Self Mutilation as Politics

Old is Gold, it is said. And indeed, Eastern civilizations abound in tales of the wise, who were invariably old, venerable figures. It is not without reason that the longest chapter in the Mahabharata is Shanti Parva, containing discourse of the Kuru Elder, Bhishma. In an era, where wisdom meant tales, both experiential and heard, having weathered numerous summers and having enjoyed countless springs was the surest way to assemble knowledge.

Even today, the oldest of the intellectuals, if still mentally agile, can astound the young with depth of their knowledge. 

Yet, time is a tireless enemy which creeps upon one and sundry. While ageing and signs of entropy are seldom a pleasant sight, the pain becomes more pronounced when time impacts people who were instrumental in creating history.

Whichever side of the divide one is, one will be hard pressed not to pause and wonder on what has made the architect of the modern Hindutva movement in India a pale shadow of what he was. For a man who could do no wrong, be it strongly articulating the Hindu angst, making the BJP the party for power, grooming the strongest Gen-next leadership in the nineties, supporting liberalization, renouncing electoral politics when stained or giving up the claim to Prime Ministership, the tables seem to have turned so much so that his once killer political instincts seem to have got seriously blunted.

The last decade and a half have not been kind to Shri Advani. For a man who was seen as a successor to Sardar Patel, his stint as the Home Minister will always be overshadowed by the colossal mismanagement of Kandhar hijacking. His only real shot at Prime Ministership in 2004 got mired in the thoughtless India Shining campaign and his intellectually dishonest declaration of Jinnah as secular robbed him of the moral high ground he possessed. If the admirer still hoped that the genius of Shri Advani would ensure his rebirth, he was disappointed again when the sham of Notes for Vote hit the Nation. This was not all. The Nation had to be a party to the spectacle of Shri Advani being made the butt of joke for his dumbbell lifting, karate chop acts in 2009 General elections followed by the unseemly scene of the diminishing RSS trying to order a reluctant Advani off the public sphere.

Now, Advaniji seems intent on making a spectacle of the BJP yet again by forcing the reluctant party to contest the lost Presidential elections.

It is not difficult to empathize with those who don’t desire a contest. For an election which is already lost, what is to be gained by diminishing one’s stature even more? If the BJP were so serious about contesting, why did they have to wait to finalize a candidate for so long? If Kalam was the intended choice, why could the BJP not convince even Jayalalitha to support him? We are now left with the spectacle of the party going mall-shopping for candidates with the ageing Advani trying to push support for Sangma. For the apologists, that the BJP is not willing to give the UPA a walkover is reason valid enough to contest and a public display of its willingness to fight the UPA is certain to boost BJP’s standing among the general public.

But seriously, what will the BJP gain by contesting a no-gamer? If it for symbolic value of supporting a tribal, a Christian for the President’s post, the media and Mr Advani will do good to themselves to remember that the first such candidate was put up by the BJP itself in 1992, in form of Mr George Gilbert Swell, against Shankar Dayal Sharma. While we don’t know if that sagacious act led to any accretion of BJP’s support base amongst the Christian community, what we certainly know is that the same GG Swell denounced the BJP on the floor of the house in 1996 and voted against the confidence vote on the thirteen day Vajpayee Government. This was barely 10 days post his affirming his and 6 fellow MPs support to Vajpayee, but that is another story.

Even though the outcome of the Presidential Elections of 2007 was even more pre-determined, the NDA still had valid grounds to contest the polls. Not only did the Sonia Gandhi led UPA commit an atrocity on the Nation in form of the current incumbent’s candidature, the BJP had a towering personality, as its presidential candidate. Further, even though the NDA did not expand (Shiv Sena actually walked away), it did manage to gain votes of the AIADMK, Panther’s Party, INLD, AGP and AGP(P) in those polls.

Here, even before the polls, the Shiv Sena has yet again walked away and it is likely that the JD(U) and Akali Dal will follow suit. If the motive is to gain affection of either Mamata, Jaya or Naveen, why does it have to be at the cost of long standing allies, the only ones from the 1996 Government days?

Even if the BJP had a good candidate, would it still be a reason enough to oppose Pranab Mukherjee? Granted that Mr Mukherjee’s stint as the Finance Minister has not been great, granted that his image is even more Teflon coated than Mr Jaitley’s in the sense that there has not been even the slightest hint of criticism of his role and even granted that as Finance Minister, he cannot absolve himself of responsibility regarding numerous scams which have plagued the UPA regimes. Still, Mr Mukherjee deserves to be the President of the country, if for nothing else, for bringing back a semblance of gravity to the post.

It is after twenty five years that the country has the opportunity of having as its Head, a political personality, who is neither a lightweight, nor a political has-been or a symbolic appointment. The winner of the 1987 polls, R Venkatraman was in active politics when he became the President and had been the home and defence minister of the country. His successor, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma was leading a semi retired life in form of gubernatorial postings before he became the Vice President. Following him was KR Narayanan, a political lightweight who became President on account of being at the right place at the right time. While Dr APJ Abul Kalam enjoyed phenomenal popularity as the President, he was not a political person when nominated and his glory days with DRDO were far behind him. Regarding his successor, the lesser said the better. Though, to be fair to her, Ms Patil has conducted herself much more admirably that the outrightly biased KR Narayanan.

Compared to his 4 predecessors, Pranab Mukherjee, with almost half a century of political life behind him, is much better placed to don the role of the President of this country. If Mr Mukherjee is to be opposed merely for the reason that Ms Sonia Gandhi displayed ill grace in not even consulting with the NDA leaders before announcing his candidature, well, that is a fig leaf of a reason and only serves to even more belittle the dignity of the post.

But why, why does Mr Advani, (alongwith Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Anant Kumar) persist in pushing for a contest? While for Anant Kumar, it could be a mode of repaying his debt to Advaniji for standing by him in his intrigues against Yedyurappa, for Ms Swaraj, it could either be a genuine respect for the patriarch or a baser way of getting back at Mr Arun Jaitley. What we need not speculate is the reason behind Advaniji’s persistence. Who else, but the Trojan who has destroyed Advani and in the process damaged the BJP beyond recognition? Yes, the architect of the India Shining campaign, of the secular Jinnah fiasco, of the Notes for Vote sham, is at it once again. And he will not rest till his mission, i.e., decimation of the BJP is achieved.

Even for the most noble purpose of vanquishing the enemy, it is difficult for any person to cohabit with it, to claim to think of its good, to denounce one’s old attachments and be careful enough not to utter what one holds dear in life. It is one thing to say that one should mingle with the enemy to defeat if and another to practice. But, it is men like Sudheendra Kulkarni who can warm our hearts enough to still believe that men can still be committed to their ideology strongly enough and do what was hitherto considered impossible. One can only salute the bitter pills Kulkarni has swallowed and still swallows as he proclaims himself a BJP man. One cannot even imagine the torment his soul is under as he hides his Marxist identity and wears a saffron mask. O Kulkarni, you are a Trojan if there was one.

My Sweet Lord

Only sometime back, a learned, a little eccentric but very much lovable cousin of mine exclaimed that the celebrated saint Narsi Mehta was not really a saint. Though used to him springing verbal surprises now and then, the comment on Narsi Mehta became all the more difficult to digest when one considered that the commentator was someone who fancied himself a devout Hindu. Prodded for reason, my cousin had a simple explanation – A saint does not ask anything from God. But Narsi Mehta disturbed Krishna frequently, sometimes making Him come down as Shyamal Das to pay off his debt or to make him come with Maayro for his daughter. How could a person, who ‘used’ God so materially, be a true saint?

Frankly, while I try to see merit in what my cousin had to say, my empathy for his thoughts stops with my belief that there can be no one way to approach Him. While Loving God for His own sake is arguably one of the highest forms of devotion, such selfless Love is more aspirational than real for the layman. 

With passage of time, what was once new becomes integral and at times, memories of yore get erased altogether. For the practising Hindu, who takes joy in the tales of Shabari’s berries or upholding of Draupadi’s honour, it may be slightly jarring to realise and accept that none of these tales, which entail God with the warmest human qualities, formed part of the original epics. Valmiki Ramayana only mentions that Shabari treated Rama & Lakshmana as venerable guests. The heart touching tale of Rama consuming her half eaten berries form a part of narrative in the Padma Purana, which was a much later creation. Likewise, the critical edition of Mahabharata has Draupadi’s honour being saved through a miracle, i.e., a saree once removed was replaced with another saree. Here, Draupadi had appealed to the higher powers, throwing her hands open in the skies and the skies had responded. Her heart rending appeal of Krishna and His making the saree become endless is but a later edition.

Iravati Karwe in her authoritative tomes, have cast doubts over the existence of Bhagvad Gita as a single text. Contending that the nature of the first six chapters are radically different from the later twelve, she argues that while the former gel with overall narrative of the Mahabharata, the latter are only later additions, put by proponents of Bhakti. 

Prof Karwe and many others seem to have little sympathy for Bhakti as an emotion for they contend that Bhakti transferred the onus of activity from self to God and by default, promoted fatalism and a passive avoidance of assertive activity. Prof Karwe outlines the achievements made in the Vedic era and contrasts them with the saga of defeats and compromises made in the medieval ages and tacitly holds preponderance of Bhakti for the passivity of the Indian people.

While the facts presented by Prof Karwe could be incontrovertible, the conclusions may only be partly true. Bhakti as a philosophy in India gained prominence in the North with the formal composition of various Puranas around the Gupta reign and with the devotional outpourings of the 12 Vaishnava Alwars and 63 Shaiva Nayanars, in the Southern parts of the country, around 7^th-8^th century CE.

But what could have caused this later development of Hinduism?

Going back to the hoary past looking for answers in Vedic literature, one is stuck by the societal obsession with maintaining order. A king had to uphold dharma so that it could rain on time, sacrifices had to be performed so that the gods could bless with grains, cows and sons, offerings had to be made so that the gods could become powerful enough to bless! Truly, while awe and devotion to the heavenly powers are all pervading in the Vedas, it could seem that many a times, the relation between gods and humans was transactional. If the humans did not perform sacrifices on time, the gods would lose power and the danavas would gain. And if the gods became weaker, the humans would suffer in form of draught and poverty. It is not very difficult to visualise as to why did the Vedic religion lost the laity’s attraction gradually. A religion, whose abstract metaphysics, while rich, became but a preserve of a few and the religion in practice, was seen as an agglomeration of rituals designed to uphold the cosmic order. An order so grand in scale that an individual could hardly visualise his role in it. The God became a distant deity, one to be feared and appeased, one who was too far removed to condone human frailties and embrace the shunned and the weak.

The gap which the Vedic literature could not fill was sought to be filled by our epics. Valmiki Ramayana was among the earliest texts which enumerated the merits of Bhakti and detailed how could a devotee attain God in various ways. Soon after, Puranas were composed, making God achievable through simple acts of śravaṇa (listening), kīrtana (group praising), smaraṇa (remembrance), seva (service), Archana (deity worship), vandana (Prayer), dāsya (servitude), sākhya (friendship), and ātma-nivedana (self-surrender).

If the scriptures themselves certify that even devotional love could be of so many varieties, how can we, as lesser mortals proclaim that one mode of worship is superior to the other?

Rationalists and atheists will of course argue that Religion and God are but inventions of a lost, weak and insecure human mind. Even if for arguments sake, we accept this contention as true, what difference does it make? I can be a witness to truth only the way I see it. And I can see God and His work manifest in countless forms all around. What need then I have to acquiesce to the ‘rational’ when it doesn’t make any sense to me?

While many sociologists and thinkers have tried to explain devotion as an ersatz relationship for a great loss / shortcoming in life, the view seems too cynical and uninformed. While it is true that a beaten soul tries to find solace in God, there are numerous instances where, the most materially blessed are into Him as much as a wandering mendicant is. Even for people, who strive to find God to make up for a loss, how could their devotion be any lesser? If even the rationalist looks towards his friends and family for succour when beaten, why would the one in trouble not approach Him, the only one who is all embracing, all loving and all forgiving.

We, the Hindus have often been accused of being very materialistic even with regards to our love for God, i.e., our prayers and hymns are full of demands on Gods. While that is true, what could be more shocking for the puritans is the acceptability of abuse as a form of worship! Though dying out now, even a few decades back, the devout was not above engaging in Ninda Stuti, abusing God for the blessings he did not shower. While scandalising for many, it does make sense. My personal God is the one with whom I have multiple connections; of a child, a friend, a parent, a lover, a servant and even a master (God being the dasa of the Bhakta). If endowed with so much of power, it would be foolish not to exercise it and remind God of his duties towards me!

Then, what wrong did poor Narsi Mehta commit? Even more in his defence, he did not even ask for anything from his Krishna. And if Krishna gave of His own will, how could Narsi Mehta refuse? J

On a more serious note, who in his senses, having even once drunk the nectar of His Grace, would not want to be a Rabia and proclaim:

"O God! If I worship You for fear of Hell, burn me in Hell,

and if I worship You in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise.
But if I worship You for Your Own sake,
grudge me not Your everlasting Beauty.”

Or be a Raskhan and cry aloud:

“Make me but a cowherd of Gokul, if I were to be born a human again,

A cow in Nand’s herds, if am to be an animal

If I were to be a lifeless stone only, be it a stone of the mountain you held aloft

I will become a bird, if that be your wish, my Lord. Let me then dwell on but a little branch, of Your Kadamba on the banks of Your Kalindi.”

I do not aspire to be a Karraikkal Amma who climbed Kailasha on her head to see You; I do not desire to be a Meera who left everything behind to be with You; I cannot dare to be like Akka Mahadevi, who in her blissful state, discarded even her robes; nay, I cannot be like any of those whose tales make us believe that You are achievable. Without Your Grace, I cannot even move a step on the path to achieve You.  Allow me that much of Grace, O Lord, that when I think of You, I think of only You and no one but You.

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

The dying art of Giving

In the days just after creation, when the world order was being established, there rose a primeval voice from the skies, proclaiming ‘Da…Da…Da’. The three races inhabiting the worlds - the Gods, the Demons and the Humans approached the creator Brahma to understand what the words meant. Rather than answering, Brahma asked - What do you think it meant?"

After some deliberations, the Gods replied –“It means Daman (control over pride). As the owners of the Heavens, we are prone to arrogance and we need to overcome it”. The Demons responded – “It means Daya (compassion). We are cruel by nature and hence need to be more compassionate”. The Humans in turn said – “It means Daan (Charity). The quest to secure our future creates needs and that need, when unbridled leads to Greed and we fall prey to it. Hence we need to share to control our greed through sharing & giving away.” Bramha replied – “You have understood correctly. Now go and live your learning”

This tale can be taken metaphorically with Daman, Daya and Daan – all being meant to be practiced by Humans to control the sins of pride, wrath and greed. Among all, Daan is one virtue which has been praised in no uncertain terms in almost all major religions of the world, both Dharmic and Abrahmic. Closer home, the Hindu way of life established Charity as among the foremost duty of the king, the warrior, the householder and even the server. Even if we don’t account for generosity of hoary figures like Dadhichi, Shivi, Harishchandra, Karna or the historical Harsha, we cannot ignore the reality that even not very long ago, refusing food to the hungry was considered a taboo in the society. Travel to any city / town in India and one will find traces of old philanthropy – schools, colleges, inns, temples, hospitals, ashrams, gaushalas and social institutes. While the British Raj did maintain Law & Order, neither the British nor the princely states were welfare states and any institutions they created were solely for their own benefits. It was left to individuals and groups to try and make a difference in whatever way they could. And did they not try - particularly in the heydays of the Nationalist movement?

Somewhere something has changed. While the Indian Nation can still pool its resources together when faced with disasters and wars, 'Giving' as a way of life seems to be in a decline. No longer do we see a willingness of people to donate, particular if it would hurt them in any way. Oh – we do give – hand me downs to maids; feeling good when we give to 'charity' those old clothes we did not have heart to throw away. Or even better – feeling good by 'giving' to some random agency our money (equivalent to a coffee’s worth) from payroll, which then deducts 40% of that puny amount before 'giving' the balance to some other agency, which finally uses the amount, after of course, using a good part of it to meet its establishment expenses. 

How long has it been that one has seen new institutions coming up through philanthropy? True, temples are being built and they certainly meet one need of the society but temples cannot be a substitute to hospitals and nari niketans. Interestingly, for a ‘materialistic’ society, the West seems to be beating us ‘spiritualists’ when it comes to loosening the purse strings. Not only do a far greater number of the Richie rich donate, an even greater number of people like us donate. People routinely bequeath part or their entire legacy to trusts. When did it last happen in India? We are a Nation where probably the richest sportsperson in the world claims that he only lives comfortably and asks for duty waivers on gifted luxury cars and we are all fine with it. Fine with it for deep down, we know that probably we would have done the same thing when in place of that sports icon.

Interestingly, the sin of pride is another area where we seem to be loosing the battle for arrogance is many a times deemed as ‘Justified arrogance’. Here again, while the ‘materialistic’ western civilization frowns upon arrogance even among its celebrities, we the ‘spiritualists’ fawn upon those who make it a point to flaunt their goodies. 

Of the three teachings of Brahma, it is Daya, which seems to be faring better. While we are yet to overcome violence, we do have lesser wars and lesser physical violence compared to the days of the yore. Even those who have little sympathy with the liberal movement will grudgingly acknowledge the impact of the human rights movement has had on societal disdain for physical violence.

It is funny but it would seem that the least likely winners, the demons have managed to fight their vices more effectively than their counterparts, the gods and the humans! So much so for the human superiority.

Some will argue that parting with one’s belongings is an individual act and the society has no role to play. I beg to differ. Values do get built by society and it is societal norms which determine what is good and what is not acceptable. If bullying people on their sexual orientation was acceptable till a few decades back and not acceptable now, it is changing societal norms and constant iteration of the need to respect an individual which has brought this change.  The norm of youngsters making a beeline to gyms has been brought upon by a societal appreciation of lean, muscular bodies.  Probably a review of the education system, at schools and at homes, may make the situation better. Probably it will make a difference when have spiritual leaders talking of the joy of giving rather than asking people to deposit money in their Bank accounts.