The Controversy over Beef - Part 1

The Beef Festival in Osmania University has evoked reactions on both predictable and unpredictable lines. Predictable when we witness the cacophony of the left liberal clique baying for the Right to eat beef and unpredictable when we see that there has hardly been any noise from the Right on the matter. True, it was ABVP which led the protests against the festival at Osmania but it was a local affair. Unlike the fellow travelers of the left liberal clique, which has declared its intent to conduct beef festivals across the country, there has hardly been any statement from the Right commenting on the issue. Probably those leaders have realized that any statement will only play in the hands of those hate-mongers who now seem obsessed on cow meat. Interestingly, one student was stabbed during the fracas at Osmania and predictably those protesting food fascism shouted “Look, no one is safe. We told you so.” Unfortunately for them, the stabbed student turned out to be from the anti beef brigade and after some confusion, the left liberals rallied to declare that the stab wounds were self inflicted! Ah these Hindutwa-wallahs! As if worshipping a dumb animal and preventing poor us from relishing its meat was not enough, they can go to any extent to fix blame for anything on us. Arre, The cows that were eaten in the beef festival all had committed suicide so that we could eat them without engaging in himsa. But these Hindutwa-wallahs want to make it appear that those dumb animals were killed! What to do!”

The issue has mercifully died out, though not before conferring a small degree of celebrityhood to the previously inconsequential Meena Kandasamy, who seems to have learned the art of claiming victim-hood pretty well. There has been some activity on the cyberspace, mostly of the type proclaiming one’s right to eat beef. The argument in favor of the Right to beef is two-fold: 1. The State cannot dictate the food habits of people; and 2. The Cow’s sacredness is a myth and the ancient Hindus ate beef with gusto.

While the courts are probably the most competent authority to answer contention one, even a cursory analysis of the legal right seems hollow when we acknowledge that the Government is perfectly within boundaries when it declares animals / birds protected and prohibits killing and / or eating of such creatures. So, even though peacock was the preferred fowl for the royalty, right from Ashoka to Jahangir and deer, the preferred venison for the aristocracy and the tribal equally, one cannot simply kill and eat these creatures today and condemn State’s attempt to protect these animals as ‘Food Fascism’. Secondly, the law is also very clear on outraging of Religious sentiments of any community. Cow being held holy and beef, a taboo by most sections of Hindus, free license to cow killing and eating is unlikely. Probably because the left liberal intellectuals realize the unlikelihood of winning the legal right to eat beef, they have, over the few decades, focused their energies on denying the holiness of the cow. After all, if even small doubts get successfully germinated, it will be easier for the executive and the judiciary to be sympathetic to these groups’s desire to consume beef.

A book which is being named liberally in support of beef eating contentions and the non-sacredness of the cow is ‘Myth of the Holy Cow’ by DN Jha. Additionally, references to Dr BR Ambedkar’s supposed support to beef eating, by the likes of the rabid Kancha Ilaiah, are being paraded in support of one’s right to beef. Obviously, one needs to read the essay before commenting on it, something which few, if any of those referring to this book / essay seem to have done. Hence, here is an attempt at analysis; the essay, to be followed by another note on the book.

Dr Ambedkar published an essay ‘Untouchability and the Dead Cow’ in 1948. Unlike what some would like to believe, i.e., the essay is a polemic in favor of the right to eat beef; it in facts seeks to trace the roots of untouchability to consumption of beef. More importantly, throughout the essay, the beef which Dr Ambedkar talks about is the meat of the dead cow and nowhere is it one coming from cow slaughter. The second para of the essay reads:

“From the survey of the Census Commissioner, it is well established that Untouchables eat beef. The question however is: Has beef-eating any relation to the origin of Untouchability? Or is it merely an incident in the economic life of the Untouchables? Can we say that the Broken Men to be treated as Untouchables because they ate beef? There need be no hesitation in returning an affirmative answer to this question. No other answer is consistent with facts as we know them.”

Dr Ambedkar brilliantly groups Hindus among Vegetarians and Non Vegetarians and Non Vegetarian Hindus into beef eaters and abstainers. He says that the abstainers shared the Vegetarian’s abhorrence to beef and then goes on to suggest that “…those who have a nausea against beef-eating should treat those who eat beef as Untouchables.”

Dr Ambedkar quotes from the Veda Vyas Smriti in support of his hypothesis:

L.12-13 “The Charmakars (Cobbler), the Bhatta (Soldier), the Bhilla, the Rajaka (washerman), the Puskara, the Nata (actor), the Vrata, the Meda, the Chandala, the Dasa, the Svapaka, and the Kolika- these are known as Antyajas as well as others who eat cow’s flesh.”

He further contends that the untouchables were Buddhists and the scorn they invited from the Brahminical order by virtue of their faith, combined with their beef eating habits, gave rise to untouchability. I cannot even pretend to have even a fraction of the intellect which Dr Ambedkar possess and hence cannot comment on his hypothesis. However, regarding the quote from the Ved Vyasa Smriti, it is noticeable that of the abovementioned communities, the Bhatta, the Rajaka, the Nata, while certainly a part of the underclass were not treated as untouchable the way the Chandala or the Svapaka were. Interestingly, ancient texts refer to the Chandala as Svapakas and as those who ate dog meat. Is it this consumption, rather than that of beef, which made the Chandala untouchable?

Unfortunately, as Dr Ambedkar himself accepts, none of the Smritis explain why an untouchable is an untouchable and hence will have to treat Dr Ambedkar’s hypothesis with respect and leave it as a theory pending confirmation.

Moving to the second part of the essay, the learned author questions if Hindus never ate beef and writes:

“To the question whether the Hindus ever ate beef, every Touchable Hindu, whether he is a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin, will say ‘no, never’. In a certain sense, he is right. From times no Hindu has eaten beef. If this is all that the Touchable Hindu wants to convey by his answer there need be no quarrel over it. But when the learned Brahmins argue that the Hindus not only never ate beef but they always held the cow to be sacred and were always opposed to the killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their view.”

Like a clinical analyst, Dr Ambedkar then presents those suktas from the Rig-Veda which support the cow’s sacredness before moving to suktas which indicate the sacrifice of the ox and the cow. He further affirms Dr Kane’s contention that the cow was eaten because it was sacred. The Rigvedic Suktas do proclaim ox and cow sacrifice though the cow seems to be barren in each of these cases. It won’t be farfetched to accept that the cattle was indeed a sacrificial category during the Rigvedic period.

Dr Ambedkar contends that the Vedic suktas (Satapatha Brahmana) and Apastamba Dharma Sutra, which do indicate that Hindus were against cow killing and beef eating are “merely exhortations against the excesses of cow-killing and not prohibitions against cow-killing. Indeed the exhortations prove that cow-killing and eating of beef had become a common practice.”

Interestingly, the Rig Veda also talks of the Narmedha (man sacrifice) being the highest yagna. However, the Veda itself talks of the Narmedha not being suitable for this Kalpa and hence not to be offered at all. Can we take this be to an exhortation against the excess of man-killing and cannibalism? Guess not so it will do good to our rational analysis if we apply similar standard to the suktas on beef eating too.

The third part of the essay deals with the issue of why Non Brahmins gave up beef and after analyzing the laws of Manu and Ashoka’s edicts, concludes that Non Brahmins gave up beef to emulate Brahmins. However, while Dr Ambedkar states that Ashoka did not prohibit cow killing, his own write up states: 

“She-goats, ewes, cows, that is to say, those either with young or in milk, are exempt from slaughter as well as their off-spring up to six months of age.”

However, very clearly this prohibition is more of a general nature and not borne out of any deference to cow. Interestingly, Prof. Radhakumud Mookerji’s contended that Pillar Edict V exemption to all four-footed animals, which are not utilised or eaten extended to cow, Dr Ambedkar disagrees and says that the cow cannot be such an animal. He further trashes Prof Mookerji’s argument that the cow being not a food item at the time of Ashoka did not merit any specific exemption at all!

We must accept that only one of Prof Mookerji’s contentions could be correct. If Pillar Edict V is the exemption then cow was certainly not a special animal to Ashoka at least and if his other argument is accepted, the first argument does not stand. At the same time, we cannot but respectfully disagree with Dr Ambedkar’s dismissal as absurd of Dr Mookerji’s logic as absence of something does not necessarily mean that the thing does not exist at all. Ashoka’s pillar does not talk about the tiger, the toad or the dog. What does it mean? Necessarily, nothing! Further, we tend to forget that Ashoka’s grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya, was so much influenced by Jainism that he became a monk under the tutelage of Bhadrabahu. His successor Bindusar was a follower of the now defunct Ajivika sect, which in many ways reflected Jain austerities. Moreover, Arthashastra  the rulebook of both these emperors had its own message of compassion to animals and severe penalties for hurting / killing both birds and animals. In view of the above and the fact that the two emperors preceding Ashoka were followers of traditions having strong element of ahimsa, it won’t be too farfetched to assume that compassion to animals had already become part of the State exhortations.

The fourth part of the essay deals with the question ‘What made Brahmins become vegetarians?’ This is where it becomes increasingly difficult to sieve the ideological tone of the essay from dispassionate analysis. Apart from such absurd statements like “….a law made by the Buddhist Emperor could never have been accepted by the Brahmins as binding upon them”, Dr Ambedkar makes conclusions which do not seem in consonance with what he himself quotes. He claims that the cow was not a sacred animal after quoting the following rules of Manu applicable to a Snataka (Brahmin student-scholar):

1. A Snataka should not eat food which a cow has smelt.

2. A Snataka should not step over a rope to which a calf is tied.

3. A Snataka should not urinate in a cowpan.

4. A Snataka should not answer call of nature facing a cow.

5. A Snataka should not keep his right arm uncovered when he enters a cowpan.

6. A Snataka should not interrupt a cow which is sucking her calf, nor tell anybody of it.

7. A Snataka should not ride on the back of the cow.

8. A Snataka should not offend the cow.

9. A Snataka who is impure must not touch a cow with his hand.

Except for the first rule, the others can be seen to indicate a high respect for the cow. Even this rule, while seem contra-intuitive, can be reasonably interpreted to mean that what is smelt by a cow becomes her food, the sniff being indicative of her desire to partake and hence the food, once cow-smelt, should not be consumed by any other person. It is entirely plausible that the person following the rule would rather offer the food to the cow than just throwing it away. To put all speculation to rest, we may please refer to the lawgivers Visnu, Yajnavalkya, Angirasa, Parasara and Vyasa, who unambiguously declared only cow's mouth to be impure. For instance, Sankha categorically states that the entire body of the cow, except for the mouth is pure.

Anyways, Dr Ambedkar traces the root of Brahmin’s turn to vegetarianism to the struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism. In a nutshell, he states that while Buddhism was against animal sacrifice, it did not propagate vegetarianism and hence the Brahmins, to be one-up on Buddhism, gave up meat eating altogether. Further, since cow was supposedly the prime animal of sacrifice, Brahmins not only gave up cow sacrifice, they became prime champions of cow veneration and protection. This placed them on a higher moral footing than the Buddhist monk who still ate beef. As per Dr Ambedkar, Brahmin pressure made Gupta king pass laws which made killing of cows a Mahapataka, equivalent to the killing of a Brahmin.

The concluding part of the essay talks about why should have beef eating made people untouchable.

Dr Ambedkar presents a wonderful analysis of the sacred and the profane and proclaims “..the circle of sacred objects is not fixed. Its extent varies infinitely from religion to religion. Gods and spirits are not the only sacred things. A rock, a tree, an animal, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word anything can be sacred. Things sacred are always associated with interdictions otherwise called taboos”. He quotes Prof. Durkhiem again:

“Sacred things are those which the interdictions protect and isolate; profane things, those to which these interdictions are applied and which must remain at a distance from the first.”

With this, Dr Ambedkar concludes that to ensure sacredness of the cow, a prohibition on its meat consumption had to be enforced and for those breaking it, nothing but untouchability was the answer. He says that while the settled communities of the older days ate fresh cow meat (before giving it up altogether), it the outliers consumed meat of the dead cow (outside legal prohibition), something which had continued to be the practice over many millenniums.

The left-liberal intellectuals who leave no opportunity untapped to proclaim their love and devotion to Dr Ambedkar should take his essays as lessons on intellectual honesty. Unlike the celebrated bunch of eminent historians and sociologists in our midst today, Dr Ambedkar quoted from scriptures ‘as they are’ and neither invented nor negated what was inconvenient to him. Of course, one can disagree with his analysis and conclusions but that is what an intellectual debate is supposed to be about, isn’t it?

It is noteworthy that Dr Ambedkar does not declaim the cow’s sacredness to the Hindus since historical times. While it will be churlish to deny that the cow was actually consumed, it is noteworthy that the milch cow was very rarely, if ever, eaten and almost all instances of cattle meat consumption are related to ritual sacrifices. Certainly, what was restricted to special affairs cannot be treated as routine and mundane. The cow, even when a sacrificial creature, was deemed a special animal by the Vedas. Special in the sacred sense, worthy of protection and veneration unlike the horse, which though special, was not deemed worthy of veneration. Secondly, even if we accept that the cow’s present stature is a gift of the Gupta kings, the state of affairs has continued for at least 1700 years, which by any scale is a period long enough to firmly establish beliefs as religion. Finally and most importantly, Dr Ambedkar’s write up talks of the historical and the extant arrangement of the Broken communities consuming meat of the dead cow. Dr Ambedkar merely gives his views on evolution of untouchability in the context of beef eating. He does not claim the right of the downtrodden to kill the cow and consume fresh beef. So much so for the activists’ obsession with the right to cow slaughter basis Dr Ambedkar’s teachings.

Dr Ambedkar’s entire essay can be read here