajnas more than a few times in their
entire life.
Third, there
was no sacrifice of hordes and hordes of animals in these Yajnas. For example, in Pashubanda,
which is a Haviyyajna, only one
animal is sacrificed. In Vajapeya,
which is the highest type of Yajna
performed by a Brahmin, only 23 animals are sacrificed. In Ashwamedha Yajna, which
is an optional Yajna performed only
by the Kings, around 100 animals are sacrificed. There is no Yajna which is bigger than this.
Fourth, not
everyone was entitled to perform all Yajnas.
Only Aupassana was prescribed to be
performed by everyone irrespective of their Varna and it did not contain animal
sacrifice. Also, though the Brahmins,
Kshtriyas, and Vaishyas were
enjoined to perform 21 sacrifices, in practice it was only the Brahmin families that implemented.
Therefore, it
is clear that most of the Yajnas were
optional and were rarely ever performed, and among those that were compulsory,
only in a handful of them, very few animals were sacrificed. Hence, the
assertion that thousands of animals were sacrificed regularly in the Yajnas has
no basis.
Cow sacrifice during Madhuparka
Madhuparka which means ‘a mixture of honey’ is a
religiously prescribed procedure of receiving and honoring the guests. It is
alleged that large scale cow-slaughter and subsequent beef consumption was
practiced in the honor of the guests.
According to
various Grihya Sutras, during the ritual of Madhuparka,
the host must offer the guest following things: a seat, water to wash feet,
water for Argya (as an offering) and water
for Acamana (to sip). This is
followed by an offering of Madhuparka
(a mixture of honey and other items like curd etc.) to the guest.
After this, a
cow is brought near the guest and he is asked to choose whether to sacrifice it
or free it. According to some scholars, this offering of the cow is not for
sacrifice, but only for giving away as a gift. This is also backed by few
references about the gifting of cow, which is present in scriptures itself (for
example, Apasthamba Dharma Sutras Prashna 2 Patala 4 Khanda 8.5). The gifting
of cow during Madhuparka is also attested in Ramayana and Mahabharata. In any
case, the guest decides upon the fate of the cow. Considering the central role
played by the cows both in the economy and religion, only few cows are likely
to have been sacrificed.
It is
important to note that neither is the Madhuparka
offered to every guest, nor is it offered at every instance. The Madhuparka was offered only to six specific
people that too, if they arrived only once in a year. The six people are:
teacher, king, an officiating priest, father-in-law, friend, and a Snataka (a student who just returned
from Gurukula and is ready to be
married).
Therefore, it
is clear that, the slaughter of cows, if they were performed during Madhuparka, was conducted only
occasionally and with respect to only a few specific persons, that too only when
the guests explicitly chose to sacrifice instead of setting free or taking as
gift.
The case of King Rantideva and the Cow
Slaughter
Some scholars
point out that it is mentioned in the Mahabharata, that King Rantideva used to
slaughter 2000 cows daily to prepare feasts for his guests. Apart from the fact
that slaughtering of such a huge number of cows every day is quite impractical,
if one were to study the context as well as complete details available about
King Rantideva, it becomes clear that the assertions are incorrect and a result
of improper translation.
The book “A review of Beef in Ancient India” published by Gita Press, which makes
a detailed analysis of the issue, states that the assertion that 2000 cows were
killed daily is faulty and a result of improper translation of a verse from
Mahabharata that contains the words ‘Vadhyate’
and ‘Mamsa’. Though, usually these
are translated as ‘were killed’ and ‘meat’ respectively, in the context they
mean ‘were tied’ and ‘a liquid sweet preparation (Payasam)’ respectively.
The book
concludes that: the 2000 cows were
actually tied to the pegs at the kitchen of King Rantideva, so that milk from
them could be used to prepare food for the guests. This is supplemented by the
fact that Mahabharata itself lists King Rantideva among those who are not
addicted to meat-eating.
Thus, it is
quite clear that King Rantideva never slaughtered cows to feed guests, but only
used their milk for the purpose. Even if we were to accept that he indeed slaughtered
cows, then we must accept that the actual number of cows killed would have been
only a handful as 2000 dead cows a day adds up to 7,30,000 dead cows a year,
which is highly impractical.
Cow sacrifice during Shraddha and Vivaha
Cows are also
said to have been sacrificed during Shraddha
ceremony wherein the spirits of ancestors are satiated and during Marriage.
There is a difference in opinion among scholars regarding whether there was any
real sacrifice of animals or only a metaphoric mention about them in the
scriptures. Also, there is a mention of gifting of cows during marriages just
like Madhuparka (Apathamba Grihya Sutra 1.3).
Even if we
were to assume that the cows were indeed sacrificed during such ceremonies, it
is quite obvious that no person performed these ceremonies every other day.
Therefore, it
is quite clear that neither the rituals and ceremonies like Yajnas (had involved the sacrifice of
animals including cow and bull), Madhuparka,
Shraddha, or marriages were performed
at quick intervals, nor were hordes and hordes of cows and bulls slaughtered in
them.
Was Beef consumption sole purpose
behind cow-sacrifice in various rituals?
It has been
alleged that Hindu ancestors used various Yajnas
and other rituals as a pretext for consuming beef. It is further stated that,
the priests, etc. enjoyed a full feast of beef after sacrificing the cows and
bulls in the Yajnas, etc.
This
assertion is nothing but turning a blind eye towards the plain fact that each
Hindu ritual has a specific purpose and end goal that is clearly made known at
the beginning of the ritual itself. The Yajnas
serve the purpose of harmonizing various cosmic forces. It further helps a
person to worship various deities, ancestors, and other forces of nature. The
performance of Yajnas not only bring
wealth and spiritual merit to the performer, but also causes welfare of the
society. Further, various Yajnas have
specific purposes as well.
For example, Pakayajnas
are exclusively related to family, Putrakameshti
helps to conceive a child, etc. Similarly, if
one examines the mantras associated with Madhuparka
ceremony, one realizes that it is built around the concept of Atithi devo bhava- the guests are God.
The offering of seats, water, a mixture of honey, and even sacrifices of cow
runs parallel to the offerings given in a Yajna.
The primary purpose here is serving the guests as God itself. On the other
hand, Shraddhas are the ceremonies
performed for the well being and satiation of the Pitrs- the spirits of our forefathers.
This clearly
establishes that the sole purpose of these rituals was religious upliftment and
spiritual welfare and they had nothing to do with
beef consumption.
This is
further augmented by the fact that, the cow meat consumed as Prasada (consecrated food left after
offering in a ritual) during such rituals is of very small quantity and they
are eaten without a care for the taste. This is especially true in the case of Yajnas.
Regarding
this, Kanchi Shankaracharya, late Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswati, writes: “It
is totally false to state that Brahmins performed sacrifices only to satisfy
their appetite for meat and that the talk of pleasing the deities was only a
pretext. There are rules regarding the meat to be carved out from a sacrificial
animal, the part of the body from which it is to be taken and the quantity each
rtvik can partake of as prasada (idavatarana). This is not more than the size
of a pigeon-pea and it is to be swallowed without anything added to taste.”
Another point
that must be noted, is we find explicit instructions in the scriptures
regarding what occasions the animals including cows can be sacrificed. Manu Smriti (5.41) says that animals can
be killed only for the purpose of Madhuparka,
in Yajnas, and in rituals related to
ancestors, and in no other occasion and for no other reason. Apathamba Grihya Sutra (1.3.9) says that
Cows can be sacrificed only for the sake of guests (i.e. Madhuparka), for ancestors, and in marriages.
These clearly
establish that cows were not to be sacrificed for any other purpose, especially
not for the sake of satiating one’s taste. In fact, Manu Smriti (Chapter 5,
Verses 33, 34, 35, 38, 48, and 51) goes to the extent of saying that those who
sacrifice animals for purely satiating their lust for the flesh or for any
purpose other than the rituals prescribed in the scriptures, will incur great
sin and undergo great suffering.
Ahimsa and use of cows in Yajna
If it be
asked, how to reconcile between cows being branded as ‘inviolable’, which is an
ultimate expression of Ahimsa and
cows being sacrificed during Yajnas,
etc.?
The answer
lies in the fact that Ahimsa does not
mean pacifism purely in the physical sense. Violence happens at various levels-
physical, verbal, mental, and spiritual. The sacrifice of animals in Yajnas, etc. is not considered an injury
because the animals derive great benefit out of it. The ritual helps them to
attain heaven or get higher birth in the future (Manu Smriti 5.40, 41).
Therefore, considering the spiritual benefit that far outweighs the physical
injury that an animal face, the sacrifice of animals during Yajnas is not considered violence.
Even if one
were to reject these spiritual benefits as metaphors and superstitions, even
then it is easy to see that conducting Yajnas
are not contradictory to practicing Ahimsa.
Ahimsa is an ideal, but except for renunciates,
no person even nears ninety percent adherence to it.
Every human
action is accompanied by one or other form of violence, be it cooking food, or
walking on the road, or speaking ill behind someone’s back. The scriptures have
given an ideal and has created a framework wherein people slowly work towards
attaining the ideal. Thus the instructions given in the scriptures take one
from Himsa (injury) to Ahimsa (non-injury), from ignorance to
knowledge.
This is
further corroborated by the fact that though scriptures upheld Vegetarianism as
an ideal, they do allow the eating of meat of certain specific animals under
certain circumstances; and though Sannyasa
(renunciation) is the ideal, it makes provision for Grihasta (marriage). Similarly, Yajnas
are also allowed for the welfare of society. Manu Smriti (5.53) says that one who renounces consumption of
eating attains spiritual benefit equal to that attained after conducting 100 Ashwamedha Yajnas. This shows that, Ahimsa is the ideal and everyone must
slowly implement this ideal in all aspects of life. But, meanwhile, one should
involve in other Dharmic activities including
Yajnas etc. prescribed by the
scriptures even though they may involve Himsa.
Therefore,
Cows were indeed widely revered and were held as ‘inviolable’ by the ancient
Hindus, though their sacrifice was permitted during some rituals for material
and spiritual welfare of society. But, these rituals were sparse and infrequent
and hordes and hordes of cows were definitely not slaughtered, neither for
rituals, nor for beef. Thus the assertion that beef consumption was widely
practiced has no standing.
_________________________________________________________________
Part 3- Origins of beef consumption in India
In the
previous two parts (here and here), it was established how, contrary to current
assertions, cow slaughter was neither widely prevalent among ancient Hindus nor
were they practiced for the purpose of consumption. Further, it was shown how
cows were held sacred and were declared ‘inviolable’.
So naturally,
the next question that arises is: how and when did the consumption of beef
originated in India? This is a complicated question which does not have any
single definite answer. Yet, we can see how the consumption of beef has risen and
fallen among certain sections of the Indian society over the last two
millenniums.
Beef Consumption and Untouchability
In the
current discourse of beef consumption, beef is almost always linked with Dalits
and Muslims. It is widely held that Dalits have historically consumed beef and
even today most of them continue to practice it. Hence, it is argued that any
action aimed at protecting the cows constitutes anti-Dalit.
Though it is
true that a section of Indian society that includes members of Muslim, Dalit,
tribal, and upper caste Hindu communities do consume beef today, the assertion
that the majority of Dalits consumes beef and deem it a necessity is mostly
hearsay and/or propaganda.
A recent mapping
of the food habits of Dalit communities published by Swarajya Magazine clearly shows that though 80% of the
Dalit communities are meat eaters, they discourage beef. It further notes that,
in states like Uttar Pradesh, over 75% of Dalit communities discourage beef
consumption, though they eat meat. This raises serious questions regarding the portrayal
of beef as being an integral part of Dalit life in present society.
But, there is
a merit in the argument that beef consumption has been historically associated
with Dalit communities. For example, the Mahar community in Maharashtra had an
exclusive right over the dead animals including cows.
Tracing the
origin of untouchability to the practice of beef consumption, Dr. Ambedkar, in his
book “The Untouchables Volume 1” says: “The Brahmins made the cow a sacred animal. This made beef-eating a
sacrilege. The Broken Men being guilty of committing sacrilege necessarily
became beyond the pale of society.” He then builds up his case about how
and when untouchability arose from beef eating.
He says that,
Untouchability is completely absent in not only Vedas, but also in Dharma
Sutras and Manu and other Smritis. He further points out that, first proper
account of untouchability was given by Chinese traveler Yuan Chwang who had
come to India in 629 AD.
From this, Dr.
Ambedkar concludes that Untouchability must have originated between 200 AD (approximate
date he fixes for Manu Smriti) and 600 AD. He further traces the roots of the
Untouchability to the complete prohibition of cow slaughter and the declaring
of Gohatya (killing of the Cow) as
being equal to Brahmana-Hatya
(killing of a Brahmin) during the Gupta rule in the 5th century.
He thus
summarizes that, though Vedic Hindus
had consumed beef, after the advent of Buddhism, the Brahmins and other upper
classes adopted vegetarianism and the Cow was made into a sacred animal. This
transition was complete by the time of the Guptas, after which, those communities
who continued their practices of eating beef were branded untouchables.
Though, Dr.
Ambedkar is right in his proposition that Untouchability is rooted in beef
consumption, he is wrong in his assumption that beef consumption was prevalent
in Vedic times and even the Brahmins used to consume beef for the
sake of taste.
In the
previous two articles, it has been clearly established that, the Cow was
considered ‘inviolable’ in the Vedas itself and only during Yajnas, Marriage and other such spiritual
occasions, were the sacrifice of cows allowed. Even during those occasions, in
all probability, the actual quantity of beef consumed as ‘Prasada’ (sacred food) was very small. Further, even Dharma Sutras affirm that sacrifice of
cows are permitted only during those spiritual occasions.
Also, contrary
to the assertions of Dr. Ambedkar that it was probably in the post Manu period,
especially during the Gupta period that cow slaughtering and beef consumption
was made sacrilegious. We find that in Vedas itself, injunctions that say
killers of cows must be punished (Rig-Veda-
10.87.16) are present. Manu-Smriti (11.59)
also includes killing of cows under “Upapataka”
(secondary crime).
It must be
noted that, the usage of ‘secondary’ to denote killing of the cow does not mean
it was insignificant. It only means that crimes, which were of lesser magnitude
when compared to the five main sins that were branded as “Mahapataka” were called as ‘Upapataka’.
It’s similar to the current practice of listing crimes, according to their
severity and magnitude. One such list, for example, may contain rape at the
first spot and groping and eve-teasing at the fifth spot, but this will not
mean that groping and eve-teasing are acceptable or that they are ‘lesser
crimes’ than rape.
Similarly,
though it is true that during the rule of the Guptas in the 5th
century, the offense of Cow killing was raised from being a secondary crime to
being equal to the killing of a Brahmin, this in itself does not mean that, the
Cow was considered less sacred before. Instead, it points towards a possibility
that, certain communities who never consumed beef during early Vedic or Smriti
period, may have slowly started consuming beef in a large way.
This in-turn
must have caused the elevation cow-slaughter to the level of ‘Mahapataka’.
Thus, we can
safely conclude that the present practice of beef consumption that is observed
among certain Dalit communities originated around 5th century during
Gupta period and not before it.
Beef Consumption and Islamic Invasion
Another
community that is closely associated with beef consumption is the Muslim
community. Though, it is often argued that Beef eating is integral to the
Islamic way of life and any attempt at banning beef will be infringement on the
freedom of religion of the Muslims, a thorough analysis reveals that, this is
not the case.
Dr. Ambedkar writes: “Islamic
law does not insist upon the slaughter of the cow for sacrificial purposes and
no Musalman, when he goes to Haj, sacrifices the cow in Mecca or Medina. But in
India they will not be content with the sacrifice of any other animal.”
Regarding the killing of cows on Bakrid, an Islamic Scholar says: “It is
undoubtedly true that to discharge the qurbani-liability on the Baqrid day, killing
a cow is not farz, wajib or even mandub.”
Therefore, it
is quite incorrect to assert that killing of cows is integral to the Islamic
practice. Yet, what is true is that, the origins of beef eating among Muslims
can be traced to the Islamic invasions of India.
The practice
of beef consumption or the killing of cows during Bakrid was practically absent
in Arabian countries. The Muslims in Arabia usually consumed meat of sheep,
goat, or camel. But, when the Islamic invaders started entering India around
1000 AD, they adopted the practice of beef consumption to humiliate and insult
the religious feelings of Hindus and used it to establish the hegemony of
Muslim rule.
While
summarizing the attitude of Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, the famous Sufi mystic of the
15th century, Yohanan Friedmann writes: “The
honor of Islam demands the humiliation of the infidels and their false
religion. To achieve this objective,
jizyah should be mercilessly levied upon them, and they should be treated like
dogs. Cows should be slaughtered to demonstrate the supremacy of Islam.
The
performance of this rite is, in India, the most important symbol of Islamic
domination.” Similarly,
Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer, another famous Sufi mystic who is
eulogized for his tolerance today, is said to have slaughtered a cow and cooked
a beef kebab at a sacred place surrounded by temples, near the Annasagar Lake
at Ajmer.
Taking note
of such actions of Islamic rulers, Justice Guman Mal Lodha writes in his report about Cattle in India: “The Islamic rulers, from Central and West
Asia were not habituated to beef-eating, as there were no cows in Arabic
countries in those days. When the invaders came to India, they started
sacrificing cows, especially on the occasion of Bakri-Id. This was done more to
humiliate the natives of this country and establish their sovereignty and
superiority rather than for food purposes.”
Therefore,
the historical practice of beef consumption among Muslims is clearly rooted in
the invasion of Islamic rulers and their attempts at humiliating native Hindus
whom they considered as Khafirs (non-believers) and not in any Islamic
doctrines that makes it a religious compulsion.
But, it is
interesting to note that, with time, partly owing to the assimilation of
Muslims into Indian way of life, and partly owing to the pressure from Hindu
subjects, some Muslim rulers like Mughal Emperor Akbar did ban cow-slaughter.
But, such a ban was almost always overturned after a duration of time.
But, with the
decline of the Mughal Empire and the rise of the Maratha Empire, the
consumption of beef had slowly declined and one can note that, only a few
instances of cow slaughter have been recorded between 1700 AD and 1800 AD. In
fact, Dharampal writes in his book “The British Origin of Cow-Slaughter in
India”: “'It can be reasonably assumed
that there was very little cow killing after about 1700 AD since the domination
of Islam waned and converts to Islam did not take to eating of cow flesh.”
Therefore, it
is safe to conclude that, whatever beef consumption that was practiced by
Muslims during Islamic rule, it got minimized to a great extent by 1700 AD.
Thus, the current practice of beef consumption by the community must traced to
post 1800 AD.
Beef Consumption and the British Rule
The arrival
of the British brought a new wave of beef eaters into the country. To the
British, beef consumption was not only an issue of adhering to their own diet,
but also that of fulfilling the food demands of their military as well as the
usefulness of the cows in creating tensions among native Hindus and Muslims.
Regarding
this, Dharampal writes: “State-sponsored
and State-regulated slaughter of cattle would have started, depending on
British military requirement, sometime after 1750 AD.”
It must be
noted that the strength of British officers and soldiers posted in India was
only around 20,000 in 1800. This raised to around 100,000 by the end of the First
War of Indian Independence. The total British population in India, including
British civilians during the 19th century was around 3-5lakhs.
This steep
increase in the British population (especially of those in the military) in
India resulted in many fold increase in cow-slaughtering and beef consumption. Lodha
report notes that, in some places, the increase was as high as fourfold. The
report further notes that as against 20,000 cows per year that was killed
during Islamic rule, around 30,000 cows were killed every day at the height of the
British period.
Regarding the
British attempts at using the cow-slaughter to revive and strengthen the old
differences between Hindus and Muslims, Dharampal writes: “That the Muslims continued to sacrifice the cow at least on festive
occasions like Bakri Id and they were made to feel that the job of a butcher
was honorable, was also a basic political requirement of the British rule in
India.”
This becomes
even more clear in the letter written by Queen Victoria to Viceroy Lansdowne,
wherein she states: “Though the
Muhammadan's cow-killing is made the pretext for the agitation, it is, in fact,
directed against us, who kill far more cows for our army, &c., than the
Muhammadans.”
It was also a
part of British strategy that, along with killing and consuming of cows on a
mass scale, they also started condemning Indian cows and Indian ethos that held
cows as sacred. Lodha observes: “It was
at this juncture that the British started condemning Indian Cows. They
propagated the notion that India was a land of superstitious people, who had a
blind faith in animals, rivers, trees and plants, and that the Indians were
weak, unhygienic and inferior, and even their cattle breeds were inferior.”
This
condemnation of cows was in sync with British condemnation of other aspects of
Indian life. By this strategy, they successfully dismantled Indian institutions
and way of life and replaced them with British ethos and world-views.
Therefore,
the British rule not only gave rise to the current practice of cow-slaughter
and beef consumption (especially among Muslims), but also to the current ethos
of celebrating beef consumption as a virtue by the liberal Indians.
______________________________________________________________
Beef parties and the celebration of violence
In the last
few months, the discourse on ‘beef’ has been much talked about and highlighted.
Politicians, journalists, activists, and intellectuals have repeatedly stressed
their ‘Right’ to eat whatever food they desire. Massive outrage and beef
parties have been organized to protest against the regressive attitude of
Hindutva forces that they perceive as being a threat to India’s liberalism.
Protest by
Kerala’s MPs over police inspection of the Kerala House in New Delhi after
getting complaints about cow-meat being served there, was one such incident of
outrage. Beef parties were also arranged by political
outfits in Kolkata to protest against the inspection.
Previously a
lawmaker in Kashmir had organized a beef party to protest against the beef ban
in Jammu and Kashmir. After the ghastly Dadri Lynching incident over rumors
about beef, numerous beef parties have been arranged to protest against the
lynching. One such party was organized in Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala, where Hindus and Muslims equally consumed beef in protest. Last week, a group of poets, theatre artists,
NGO’s, etc. took to the street and organized beef party to protest against
growing intolerance across the country!
There is
nothing wrong per se in people choosing to eat food of their choice including
beef. But, when a particular choice of food is used to make a socio-political
statement, when it is used to uphold alien ethos and degrade native cultural
values, then, it becomes vital that such a political agenda is exposed.
The very
concept of a party organized to celebrate ‘consumption of beef’ is not only
offensive to the cultural values of Indians, it is an outright celebration of
‘Violence’.
Indian
culture is deeply rooted in the concept of ‘Ahimsa’
(Non-injury) as it considers plants, animals, and all life as a manifestation
of divinity. It makes no distinction between secular and sacred. Instead, it
perceives even the secular elements as having a sacred basis. Thus, no plant,
no animal is considered inferior to humans, nor do humans own their lives.
This
recognition of the universal presence of the Divine force has evolved into the
concept of Non-injury, wherein a stronger does not exploit the weaker, instead
recognizes the rights of weaker to exist. Though, absolute non-injury is not
possible in practice, Ahimsa is still
the ideal that people should continuously thrive to attain. Thus, any party or
gathering that celebrates the murder of an animal for the sake of taste and
politics goes against the ethos of Ahimsa.
The question
is, why should a protest against communal violence (even if the violence
happened over rumor about beef) include consumption of beef? Are there no other
ways of protest? What happened to candle light marches, which is otherwise a
favorite means adopted by liberals?
The reality
is that, the parties are actually not aimed at protesting against communal
violence, or against the government’s attempts at curtailing the freedom to
eat. These are all only excuses, only props that are being used. The real
target is Sanatana Dharma which is the very foundation of
Indian ethos and way of life.
There was
outrage among Indian liberals when buffalos were sacrificed in Nepal during a
Hindu ceremony. Liberals had become animal rights activists and Hindu religion
was slammed for its violence. Yet, these same liberals oppose cow-protection
and celebrate beef parties. Where is the concern for animal rights now?
The Cows
which are very calm, loving, and innocent by nature, must be the most unlucky
animal among all animals across the world. They are at least unlucky in India.
No animal rights activists, no liberals want to take up their issue, because
unfortunately they have been associated with Hindu religion.
Every person
who takes up the cause of cow-protection is slammed as a Hindutva activist, a
political worker, etc. For example Prashanth Poojary. Many people who otherwise
support animal rights and protest against killing of, say dogs, have no
sympathy for cows.
Arguments
after arguments are made about why cows must be killed and eaten and not
protected. Typical arguments include, cow population is increasing very fast,
maintaining cows will be economic burden, people are starving on streets so why
waste money over Goshalas, etc.
This current
liberal attitude towards animals in general and cows in particular is deeply
rooted in a colonial education system that is still being practiced in India. The
British, as part of their strategy to civilize Indians, successively dismantled
Indian education system rooted in Indian ethos and replaced it by British
education system built upon European, especially the Christian world view.
Thus, animals
were no longer perceived as a manifestation of the divine. Instead, it was
taught that, animals have been born so that they can be slaughtered, eaten, and
their body parts used for various human luxuries. The Humans were no longer
perceived as being connected to the nature through a divine bond. Instead, it
was taught that, humans are the masters who can unscrupulously exploit
everything available in nature for fulfilling one’s own perversions.
The concept
of Ahimsa (non-injury), Dama (self-control), and Daya (compassion) were completely
replaced by violence, uncontrolled desire, and indifference. The British had a special
loathing towards the Hindu veneration of cows, because they not only perceived
cows as a stumbling block to their attempts of civilizing Indians to adopt
Christian values, but the cows were also one of their chief source of food.
It is this
colonial education that has today manifested in the form of beef parties. The
parties reveal a mindset that believes in human superiority and justifies human
violence towards animals.
By
celebrating ‘beef parties’ which are nothing but acts of violence committed
against innocent cows, the liberals have
once again made a political statement that in the liberal discourse, Hindus
have no human rights and similarly, cows which are deeply associated with
Hinduism have no animal right as well.
It is high
time that, Indians renounce this colonial outlook and reclaim their native
cultural ethos rooted in Ahimsa and Daya. Today, people have become highly
ingratitude and selfish in nature. They use and exploit cows for their milk,
but then send them away into slaughterhouses once the cows stop producing milk.
This culture of violence, exploitation, and ingratitude must be renounced.
In the past,
when rural society was predominant, almost every family used to own cows and
bulls and they used to take good care of them. Cows and bulls were also the backbone
of Indian economy.
Today in this
highly urbanized scenario, things have greatly changed. But, changed times does
not mean, people cannot return back to their own cultural values. Further, the
role of cow in the economy and agriculture has not reduced. Cow milk is still a
major source of nutrition.
Though every
family may not be able to own a cow, they can at least feed cows that hungrily
roam on the streets. Every family may not be able to individually do much to
help cows, but people living in a locality or a housing society may build a
cow-shelter (goshala) for the cows
present in their area.
Many other
measures at a larger scale may be slowly evolved that would not only protect
the cows, but also will make it economically viable. A simple change in the
mindset can go a long way in finding solutions to complex problems. In this
case, all that is needed to begin with is the abandonment of the mindset rooted
in celebration of violence and reclaiming of the Indian ethos rooted in Ahimsa (Non-injury) and Daya (Compassion).
____________________________(The End)___________________________
