The Fables of the "Holy" Cow

Most Hindus today are guided by a religious concern for cow protection. Therefore an average Indian, rooted in what appears to him as his traditional Hindu religious heritage, carries the load of the misconception that his ancestors, especially the Vedic Aryans, attached great importance to the cow on account of its inherent sacredness. The 'sacred' cow has come to be considered a symbol of community identity of the Hindus whose cultural tradition is often imagined as threatened by Muslims, who are thought of as beef eaters. The sanctity of the cow has, therefore, been announced with the flourish of trumpets and has been wrongly traced back to the Vedas, which are supposedly of divine origin and the fountainhead of all knowledge and wisdom. In other words, some sections of Indian society trace the concept of sacred cow to the very period when it was sacrificed and its flesh was eaten.

More Importantly, the cow has tended to become a political instrument in the hands of rulers over time. As such, many Muslims have been lynched and killed, or have become a victim of these hindutva terrorists. A Study shows that Muslims were the target of 52% of violence centred on bovine issues over nearly eight years (2010 to 2017) and comprised 84% of 25 Indians killed in 60 incidents. As many as 139 people were also injured in these attacks. More than half (52%) of these attacks were based on rumours.

Given the severity of the issue, it's important to examine the matter at hand. From what follows below, we see that Muslims have not done anything that would hurt the sentiments of a Hindu, and that it's only a political move bred by Hindutva terrorists.

Divine Dietary Preferences

The Rigveda frequently refers to the cooking of the flesh of the ox for offering to gods, especially Indra, the greatest of the the Vedic gods who was strong-armed, colossal, and a destroyer of enemy strongholds. At one place Indra states, ‘they cook for me fifteen plus twenty oxen’.[1] At other places he is said to have eaten the flesh of bulls,[2] of one[3] or of a hundred buffaloes[4] or 300 buffaloes roasted by Agni[5] or a thousand buffaloes.[6] He had a special liking for bulls and the guardians of the roads, Pusaan, devoid of teeth, ate mush.[7] Second in importance to Indra is Agni to whom there are some 200 hymns in the Rigveda.[8]

Unlike the licentious Indra he drank Soma moderately, his main food being ghee, protector of all men, he is, nevertheless, described in the Rigveda as ‘one whose food is the ox and the barren cow.’[9] There is indeed nothing in the text to indicate his aversion to the flesh of the cattle and other animals. On the contrary, horses(asva), bulls(rsabha), oxen(uksaan),[10] Barren cows,[11] and rams(mesa) were sacrificed for him.[12]

Third in order of importance was Soma, whose name is derived from a plant which was the source of a heady drink.[13] It is suggested that ‘the fundamental and typical Vedic sacrifices are those of Soma’[14] in which the killing of animals including cattle played a crucial role.[15] There was not much variation in the menu for the Rigvedic gods. Milk, butter, barley, oxen, goats and sheep were their preferences.

The killing of the cows in sacrifice was also of great importance as evident from numerous references in the early and later Vedic texts. The Taittiriya Brahmana unambiguously refers to sacrificial killing of the cow and praises Agastya for his sacrifice of a hundred bulls.[16] Animals were killed not only in public sacrifices but also in ordinary and domestic rites of daily life. An interesting rite repeatedly mentioned in the texts of the later Vedic period is one relating to the reception of the guests, called arghya. The killing of the kine to honour guests seems to have been prevalent from earlier times. The Rigveda(X 68.3) also mentions the word atithinir, which is interpreted as ‘cows fit for guests’.[17] A Rigvedic passage also refers to the slaughter of cows on occasions like marriage.[18]

These are just a handful of references to the source texts of Hindu scriptures wherein killing of cattle and eating of meat is seen fairly common.[19]

Is killing Cows a Sin?

Most of the legal texts and religious digests accord to the cow a status higher than they do to other cattle and say it is not to be killed in the kaliyuga. Though the Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanisads do not include cattle killing in the list of sins or moral transgressions.[20] Yaska explains a Rigvedic passage (X.5.6) by enumerating seven sins, but this list does not include cattle killing. Similarly the Brahmana texts and the Upanisads do not mention the killing of the kine as a sin. Although the killing of a brahmana (brahmahatya), theft (steya), drinking of liquor (surapana), sexual inter-course with a teacher’s wife (gurvanganagama) and association with those guilty of these offences are listed as the gravest sins (mahapataka), the killing of the cow, despite the high status it is said to have enjoyed, is not mentioned as a major offence.[21] The slaying of kine has been viewed as a minor sin (upapataka) by almost all the lawgivers. Lawgivers from Manu onwards are generally unanimous in describing cow killing as a minor sin, but do not lay down a uniform penalty for the cow killer. Atri, an early medieval lawgiver, equates beef eating with such acts as cleaning one’s teeth with one’s fingers and eating only salt or soil[22] and with drinking water from the astasalli with one’s hand.[23]

Cows: Pure or Impure?

The fact that the practice of eating animal food has continued to our own times and that the memory of the ancient tradition of cow killing persisted till very late in the minds of people, so much so that it is reflected as late as the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in religious digests and commentaries on Dharmasastra texts as well as on some classical Sanskrit literary works. But it is equally true that the cow has played a purificatory role in Brahmanical society from very early times. For instance, Yajiiavalkya refers to the products of the cow (panchagavya) as having purificatory powers[24] and Narada mentions the cow among eight sacred objects.[25] The law books, especially the later ones,[26] lay down different rules for the preparation of the panchagavya, but are unanimous about its role in purification and in the expiation of sin. However, some lawgivers do not permit its use by members of lower castes. Visnu clearly states that if a sudra drinks panchagavya he goes to hell.[26]

Whatever be the history of the concept of panchagavya, there is no doubt that it has continued to play an important role in both purificatory and expiatory rites, even if some law books do not permit sudras and women to use it. But the Dharmasastras also provide enough evidence, to disprove the purity of the cow. Manu states that food smelt by a cow has to be purified by putting earth on it[27]—a statement repeated by Visnu.[28] According to Yajiiavalkya also, the food smelt by the cow has to be purified.[29] He adds that the mouths of goats and horses are pure but that of a cow is not; nor is human excrement.[30] Among the later lawgivers Ahgirasa categorically asserts that bronze vessels smelt by the cow or touched by a crow and those in which a sudra has eaten, are to be purified by rubbing them with ashes for ten days[31]—a view repeated by Parasara[32] and Vyasa.[33] It appears from all this that the notion of purity of the products of the cow goes hand in hand with that of the impurity of its mouth. This contradiction, deeply rooted in the Dharmasastric portrayal of the cow, is irreconcilable.

Why not eat Beef then?

If eating beef is found to be common in Rigvedic scriptures, why then do hindus refrain from eating beef? Why have they started to worship it instead? The answer lies in differentiating the higher caste from that of the lower one. Wendy Doniger, a distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions at University of Chicago, writes, "the arguments against eating cows are a combination of a symbolic argument about female purity and docility (symbolized by the cow who generously gives her milk to her calf), a religious argument about Brahmin sanctity (as Brahmins came increasingly to be identified with cows and to be paid by donations of cows) and a way for castes to rise in social ranking." She points out that, in 19th century, "the cow-protection movement had arisen. One of the implicit objects of this movement was the oppression of Muslims."

She also states that "the nationalist and fundamentalist “Hindutva” (“Hindu-ness”) movement is attempting to use this notion of the sanctity of the cow to disenfranchise Muslims. And it is not only the beef-eating Muslims (and Christians) who are the target of Hindutva’s hate brigade. Lower-caste Hindus are also being attacked. Attacks of this type are not new. This has been going on since Hindutva began in 1923. And indeed, in 2002, in a north Indian town, five lower-caste Hindus were lynched for skinning a cow."

Similar words have been echoed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the father of Indian Constitution. He states:

What is the cause of the nausea which the Hindus have against beef-eating? Were the Hindus always opposed to beef-eating? If not, why did they develop such a nausea against it? Were the Untouchables given to beef-eating from the very start? Why did they not give up beef-eating when it was abandoned by the Hindus? Were the Untouchables always Untouchables? If there was a time when the Untouchables were not Untouchables even though they ate beef why should beef-eating give rise to Untouchability at a later-stage? If the Hindus were eating beef, when did they give it up? If Untouchability is a reflex of the nausea of the Hindus against beef-eating, how long after the Hindus had given up beef-eating did Untouchability come into being? The clue to the worship of the cow is to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism and the means adopted by Brahmanism to establish its supremacy over Buddhism.(emphasis added)[34]

Conclusion

It's evident from the above that, those from the Hindu-Right (hindutva) who oppose Beef-Eating ignore the practices of their own ancestors. Needless to say that the image of the cow projected by Indian textual traditions, especially the Brahmanical-Dharmasastric works, over the centuries is polymorphic. Its story through the millennia is full of inconsistencies and has not always been in conformity with dietary practices current in society. Its five products including faeces and urine have been considered pure but not its mouth. Yet through these incongruous attitudes the Indian cow has struggled its way to sanctity. But the holiness of the cow is elusive. For there has never been a cow-goddess, nor any temple in her honour.[35] Nevertheless the veneration of this animal has come to be viewed as a characteristic trait of modern day non-existent monolithic ‘Hinduism’ bandied about by the Hindutva forces. The crimes that have been commited relating to bovine consumption by these cow-vigilantes is not religiously, but politically motivated.

Below is a short documentry by Alpyu Singh which documents to seek the reason behind the killing of one of the victims these hindutva terrorists and why there's an increase in such violences.

References:

[1] - Rigveda(RV), X.86.14ab

[2] - RV, X.28.3c

[3] - RV, X.27.2c

[4] - RV, VI.17.11b

[5] - RV, V.29.7ab

[6] - RV, VIII.12.8ab

[7] - A. B. Keith, The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and the Upanishads, p. 87

[8] - Ibid, p. 154

[9] - RV, VIII.43.11 cited in P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, II

[10] - Harry Falk, Indo-Iranian journal, p.176

[11] - Doris Srinivasan, Concept of cow in Rigveda, pp. 58-60

[12] - RV, X.91.14ab. Also see, Rajnikant Shastri, Hindu Jati Ka Utthan aur Patan pp. 101-2

[13] - Macdonell, Vedic Mythology, pp. 102-14

[14] - Louis Renou, Vedic India, p.104

[15]- A. B. Keith, op. cit., p.327

[16] - K.T. Acharya, A historical Dictionary of Indian Food, Oxford University Press, p.145

[17] - Herman W. Tull, ‘The killing that is not killing: Men, cattle and the origins of Non-violence in the Vedic sacrifice’, pp. 229

[18] - RV, X.85.13c

[19] - This post is vey much adapted from the work of Historian D.N Jha, The Myth of the Holy Cow. The reader can find more references and in-depth analysis of the same related to this topic.

[20] - P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, p. 613

[21] - Ibid

[22] - Atri, 314 & 315

[23] - Atri, 388

[24] - Yaaj. III.263

[25] - Naarada, XVIII.54

[26] - Paaraashara, XI.28-34

[27] - Manu, V.125.

[28] - VisnuDS, XXIII.38.

[29] - Yaaj, 1.189

[30] - Yaaj, 1.194.

[31] - Ahgirasa, 43.

[32] - Paaraashara, VII.25. 

[33] - Vyasa, III.53

[34] - B.R. Ambedkar, The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables, Chapter 9