http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11
Renowned historian writes on beef eating in
ancient India and associated issues
An average Indian of today 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 the Muslims
who are thought of as beefeaters. 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 fountainhead of all knowledge
and wisdom. In other words, some sections of
Indian society have traced back 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 at the hand of rulers
over time. The Mughal emperors (e.g. Babar,
Akbar, Jahangir and Aurangzeb etc) are said
to have imposed a restricted ban on cow slaughter
to accommodate the Jaina or Brahmanical feeling
of respect and veneration of the cow[1]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn1>.
Similarly Shivaji, sometimes viewed as an incarnation
of God who descended on earth for the deliverance
of the cow and brahmin, is described as proclaiming:
"We are Hindus and the rightful lords of
the realm. It is not proper for us to witness
cow slaughter and the oppression of brahmanas"[2]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn2>.
But the cow became a tool of mass political
mobilization when the organized Hindu cow protection
movement, beginning with the Sikh Kuka (or Namdhari)
sect in the Punjab around 1870 and later strengthened
by the foundation of the first Gorakshini Sabha
in 1882 by Dayanananda Saraswati, made this
animal a symbol to unite a wide ranging people,
challenged the Muslim practice of its slaughter
and provoked a series of serious communal riots
in the 1880s and 1890s. Although attitudes to
cow killing had been hardening even earlier,
there was undoubtedly a 'dramatic intensification'
of the cow protection movement when in 1888
the North-Western Provinces High Court decreed
that a cow was not a sacred object.[3]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn3>Not
surprisingly cow slaughter very often became
the pretext of many Hindu-Muslim riots, especially
those in Azamgarh district in the year 1893
when more than one hundred people were killed
in different parts of the country. Similarly
in 1912-1913 violence rocked Ayodhya and a few
years later, in 1917, Shahabad witnessed a disastrous
communal conflagration.[4]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn4>
The killing of the kine seems to have emerged
again and again as a troublesome issue on the
Indian political scene even in independent India
despite legislation by several state legislatures
prohibiting cow slaughter and the Directive
Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution
which directs the Indian state to "…to
take steps for… prohibiting
the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch
and draught cattle". For instance, in 1966,
nearly two decades after Indian independence,
almost all the Indian communal political parties
and organizations joined hands in masterminding
a massive demonstration by several hundred thousand
people in favour of a national ban on cow slaughter
which culminated in a violent rioting in front
of the Indian Parliament resulting in the death
of at least eight persons and injury to many
more. In April 1979, Acharya Vinoba Bhave, often
supposed to be a spiritual heir to Mahatma Gandhi,
went on a hunger strike to pressurize the central
government to prohibit cow slaughter throughout
the country and ended it after five days when
he succeeded in getting the Prime Minister Morarji
Desai's vague assurance that his government
would expedite anti-slaughter legislation. Since
then the cow ceased to remain much of an issue
in the Indian political arena for many years,
though the management of cattle resources has
been a matter of academic debate among sociologists,
anthropologists, economists and different categories
of policy framers.
The veneration of cow has been, however, converted
into a symbol of communal identity of the Hindus
and the obscurantist and fundamentalist forces
obdurately refuse to appreciate that the 'sacred'
cow was not always all that sacred in the Vedic
and subsequent Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical
traditions and that its flesh, along with other
varieties of meat, was quite often a part of
the *haute* *cuisine* in early India. Although
the Shin, Muslims of Dardistan in Pakistan,
look on the cow as other Muslims do the pig,
avoid direct contact with cows, refuse to drink
cow's milk or use cow dung as fuel and reject
beef as food,[5]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn5>the
self-styled custodians of non-existent 'monolithic'
Hinduism assert that the practice of beef eating
was first introduced in India by the followers
of Islam who came from outside and are foreigners
in this country, little realising that their
Vedic ancestors were also foreigners who ate
the flesh of the cow and various other animals.
Fanaticism getting precedence over fact, it
is not surprising that the Rashtriya Svayamsevak
Sangha (RSS), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the
Bajrang Dal and their numerous outfits have
a national ban on cow slaughter on their agenda
and the Chief Minister of Gujarat (Keshubhai
Patel) announced some time ago, as a pre-election
gimmick, the setting up of a separate department
to preserve cow breeds and manage Hindu temples.[6]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn6>More
recently, a Bajrang Dal leader has threatened
to enroll 30 lakh volunteers to agitate against
cow slaughter during the month of Bakrid in
2002.[7]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn7>So
high-geared has been the propaganda about abstention
from beef eating as a characteristic trait of
'Hinduism' that when the RSS tried to claim
Sikhs as Hindus, it led to vehement opposition
from them and one of the Sikh youth leaders
proposed, "Why not slaughter a cow and
serve beef in a gurudwara * langar*?"[8]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn8>
The communalists who have been raising a hullabaloo
over the cow in the political arena do not realise
that beef eating remained a fairly common practice
for a long time in India and that the arguments
for its prevalence are based on the evidence
drawn from our own scriptures and religious
texts. The response of historical scholarship
to the communal perception of Indian food culture,
however, has been sober and scholars have drawn
attention to the textual evidence of beef eating
which, in fact, begins to be available from
the oldest Indian religious text *Rgveda,* supposedly
of divine origin. H.H. Wilson, writing in the
first half of the nineteenth century, had asserted:
"the sacrifice of the horse or of the cow,
the *gomedha* or * asvamedha*, appears to have
been common in the earliest periods of the Hindu
ritual". The view that the practice of
killing of cattle at sacrifices and eating their
flesh prevailed among the Indo-Aryans was put
forth most convincingly by Rajendra Lal Mitra
in an article which first appeared in the *Journal
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* and subsequently
formed a chapter of his book *The Indo-Aryans
*published in 1891. In 1894 William Crooke,
a British civil servant, collected an impressive
amount of ethnographic data on popular religious
beliefs and practices in his two-volume book
and devoted one whole chapter to the respect
shown to animals including the cow [9] <http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn9>.
Later in 1912, he published an informative piece
on the sanctity of cow in India. But he also
drew attention to the old practice of eating
beef and its survival in his own times.[10]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn10>In
1927, L. L. Sundara Ram made a strong case for
cow protection for which he sought justification
from the scriptures of different religions including
Hinduism. However he did not deny that the Vedic
people ate beef, [11]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn11>though
he blamed the Muslims for cow slaughter. Later
in the early forties P. V. Kane in his monumental
work *History of Dharmasastra* referred to some
Vedic and early Dharmasastric passages which
speak of cow killing and beef eating. H.D. Sankalia
drew attention to literary as well as archaeological
evidence of eating cattle flesh in ancient India.[12]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn12>Similarly,
Laxman Shastri Joshi, a Sanskritist of unquestionable
scholarship, drew attention to the Dharmasastra
works, which unequivocally support the prevalence
of the practice of flesh eating including beef
eating in early India.[13]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn13>
Needless to say that the scholarship of all
of the scholars mentioned above was unimpeachable,
and that none of them seems to have anything
to do with any anti- Hindu ideology. H.H. Wilson,
for example, was the first occupant of the Chair
of Sanskrit at Oxford in 1832 and was not as
avowedly anti-Indian as many other imperialist
scholars. Rajendra Lal Mitra, a product of the
Bengal renaissance and a close associate of
Rabindranath's elder brother Jyotindranath Tagore,
made significant contribution to India's intellectual
life, and was described by Max Mueller as the
'best living Indologist' of his time and by
Rabindranath Tagore as "the most beloved
child of the muse".[14]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn14>
William Crooke was a well-known colonial ethnograher
who wrote extensively on peasant life and popular
religion without any marked prejudice against
Hinduism.[15]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn15>L.
L. Sundara Ram, despite his somewhat anti-Muslim
feeling, was inspired by humanitarian considerations.
Mahamahopadhyaya P.V. Kane was a conservative
Marathi brahmin and the only Sanskritist to
be honoured with the title of * Bharatratna*.
H.D. Sankalia combined his unrivalled archaeological
activity with a profound knowledge of Sanskrit.
Besides these scholars several other Indian
Sanskritists and Indologists, not to mention
a number of western scholars, have repeatedly
drawn our attention to the textual evidence
of eating beef and other types of animal flesh
in early India. Curious though it may seem,
the Sangh Parivar, which carries a heavy burden
of "civilisational illiteracy", has
never turned its guns towards them but against
historians who have mostly relied on the researches
of the above-mentioned distinguished scholars.
While the contribution of the scholars mentioned
above cannot be minimised, the limitation of
their work lies in the fact that they have referred
to isolated bits of information on beef eating
concentrating mainly on the Vedic texts without
treating it as part of the flesh eating tradition
prevalent in India. Unlike their works, therefore,
the present paper seeks to draw attention to
the Indian textual evidence of cattle killing
and beef eating widely dispersed over time so
as to indicate its continuity for a long time
in the Brahmanical society and to suggest that
the idea of cow's supposed holiness does not
tie up with practices current in Indian society.
* II*
The early Aryans, who migrated to India from
outside, brought along with them their earlier
cultural traits. Therefore, even after their
migration into the Indian subcontinent, for
several centuries, pastoralism, nomadism and
animal sacrifice remained characteristic features
of their life till sedentary field agriculture
became the mainstay of their livelihood. Animal
sacrifices were very common, and in the *agnadheya*,
which was a preparatory rite preceding all public
sacrifices, a cow was required to be killed.[16]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn16>
In the *asvamedha*, the most important of public
sacrifices, first mentioned in the *Rgveda*
and discussed in the *Brahmanas*, more than
600 animals (including wild ones like boars)
and birds were killed and its finale was marked
by the sacrifice of 21 cows, which, according
to the dominant opinion were sterile ones.[17]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn17>In
the g *osava*, an important component of the
public sacrifices like the *rajasuya*and v *ajapeya*,
a sterile spotted cow was offered to Maruts
and seventeen 'dwarf heifers under three' were
done to death in the *pancasaradiyasava*.[18]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn18>Thekilling
of animals including the cattle figures in several
other *yajnas* including *caturmasya*, *sautramani*
and independent animal sacrifice called *pasubandha*
or *nirudhapasubandha*.[19]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn19>These
and several other major sacrifices involved
killing of animals including the cattle, which
constituted the chief form of the wealth of
the early Aryans. They, not surprisingly, prayed
for cattle and sacrificed them to propitiate
their gods.
The Vedic gods, for whom the various sacrifices
were performed, had no fixed menu of food. Milk,
butter, barley, oxen, goats and sheep were offered
to them and these were their usual food, though
some of them seem to have had their special
preferences. Indra had a special liking for
bulls (*RV*, V.29.7ab; VI.17.11b; VIII.12.8ab
X.27.2c; X. 28. 3c;X.86.14ab). Agni was not
a tippler like Indra, but was fond of animal
food including the flesh of
horses, bulls and cows (*RV*, VIII. 43.11; X.
91.14ab). The toothless Pusan, the guardian
of the roads, ate mush as a Hobson's choice.
Soma was the name of a heady drink but, equally
importantly, of a god and killing of animals
including cattle for him (*RV*, X.91.14ab) was
basic to most of the Rgvedic *yajnas*. The Maruts
and the Asvins were also offered cows. The Vedas
mention about 250 animals out of which at least
50 were deemed fit for sacrifice and by implication
for divine as well as human consumption. The
animal food occupied a place of importance in
the Vedic sacrifices and dietetics and the general
preference for the flesh of the cow is undeniable.
The *Taittiriya Brahmana* (III.9.8) categorically
tells us: "Verily the cow is food"
(*atho annam vai gauh*) and the *Satapatha Brahmana*
(III.1.2.21) refers to Yajnavalkya's stubborn
insistence on eating the tender (*amsala*) flesh
of the cow.
According to the subsequent Brahmanical texts
(e.g. *Grhyasutras* and * Dharmasutras*) the
killing of animals and eating of beef was very
much *de rigeur*. The ceremony of guest-reception
(known as *arghya* in the *Rgveda*but generally
as *madhuparka* in subsequent texts) consisted
not only of a meal of a mixture of curds and
honey but also of the flesh of a cow or bull.
Early lawgivers go to the extent of making flesh
food mandatory in *madhuparka* --- an injunction
more or less dittoed by several later legal
texts (*AsGS*, I.24.33; *KathaGS*, 24,20; *SankhGS*,
II.15.2; *ParGS*, I.3.29). A guest therefore
came to be described by Panini as a *goghna*
(one for whom the cow is slain). The sacred
thread ceremony was not all that sacred; for
it was necessary for a *snataka* to wear an
upper garment of the cowhide (*ParGS*, II.5.17-20).
The slaughter of animals formed an important
component of the cult of the dead in the Vedic
texts as well as in later Dharmasastra works.
The thick fat of the cow was used to cover the
dead body (*RV*, X.14-18) and a bull was burnt
along with the corpse to enable the departed
to ride with in the nether world. The funerary
rites included feeding of the brahmins after
the prescribed period and quite often the flesh
of the cow/ ox was offered to the dead (*AV*,
XII.2, 48). The textual prescriptions indicate
the degree of satisfaction obtained by the Manes
depending upon the animal offered---- the cow's
flesh could keep them contented for at least
a year! The Vedic and the post-Vedic texts also
often mention the killing of animals including
the kine in several other ritual contexts. The
*gavamayana*, a sessional sacrifice performed
by the brahmins was, for example, marked by
animal slaughter culminating in an extravagant
bacchanalian communal festival (* mahavrata*)
in which cattle were slaughtered. There was,
therefore, a relationship between the sacrifice
and sustenance. But this need not necessarily
mean that different meat types were eaten only
if offered in a sacrifice. Thus in the *grhamedha*,
which has been discussed in several * Srautasutras*,
an unspecified number of cows were slain not
in the strict ritual manner but in the crude
and profane manner.[20]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn20>
Archaeological evidence also suggests non-ritual
killing of cattle. This is indicative of the
fact that beef and other animal flesh formed
part of the dietary habits of the people and
that the edible flesh was not always ritually
consecrated, though some scholars have argued
to the contrary.[21]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn21>Despite
the overwhelming evidence of cattle killing,
several scholars have obdurately held that the
Vedic cow was sacred and inviolable on the basis
of the occurrence of the word *aghnya*/*aghnya*
in the *Atharvaveda* and the use of words for
cow as epithet or in simile and metaphor with
reference to entities of highest religious significance.
But it has been convincingly proved that if
the Vedic cow was at all inviolable, it was
so only when it belonged to a brahmin who received
cows as sacrificial fee (*daksina*).[22]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn22>But
this cannot be taken to be an index of the animal's
inherent sanctity and inviolability in the Vedic
period or even later.
Nor can one make too much of the doctrine of
non-killing (*ahimsa*) in relation to the cow.
Gautama Buddha and Mahavira emphasized the idea
of non-violence, which seems to have made its
first appearance in the Upanisadic thought and
literature. But despite their vehement opposition
of the Vedic animal sacrifice, neither they
nor their followers were averse to eating of
meat. The Buddha is known to have eaten beef
and pork and the texts amply indicate that flesh
meat very well suited the Buddhist palate. Asoka,
whose compassion for animals is undeniable,
allowed certain specified animals to be killed
for his kitchen. In fact, neither Asoka's list
of animals exempted from slaughter nor the *Arthasastra*
of Kautilya specifically mentions cow as unslayable.
The cattle were killed for food throughout the
Mauryan period.
Like Buddhism, Jainism also enthusiastically
took up cudgels for non-violence. But meat eating
was so common in Vedic and post-Vedic times
that even Mahavira, the founder of Jainism,
is said to have eaten the meat of a cockerel.
Perhaps the early Jainas were not strict vegetarians.
A great Jaina logician of the eighth century,
Haribhadrasuri, tells us that the monks did
not have objection to eating flesh and fish,
which were given to them by householders, though
there is irrefutable textual evidence to show
that meat eating became a strong taboo among
the followers of Jainism. The inflexibility
of the Jaina attitude to meat eating is deeply
rooted in the basic tenets of Jaina philosophy,
which, at least in theory, is impartial in its
respect for all forms of life without according
any special status to the cow. Thus, although
both Buddhism, and, to a greater extent, Jainism
contributed to the growth of *ahimsa* doctrine,
neither seems to have developed the sacred cow
concept independently.
*III*
Despite the Upanisadic, Buddhist and Jaina
advocacy of *ahimsa*, the practice of ritual
and random of killing animals including the
cattle continued in the post-Mauryan centuries.
The law book of Manu (200 BC-AD 200), which
is the most representative of the legal texts
and has much to say on the lawful and forbidden
food, contains several passages on flesh eating,
which have much in common with earlier and later
Brahmanical juridical works. Like the earlier
law books, it mentions the animals whose flesh
could be eaten. Manu's list includes the porcupine,
hedgehog, iguana, rhinoceros, tortoise and the
hare and all those domestic animals having teeth
in one jaw only, the only exception being the
camel (V.18); and, it is significant that the
cow is not excluded from the list of edible
animals. Eating meat on sacrificial occasions,
Manu tells us, is a divine rule (*daivo
vidhih smrtah*), but doing so on other occasions
is a demoniac practice ( V.31). Accordingly
one does not do any wrong by eating meat while
honouring the gods, the Manes and guests (*madhuparka
ca yajne ca pitrdaivatakarmani*), irrespective
of the way in which the meat was procured (V.32,
41). Manu asserts that animals were created
for the sake of sacrifice, that killing on ritual
occasions is non-killing (V.39) and injury (*himsa*)
as enjoined by the Veda (*vedavihitahimsa*)
is known to be non-injury (V.44). In the section
dealing with rules for times of distress, Manu
recalls the legendary examples of the most virtuous
brahmins of the days of yore who ate ox-meat
and dog-meat to escape death from starvation
(X.105-9).* *Manu's latitudinarian attitude
is clear from his recognition of the natural
human tendency of eating meat, drinking spirituous
liquor and indulging in sexual intercourse,
even if abstention brings great rewards (V.56).
He further breaks loose the constraints when
he says: "the Lord of creatures (Prajapati)
created this whole world to be the sustenance
of the vital spirit; both the immovable and
the movable (creation is) the food of the vital
spirit. What is destitute of motion is the food
of those endowed with locomotion; (animals)
without fangs (are the food) of those with fangs,
those without hands of those who possess hands,
and the timid of the bold. The eater who daily
even devours those destined to be his food,
commits no sin; for the creator himself created
both the eaters and those who are to be eaten"
(V.28-30). This injunction removes all restrictions
on flesh eating and gives an unlimited freedom
to all desiring to eat animal flesh and since
Manu does not mention beef eating as taboo one
can infer that he did not treat cow as sacrosanct.
Manu contradicts his own statements by extolling
* ahimsa* (X.63), but there is no doubt that
he permitted meat eating at least on ritual
occasions (*madhuparka*, *sraddha* etc) when
the killing of the cow and other cattle, according
to his commentator Medhatithi (9th century),
was in keeping with the Vedic and post- Vedic
practice (*govyajamamsamaproksitambhaksyed…
madhuparkovyakhyatah tatra govadhovihitah*).[23]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn23>
Yajnavalkya (AD 100-300), like Manu, discusses
the rules regarding lawful and forbidden food.
Although his treatment of the subject is less
detailed, he does not differ radically from
him. Yajnavalkya mentions the specific animals
(deer, sheep, goat, boar, rhinoceros etc) and
birds (e.g. partridge) whose flesh could satisfy
the Manes (I.258-61). According to him a student,
teacher, king, close friend and son-in-law should
be offered *arghya* every year and a priest
should be offered *madhuparka* on all ritual
occasions ( I.110). He further enjoins that
a learned brahmin (*srotriya*) should be welcomed
with a big ox or goat* (mahoksam va mahajam
va srotriyayopakalpayet)* delicious food and
sweet words. This indicates his endorsement
of the earlier practice of killing cattle at
the reception of illustrious guests. Yajnavalkya,
like Manu, permits eating of meat when life
is in danger, or when it is offered in sacrifices
and funerary rites ( i.179). But unconsecrated
meat (*vrthamamsam*, *anupakrtamamsani*), according
to him, is a taboo (I.167, 171) and any one
killing animals solely for his own food and
not in accordance with the Vedic practice is
doomed to go to hell for as many days as the
number of hair on the body of the victim (I.180).
Similarly Brhaspati (AD 300-500), like Manu,
recommends abstention from liquor (*madya*),
flesh (*mamsa*) and sexual intercourse only
if they are not lawfully ordained[24]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn24>which
implies that whatever was lawful was permitted.
The lawgivers generally accept as lawful all
those sacrifices, which, according to them,
have Vedic sanction. The sacrificial slaughter
of animals and domesticated bovines, as we have
seen, was a Vedic practice and therefore may
have been fairly common among the Brahmanical
circles during the early Christian centuries
and even well into the later half of the first
millennium AD. It would be, however, unrealistic
to assume that the dharmic precept of restricting
animal slaughter to ritual occasions was always
taken seriously either by brahmins for* *whom
the legal injunctions were meant or by other
sections of society.[25]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn25>
It is not surprising, therefore, that Brhaspati,
while discussing the importance of local customs,
says that in Madhyadesa the artisans eat cows
*(madhyadese karmakarah silpinasca gavasinah*).[26]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn26>
The evidence from the epics is quite eloquent.
Most of the characters in the *Mahabharata*
are meat eaters and it makes a laudatory reference
to the king Rantideva in whose kitchen two thousand
cows were butchered everyday, their flesh, along
with grains, being distributed among the brahmins
(III.208.8-9) [27] <http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn27>.
Similarly the *Ramayana* of Valmiki makes frequent
reference to the killing of animals including
the cow for sacrifice as well as food. Rama
was born after his father Dasaratha performed
a big sacrifice involving the slaughter of a
large number of animals declared edible by the
Dharmasastras, which, as we have seen, sanction
ritual killing of the kine. Sita, while crossing
the Yamuna, assures her that she would worship
her with thousand cows and a hundred jars of
wine when Rama accomplishes his vow. Her fondness
for deer meat drives her husband crazy enough
to kill Marici, a deer in disguise. Bharadvaja
welcomes Rama by slaughtering a fatted calf
in his honour.[28]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn28>
The non-vegetarian dietary practices find an
important place in the early Indian medical
treatises, whose chronology broadly coincides
with that of the law books of Manu and Yajnavalkya,
and the two epics. Caraka (1st-2ndcentury),
Susruta (3 rd –4th century)
and Vagbhata (7th century) provide an impressive
list of the variety of fish and flesh and all
three of them speak of the therapeutic uses
of beef[29]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn29>.
The continuity of the tradition of eating flesh
including that of the cattle is also echoed
in early Indian secular literature till late
times. In the Gupta period, Kalidasa alludes
to the story of Rantideva who killed numerous
cows every day in his kitchen.[30]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn30>More
than two centuries later, Bhavabhuti (AD 700)
refers to two instances of guest reception,
which included the killing of a heifer[31]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn31>.
In the 10th century Rajasekhara mentions the
practice of killing an ox or a goat in honour
of a guest[32]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn32>.
In the 12th century Sriharsa mentions a variety
of non-vegetarian delicacies served at a dazzling
marriage feast and refers to two interesting
instances of cow killing[33]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn33>,
though, in the same century Somesvara shows
clear preference for pig flesh over other meat
types and does not mention beef at all.
*IV*
While the above references, albeit limited
in number, indicate that the ancient practice
of killing the kine for food continued till
about the 12thcentury, there is considerable
evidence in the commentaries on the kavya literature
and the earlier Dharmasastra texts to show that
the Brahmanical writers retained its memory
till very late times. Among the commentators
on the secular literature, Candupandita (late
13th century) from Gujarat, Narahari[34]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn34>(14
th century) from Telengana in Andhra Pradesh,
and Mallinatha[35]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn35>(14
th-15th century), who is associated with the
king Devaraya II of Vidyanagara (Vijayanagara),
clearly indicate that, in earlier times, the
cow was done to death for rituals and hence
for food. As late as the 18th century Ghanasyama,
a minister of a Tanjore ruler, states that the
killing of cow in honour of a guest was the
ancient rule.[36]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn36>
Similarly the authors of Dharmasastra commentaries
and religious digests from the 9th century onwards
keep alive the memory of the archaic practice
of beef eating and some of them even go so far
as to permit eating beef in specific circumstances.
For example, Medhatithi (9th century), probably
a Kashmirian brahmin, says that a bull or ox
was killed in honour of a ruler or any one deserving
to be honoured and unambiguously allows eating
the flesh of cow (*govyajamamsam*) on ritual
occasions[37]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn37>.
Several other writers of exegetical works seem
to lend support to this view, though some times
indirectly. Visvarupa[38]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn38>(9
th century), a brahmin from Malwa and probably
a pupil of Sankara, Vijnanesvara[39]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn39>
(11th century), who may have lived not far from
Kalyana in modern Karnataka, Haradatta[40]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn40>(12
th century), also a southerner (*daksinatya*),
Laksmidhara[41]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn41>(12
th century), a minister of the Gahadwala king,
Hemadri[42]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn42>(late
13 th century), a minister of the Yadavas of
Devagiri, Narasimha/ Nrsimha[43]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn43>(14
th century), possibly from southern India, and
Mitra Misra[44]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn44>(17
th century) from Gopacala (Gwalior) support
the practice of killing a cow on occasions like
guest-reception and *sraddha* in ancient times.
As recently as the early 20th century, Madana
Upadhyaya from Mithila refers to the ritual
slaughter of milch cattle in the days of yore.[45]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn45>Thus
even when the Dharmasastra commentators view
cow killing with disfavour, they generally admit
that it was an ancient practice and that it
was to be avoided in the kali age.
*V*
While the above evidence is indicative of the
continuity of the practice of beef eating, the
lawgivers had already begun to discourage it
around the middle of the first millennium when
the Indian society began to be gradually feudalized
leading to major socio-cultural transformation.
This phase of transition, first described in
the epic and Puranic passages as *kaliyuga*,
saw many changes and modification in social
norms and customs. The Brahmanical religious
texts now begin to speak of many earlier practices
as forbidden in the *kaliyuga* –
practices which came to be known as * kalivarjyas*.
While the number of *kalivarjyas* swelled up
over time, most of the relevant texts mention
cow killing as forbidden in the *kali*. According
to some early medieval lawgivers a cow killer
was an untouchable and one incurred sin even
by talking to him. They increasingly associated
cow slaughter and beef eating with the proliferating
number of untouchable castes. It is, however,
interesting that some of them consider these
acts as no more than minor behavioural aberrations
like cleaning one's teeth with one's fingers
and eating only salt or soil.[46]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn46>
Equally interesting is the fact that almost
all the prescriptive texts enumerate cow killing
as a minor sin (*upapataka*) and none of them
describe it as a major offence (*mahapataka*).
Moreover the Smrti texts provide easy escape
routes by laying down expiatory procedures for
intentional as well as inadvertent killing of
the cow. This may imply that that cattle killing
may not have been uncommon in society and the
atonements were prescribed merely to discourage
eating of cattle flesh. To what extent the Dharmasastric
injunctions were effective, however, remains
a matter of speculation; for the possibility
of at least some members eating beef on the
sly cannot be ruled out. As recently as the
late 19th century Swami Vivekananda was alleged
to have eaten beef during his stay in America,
though he vehemently defended his action.[47]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn47>Similarly
in early twentieth century Mahatma Gandhi spoke
of the hypocrisy of the orthodox Hindus who
"do not so much as hesitate or inquire
when during illness the doctor …
prescribes them beef tea."[48]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn48>
Even today 72 communities in Kerala-- not all
of them untouchable perhaps--- prefer beef to
the expensive mutton and the Hindutva forces
are persuading them to go easy on it.[49]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn49>
*VI *
Although cow killing and beef eating gradually
came to be viewed as a sin and a source of pollution
from the early medieval period, the cow and
its products (milk, curds, clarified butter,
dung and urine) or their mixture called *pancagavya*
had been assuming a purificatory role from much
earlier times. The Vedic texts attest to the
ritual use of cow's milk and milk products,
but the term *pancagavya* occurs for the first
time in the *Baudhayana Dharmasutra*. The law
books of Manu, Visnu, Vasistha, Yajnavalkya
and those of several later lawgivers like Atri,
Devala and Parasara mention the use of the mixture
of the five products of the cow for both purification
and expiation. The commentaries and religious
digests, most of which belong to the medieval
period, abound in references to the purificatory
role of the * pancagavya*. The underlying assumption
in all these cases is that the * pancagavya*
is pure. But several Dharmasastra texts forbid
its use by women and the lower castes. If a
sudra drinks *pancagavya*, we are told, he goes
to hell.[50]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn50>
It is curious that the prescriptive texts,
which repeatedly refer to the purificatory role
of the cow, also provide much evidence of the
notion of pollution and impurity associated
with this animal. According to Manu (V.125)
the food smelt by the cow has to be purified.
Other early lawgivers like Visnu (XXIII.38)
and Yajnavalkya (I.189) also express similar
views. The latter in fact says that while the
mouth of the goat and horse is pure that of
the cow is not. Among the later juridical texts,
those of Angirasa, Parasara, Vyasa and so on,
support the idea of the cow's mouth being impure.
The lawgiver Sankha categorically states that
all limbs of the cow are pure except her mouth.
The commentaries on different Dharmasastra texts
reinforce the notion of impurity of the cow's
mouth. All this runs counter to the ideas about
the purificatory role of the cow.
Needless to say, then, 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 prevalent in society. It was killed
and yet the killing was not killing. When it
was not slain, mere remembering the old practice
of butchery satisfied the brahmins. Its five
products including faeces and urine have been
pure but its mouth has not been so. Yet through
these incongruous attitudes and puzzling paradoxes
the Indian cow has struggled its way to sanctity.
But its holiness is elusive. For, there is no
cow- goddess, nor any temple in her honour.[51]<http://www.indowindow.net/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11#_edn51>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.
