'Secularism khatre mein' - The murder of reason

A few days back, University of Hyderabad students, or more precisely those affiliated to the Students Federation of India (CPM's student wing) and other assorted leftist bodies protested against yet another brazen attempt at 'saffronisation' of education. 

This contemptible attempt was the University floating a circular asking graduating male students to wear kurta-pyjama or dhoti-kurta and women to wear saree or salwar kameez, rather than gowns during covocation ceremony. While the more innocent among us would have seen this circular only in light of a series of efforts to indegenise our ceremonies (remember Jairam Ramesh condemning convocation gowns as barbaric, Uttar Pradesh Governer Ram Naik asking for doing away with the gowns, or students at BHU and many other universities in North India switching over to Indian attire during convocations?), our leftists with deeper perspective on all issues under the universe, discerned an attempt to ‘impose RSS’s idea of Indian culture’, which is ‘Brahminical and patriarchical’ and of course religious (what else can an angavastram denote?)

SFI’s valiant defence of Indian secularism was successful and the RSS had to withdraw licking its wounds. It is now probably planning its next assault on that modern and only true religion, Indian secularism!

----

Globally, the left has had the most fantastic of conspiracy theories (though upstaged by the Islamists now). In all seriousness, they still believe that the telecommunication reforms started by Rajiv Gandhi was a tool to popularise television, which in turn was meant to popularise Ramayana, which in turn was meant to polarise people. In times when common sense had not yet met its demise, the above assertions would have elicited only mirth and ridicule. Yet, years of brainwashing by dominant section of media has ensured that our own beliefs, preferences, sense of outrage are all dictated by others. Not for nothing did one of the hoardings at the Mahim Church proclaim – ‘The media is the most powerful institution in the world. It controls what we think!’

When does a crime stop being a crime and become much more sinister? How do we determine that acts committed by an individual have been influenced by the groups she/he belongs to? Does the outcome of a crime change depending on the identity of the victim? When does a crime committed by individuals or motely groups become heinous enough so as to demand condemnation of the community they belong to? How does it get determined that ‘x’ act is a provocation and ‘y’ a reaction? Or does crime become excusable if committed by certain groups but punishment-worthy only when committed by some others?

In a world with its moral centre intact (ooops... sorry for having used the regressive 'M' word), the response to above questions would have been a no-brainer. A crime is a crime irrespective of the identity of the criminal or the victim. Unless supported by a common consensus of the community, no crime committed by an individual or a motley group would become a pretext to hound any community. The criminal’s mere association with a group would not make the group party to the crime. Most of all, the outrage and judgement on crimes would not have differed from case to case.

In spite of having followed socio-political developments quite closely since 1989, I cannot really quite make out the tipping point when Indian Nation-hood, Indian Culture, Indian tradition, Indian religion became cuss-words. It is quite inconceivable that even in the late 90s, leading media houses would not have had the guts to condemn India for taking a strong line against Pakistan or China. It would again have been quite inconceivable that the media would have openly promoted Hinduphobia the way it does now.  In the late 80s and early 90s, even when the bulk of media was ranged against the Ram Janmabhoomi reclamation movement, there were quite a few media and social personalities who openly sympathised with the National sentiments. Even those who opposed, qualified the opposition on the grounds of the issue being time-barred, generally avoiding mocking the Hindu faith in existence of Rama or his divinity. Post destruction of the disputed structure in 1992, while it became quite fashionable to condemn the RSS-BJP more virulently, the visceral hatred which the left-liberals have for the Nationalists is quite a recent development. Was this tendency exacerbated when the BJP lost the 1993 assembly polls, or then when it tried to cleanse itself of its Hindutva leanings or when Sonia Gandhi’s leadership gave a decisive anti-Hindu tilt to the Congress or post Gujarat riots 2002, when the RSS-BJP proved hopelessly inadequate in countering the left-liberal propaganda?

Maybe a mix of all!

Currently, we are in throes of mass hysteria over lynching of a Muslim man over suspicions that he had consumed beef. Just what makes this crime so noteworthy? It is not the first time that a lynching has happened. In India, thieves, docaits, suspected rapists, child-lifters have all been lynched at some time or the other. A few months back, a Muslim man was snatched from police custody and lynched by thousands in Nagaland. Scores of women get branded as witches and get killed by mobs every year. A couple of years back, Rudrapur was hit by riots. It started with some roadside temple being defiled with beef. Hindus lodged a complaint. Nothing happened. Then, the incident got repeated, the difference was that the beef was loosely packed in pages carrying Quranic verses. Riots happened. Muslim mobs roamed the streets of Rudrapur and lynched 3 men, before any action was taken to restore calm. Are these crimes any lesser than the crime committed in Dadri? Of course not. So, what is different here?

Have we not always been pontificated that crime must not be given a communal colour. When Sachin and Gaurav were lynched by Shahnawaz’s family and other Muslims in Muzaffarnagar, were we not told that this issue was merely of competitive machismo over eve-teasing and that it was only incidental that the Hindus were Hindus and Muslims, Muslims? In news-reports almost every other day, have we not been told how nefarious designs of the chaddi gang (RSS and its co-horts) were defeated when the conscious liberal bravely fought its attempts to communalise a crime? So, why is it different now?

A few months back, a Hindu cow-protection activist was killed by Muslim butchers when the latter were caught smuggling cattle at Devengaore, Karnataka. Does anyone even remember this event, leave aside it becoming the National rage? Very recently, a Muslim father killed his 4 year daughter for her ‘failure’ to cover her head properly. Did any single news-report make it a cause celebre and claim that this was an outcome of rising fundamentalism among Muslims?

So, why do our scales of judgement change when the criminals happen to be Hindus and the victims Muslims? How can a Kavita Krishnan or a Mukul Kesavan ‘bravely’ write that ‘murderous Hindus kill innocent Muslims’ but the media becomes mealy mouthed and report ‘members of a particular community’, when the victims are Hindus and the perpetrators Muslims?

A Charlie Hebdo massacre does not become a cause to poke fun at Muslim fascination with imagery of the Prophet. So why does reinforcement of a ban on beef become a focal point of ridicule of Hinduism and its belief systems?

It has become quite fashionable to claim that the ancient Hindus consumed beef. Yes, they did, under certain circumstances as pointed out here and here. Are those eating it now fulfilling those requirements? And in any case, Hindu taboo on beef is over two millennium old. Even the medieval Islamic rulers recognised cow’s sanctity to Hindus. Some prohibited its slaughter, others ritually killed it in temples and adorned idols with its entrails. The entire early twentieth century, particularly the decade of the 1920s is full of communal riots triggered by cow slaughter. During the partition riots and East Pakistan massacres, the conversion of Hindus to Islam would be sealed only when the Hindu consumed had publicly consumed beef. None of the sixteen sanskars governing the Hindu life can be completed without a cow.

Given the salience of cow in the Hindu religion and its symbolism in the Hindu-Muslim relation, do I then need a BJP or an RSS to tell me that the cow is a venerated animal? Or is it that only RSS-BJP stand for Hinduism? Did riots over beef happen only after Modi became the PM? We cannot be expected to remember the massacre of Sadhus (not aligned to any political party), when they laid seige to the parliament demanding law for ban on cow slaughter in 1966. But how stupid are we if we don't remember the series of minor riots plaguing Haryana and parts of West UP over cattle smuggling for slaughter in the last few years? A time when neither Modi was the PM nor BJP ruling in Haryana.  Then just why is the blame of the lynching being laid on the doors of the RSS-BJP? What a case that neither the local police, nor the district administration, nor the state government is responsible for the crime, but the RSS is!

What is painfully clear is that the traditional RSS-BJP way of managing media has resulted in zero impact. With more and more of the younger generations growing up in nuclear families, far beyond any association with traditional groups, their sense of world-view gets impacted more and more by media which is all around them. Many ape the ‘cool thing’ to do without even bothering to understand the issue and its cause. At one level, we condemn khap. At another level, our social media behaviour makes us worse than the worst of kangaroo courts where the first allegation becomes the crime and its proof!

Just taking the example of beef, while the social media imagery of Muslims mocking cows was on expected lines, what has been a revelation is the stand taken many young Hindus. What was taboo even a few years back is very clearly isn’t one any longer. On what grounds? Individual choice? Give us a break!

The State which bans beef also bans consumption of wildlife, something which has directly impacted existence (not merely taste buds) of our forest dwellers. Did we hear any voice of outrage? Many European countries have outlawed consumption of cats, dogs and horses on account of their ‘association of love and service to humans’. Even in India, killing of a dog or a cat can get you behind bars. So, those bans are ok because they have been imposed by more ‘enlightened’ people?

What the left-liberal demands is that in order to accommodate the ‘dietary preferences’ of others, we have to forego an article of our faith. After all, as per them, since it is the Hindu faith, of course, no article of faith is worth having!

Some pompously claim that since Hindus cannot take care of their cows post their productive age, they have no right to get offended if someone kills them. Oh, I did not know that respect and killing were a binary and nothing could exist in between!

One would like to believe that people can see through the evil behind selective outrages. Sadly, little has happened which would make one believe that people actually do so. Through repeated assertions, Gujarat 2002 has become a tale of Muslim massacre (the Godhra carnage and Hindu deaths never happened), Church attacks and nun rapes have become real, bombings perpetrated only by the Hindu fringe, a Muslim suspect automatically declared innocent while a Hindu suspect - guilty by birth. Where is it ok to handover relief to Muslim victims of a riot but impose penalty on Hindu victims in the very same riots. When it is 'known' that Hindus start rioting and it is only the 'poor Muslim' who is the victim!

As life becomes simpler and our capacity to think independently reduces, our belief will be more stark. We will then openly bray: Hindus bad, non-Hindus good!

The Controversy over Beef - Part 2

“Not since Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses ... has a book caused such a violent reaction.” (Observer). “The Government of India asked for the book to be ritually burnt”. (this claim is curiously missing from subsequent editions of the book). “The book was banned by a Hyderabad Civil Court”. “His book was turned down by its original publishers in Delhi, who were afraid of provoking the Hindu fanatics who have recently been seen vandalising art exhibitions and burning books. One extremist even sentenced Jha to death in a fatwa…”

These lines are for 'The Myth of the Holy Cow' by DN Jha, the book which invariably gets mentioned when the left liberal brigade wants to berate the odium on beef. The book is ‘mentioned’ not referred or quoted, as it is quite likely that hardly any, if any at all, of the champions of the book have actually read the book.

Please read and decide if I be excused for suspecting that the above quotes are a part of an elaborate myth making process? After all, what sells better than the story of an upright academician, pursuing the truth against all hostile currents, finally managing to product a magnum opus which has the might of the State descending upon him and its henchmen baying for his blood? 

Unfortunately for Jha, he is not Salman Rushdie or even Taslima Nasreen! The elaborate myth making falls hollow when one goes through records of the days when the book was published and realises that the release was a non-event. Except for some reviews and self references, there is hardly any mention of the book in news archives of those days. Neither was there a ban on the book by any court (a conditional restraining order in not a ban) nor did the BJP call for the book to be burnt. And the mandatory death threat, which figures so prominently in Jha’s resume, has its root in a stray comment made by fellow traveller, Pankaj Mishra, in his review of the book on The Guardian. Of course, minor details of who made the threat, when was it made and what were the rewards of the fatwa were conveniently omitted.

A scholarly work is supposed to a work of research and conclusions drawn scientifically from research findings. The researcher may start either with a hypothesis or a question and at the end of the study, the researcher is supposed to either affirm or reject his hypothesis or answer the question if answered or continue with further research if the question remains unanswered. But what about research where the findings are pre-construed? Here, the researcher goes through the motion of research, provides copious references (like the students who write long answers hoping the evaluator judges basis form rather than substance) and concludes what had been planned right from the beginning. Don’t believe me? Let me elucidate. I have a hypothesis that lying down is the most dangerous posture that a human being can adopt. I now analyze data to calculate the percentage of people who died while lying down and presto, I declare that with more than 98% deaths appearing when the person is lying down, the horizontal human posture is biggest cause of deaths since time immemorial!

If the reader has drawn an assumption that I have denigrated Prof Jha’s book with such comparison, I must humbly submit that much more is to follow. If, even for a moment, we manage to ignore the screaming biases in the work, we cannot at all ignore his propensity to present half truths and untruths when referring to ancient works. His hatred for the religiously inclined Hindus is so intense that he condemns the out of court settlement on the class action suit which had been bought against McDonald for use of beef tallow in its fries. Try howsoever hard, the fair reader is unable to empathise with Jha’s rage against those who were being fed something which is a taboo for them. To be fair, the title of the book itself gives away what the author desires to expound. But, it will do well to ponder on the relevance of the title in today’s context. It cannot be denied, even by Prof Jha, that a very large number of Hindus consider the cow holy and an object of veneration today. Hence, the bovine’s holiness today, howsoever reprehensible to Prof Jha, is not a myth but a fact. If, on the other hand, Prof Jha’s attempt is to show that the cow is not holy per se, I humbly submit that nothing in the world is holy unless the believing choose to attribute and see holiness in the said object. Why go after the poor cow alone?

Now, a little on the physical attributes of this piece which has become the bible of the beef propagators in India. Sans the introduction and bibliography, it runs to about 132 small, lightly scaped pages. Of these, 47 odd pages are endnotes, leaving around 85 pages for the text. More of a longish essay rather than a book, from the looks of it. But if the readers are looking for copious references to beef eating in our ancient texts, they will be a little disappointed. For, the majority of this book is devoted on the flesh eating habits of the ancient Indians. Yes, not beef but flesh. Reams are devoted on the culinary spread at the time of the Epics, the early Aryans, the Buddha, the Mauryan and the later periods and how it included meats of various kinds. Unfortunately for Prof Jha, Indians have never seen themselves as a vegetarian people. Except for the numerically small Brahmin community, the North India & the Gujarati Baniyas, hardly any other Indian caste has been vegetarian by practice. If we further account for the gradual adoption of meat / fish by sections of Indian Brahmins, i.e., Bengali, Oriya, Assamese, Maithili, Konkanastha and Gaur, we find the number of vegetarian India communities shrinking even further. So, what exactly does Prof Jha intend, except to add to the miniscule bulk of his book by harping on meat, escapes us.

I may be accused of being pretentious for my attempt towards dissection of the work of a tenured professor. I can only point to my reader that my analysis is basis the same texts which the professor speaks of, analysis of what he himself has referred to, written and concluded and a perusal of the end notes which he has provided. The best way to decide if the book is worth the paper on which it is printed is to read and analyze it critically, something which I have attempted in my own way.

Broadly, Prof Jha has adopted the following approach in authoring this book:

·     Provide a large number of references, whether relevant or not: Frankly, the quantum of end notes provided seems intimidating. And ‘seems’ is what it really is. A large number of these references are from contemporary news reports and articles – a large number of which are mere comments. Of how much relevance is a journalist’s musing in Times of India to cow in the Vedic era is not even a question! Again, a very large number of references are not from the main text it is supposed to be referring to. For example, references to Rama are not from the original or even any translation of Valmiki Ramayana but from other works, prominently from JL Brockington’s ‘The Righteous Rama’, which is not a translation but a commentary on his view point on the epic over the ages! Finally, the references are plain incorrect. For example, at one instance, he refers to a story of Kathasaritasagar where a celestial nymph was cursed was having caught a Veena’s string in her teeth. While Prof Jha states the string to be of cowhide (how can hide be made into a string?), the unabridged translation mentions it to be the intestine of a goat!

·      Damn if you do, damn if you don’t (refer) – Prof Jha has referred to the absence of strong explicit prohibitions to cow slaughter and beef consumption in texts like the Manu Smriti to infer that the cow was not sacred enough to warrant such prohibitions. At the same time, when he refers to the later Dharmashastras or the Ved Vyasa Smriti’s references to prohibitions, he calls them as mere exhortations on the excess of beef eating and contends that the references prove that beef was indeed widely eaten. He surely needs to make up his mind, whether absence or presence is proof enough for him.

·     Treating outliers as the main reference – Not sparing even the Jain texts, Prof Jha refers to Aapad Dharma (exemptions when faced with calamities) and medical texts to proclaim that beef for indeed eaten. Perhaps it escapes him that the exceptions allowed in face of exigencies mean that they are to be exercised when faced with exigencies, not on everyday basis. The survivors of the Andes Flight disaster of Oct, 1972 ate the bodies of their teammates. Can we equate that with cannibalism in modern societies? Or, laws of most countries allow offense in the course of self defense. Does that mean that attacking, killing people is legally sanctioned today? Of course not!

·      Treating commentaries as periodic proof – A reading of history most of the times means that someone today has written on what prevailed in the days gone by. A commentary on Gita written by a Gandhi or a Tilak means that they are presenting their understanding of the narrative, as it happened. No sane person will take a stand that writing a commentary on a work written say a millennium back means that what was then, applies today. Well, the curious gets curiouser. Prof Jha refers to many commentaries on the Dharmashastras (all composed by 6^th century AD) written till the 18^th century and notes that those references mean that beef eating was prevalent even in the 18^th century!

·       Presenting known beef eating communities as representative – As indicated in the previous essay, the chandala people of India have always been beef eaters – eaters of the meat of the dead cow, who they would dispose off. It would be they who would cure its hide and bones, which would in turn be used by those who would otherwise get defiled by the touch of cow meat. Our literature is full of instances where a chandala is depicted as carrying slabs of cow meat and getting shunned by one and all. So, Prof Jha’s contention on the chandala people eating beef being representative of a beef eating culture is plain mischievous.

·    Coming to the more serious aspect of Prof’s Jha work where he resorts to Misrepresentations, Half truths and untruths ­– Obsessed with the idea of proving that the cow was as much an eatable as rice, Prof Jha, in all likelihood frustrated by the absence of relevant reference material in support of his hypothesis, falls back on deplorable skullduggery. For example, while the term goghna, i.e., guest, also taken to be cow-slayer, has been flogged to death, that the cow is declared aghanya in the Vedas, is mentioned as a mere appellation. The Vedas and the Dharmashastras talk only of cow sacrifice on special occasions and the cow is always Vasa, i.e., barren cow and more often than not, the cattle that is sacrificed are bullocks, ox or heifers. Sacrifice of milch cow has been condemned in almost all of the religious texts since the ancient times. Prof Jha has on numerous instances narrated Yajnavalkya’s taste for beef who said: “I for one eat it, provided it is tender (amsala)”.(Satpatha Brahmana III 1, 2, 21). But, strangely enough, we are to face two exhortations in the same Brahmana (I 2 3, 6-9 ) against eating beef which obviously do not find any mention in what Jha has to write. Rantideva is another character who crops up again and again as the pious king whose kitchen ‘prepared the meat of 2000 cows everyday’. The story as per the Mahabharat (Anusasan parva, Third Chapter) states that the pious King Rantideva performed a Chaturmas yagna wherein a group of cows approached him offering themselves as the yagna sacrifice. After many remonstrations, the king agreed with a condition that the sacrificed was to be stopped if a cow even hesitated before stepping on to the altar. Before long, a cow wept looking at her calf and the sacrifice stopped. So, a one time incident, that too a ritually sanctioned sacrifice was expanded to be a daily culinary feast!

Coming back to the Brahmin eating the cow (rituals, visitation, ceremonies), Prof Jha certainly seems to believe that the priestly classes of the yore were towering men with colossal appetites. Since donation of the cow or godaan is a ritual which exists only as myths, Prof Jha makes the jajman kill a cow or an ox and serve it to the gluttonous Brahmin. I don’t blame the poor jajman though. I too, would be scared of a figure which could polish off an entire cow in a meal. No sir, if not the cow, it would be me and I take refuge in aapaad dharma.

I don’t know which version of the Arthashastra has the venerable Prof referred to when he claims that the text does not talk of the cow. Well, the Penguin edition of the book (R Shamasastry & RP Kangle) has chapters devoted to animals, their upkeep and penalties, which incidentally talk of the standard punishment for even hitting the cattle. While bulls are not immune to killing, killing of the milch cows, and calves, though permitted for sacrificial purposes, is forbidden for butchers’ stalls. But what can we expect, the Prof would want us readers to believe that Sita’s desire for the Golden deer was driven by her desire to eat its meat when the Valmiki Ramayana talks of Sita’s wish to get it as a plaything or if capture was not possible, getting its skin for a mat. Incidentally, in the same canto, Sita accepts that her desire is cruel and unladylike but that the she is besotted on the deer.

Prof Jha triumphantly exclaims that there is no cow temple in India and hence it’s a proof that the cow is not a Goddess. My, my. When the living animal is considered a Goddess, why does one need to build temples for her? Even otherwise, none of the Vedic Gods (Vayu, Varuna, Indra, Agni, Ashwins) other than the Sun, have temples dedicated to them. Does it mean that their holiness is a myth too? And what about Gopashtmi, the day of the cow? Sadly, Prof Jha could hardly be expected to know anything of the Hindu religion as it is practiced.

·     Finally, the most important aspect - faulty premise – The underlying theme of Prof Jha’s attempt at research is ‘What was considered acceptable in the hoary days are the only things which can demand continuity’. The realization is bound to make him unhappy but, religions are living and like any other organism, evolve with time. Today, we worship Gods who were hardly mentioned in the Vedic era and likewise, hardly venerate Gods who held sway then. We were a sacrifice oriented people then and have since evolved to a sagun bhakti oriented people. Moving away from Hinduism, Sikhism evolved from Hinduism while both Islam and Christianity evolved from Judaism. There are so many minor religions and sects which have evolved in the last century alone. If we apply Prof Jha’s totalitarian dogmas, it would mean that none of these later day beliefs have reason to even claim existence. It is ironical but Prof Jha belongs to the same ilk of people who have otherwise have no use of India’s ancient religious traditions. Why does he even bother with something which he does not understand?

This list can go on without serving any further benefit. ‘The Myth of the Holy Cow’ is not a book but a propaganda pamphlet and deserves to be treated so. The book miserably fails to establish the prevalence of beef eating as a food habit in the Vedic era and exposes itself by its callous disregard for later Hinduism (3^rd Century AD onwards), wherein the cow was accorded the prominence it enjoys today. For Jha, beef eating as a taboo was invented by the British, just the way the Hindu Muslim divide never existed before the British. So what if conversion to Islam was not considered complete till the convert ate beef or the surest way to defile a temple or a well was to throw cow entrails in it (Akbar in Kangra, Abdali in Amritsar just to name a few). Medieval Indian writings record the disgust the Indians had for the foreigners, who were considered Mlechas, the unclean ones, the eaters of the cow. For whatever he would want us to believe, Swami Dayanand Saraswati was not the originator of the cow protection sentiment. Yes, he was the moving force being the movement and blessed Gau Rakshini Sabhas. The movement was built upon the sentiment and not vice versa. The reference to Arya Samaj is interesting in another sense. A Swami, who was on expert on the Vedas and the one who had no time for what he believed were non-Vedic practices, could hardly be expected to venerate the cow, if the practice did not have Vedic sanction.

While the Prof has struggled in compiling this book and the same remains a tiny piece of work in spite of all the tactics he could adopt, he would do well to refer to the other aspect and see for himself the greatness our scriptures have bestowed on the cow. Had he done so, and written a book on the lines of ‘Why is the Cow Holy’, he could have written an infinitely more valid tome, running into hundreds of pages, as can be seen from the two short narratives as below:

A short narrative on the Rigvedic King Sudasa (The Battle of Ten Kings).

Once, the Sudasa of the Ishvaku dynasty asked his chief priest Vasishtha thus: “O Saint! What is sacred in this world?” 

“O Sudasa! Cow is sacred in the entire world. Cow is the abode for Havis. Cow is the life for all creatures. Lakshmi stays where cows stay. Cow is the ladder to climb to heaven. Human beings shall give away one cow from out of ten cows as Godana. Saluting cow in morning bestows great Punya. Cow dung, cow urine are sacred but consuming cow meat is a great sin. Cleaning house with cow dung and consuming cow urine as medicine are advisable.” said Vasishtha to King Sudasa.

Or a short narrative from the Mahabharata.

Once Suka, son of Vyasa, asked his father thus: “O father! which is greater than all and which is essential for performing Yagna?

“O my son Suka! none is equal to cow in this world. Cow is essential for performing yagnas. Once Brahma told the saints thus: “Cows are sacred. Cows are essential for performing Yagnas. All troubles vanish on the sight of a cow. If cow milk, cow urine and cow dung are taken for three days as medicine, it cures all diseases. Cow ghee gives human being brightness. Chanting Gomati Mantra amidst cows, purifies body and mind. Chanting Gomati Mantra in front of Brahmins and Cows accomplishes all desires. Hence Cow is said to be best of all” said Vyasa.

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