सत्यमेव जयते
Scientific Hinduism
Book 1: The role of meat in a healthy
diet
Sanjeev Sabhlok
Draft 3 April 2014
It is a foolish myth that meat (including beef) was not eaten in ancient India
It is a ridiculous myth that India was not a major meat (and beef) eating
country. This ‘book’ (a complilation of my blog posts and other research notes)
explodes that ridiculous falsehood.
It also shows why vegetarian faddism is one of the causes of low Indian IQ.
Regulatory regime for the king, prescribed in Arthashastra:
The flesh of all (government-owned) animals (including cows) dying naturally
may be sold by the herdsman, either as fresh meat or dried.
Also, cows no longer producing milk are to be slaughtered for meat.
The king earned significant revenues from sale of meat by butchers.
i
Contents
1.
We are meat eaters, not plant eaters or milk drinkers .................................... 1
1.1 We are natural meat eaters; digesting plants is very hard for us ...............................................2
1.1.1 Timeline of food .............................................................................................................2
1.1.2 Further proof that we are predators: carnivores, meat eaters......................................2
1.1.3 Even before our ancestors learnt to cook, they ate meat .............................................3
1.1.3.1 We can still eat raw meat, in moderation .................................................................................................... 3
1.1.4
After cooking was discovered, meat became even more important .............................3
1.1.4.1 Meat was a major part of hunting gathering Homo’s diet ........................................................................... 3
1.1.4.2 Evidence from DNA in ancient teeth tartar confirms this ............................................................................ 3
1.1.5
1.1.5.1
1.1.5.2
1.1.5.3
1.1.5.4
Evolutionary adaptation: Eating of cooked meat has increased brain size....................3
Increased protein intake contributed to increased human brain size ......................................................... 3
Our intestines shrank (a meat eating adaptation) as brain size increased .................................................. 4
But cooking in general was more important in increasing brain size, not meat eating ............................... 4
Also, social factors led to a larger brain size ................................................................................................ 5
1.1.6 Evolutionary adaptation: Smaller length of intestine to digest meat ............................5
1.1.7 Evolutionary adaptation: Smaller teeth to eat cooked meat .........................................5
1.1.8 Hunting gathering societies today are heavily reliant on meat .....................................6
1.1.9 With agricultural diet humans became weaker and smaller .........................................6
1.1.10 Modern man can eat both cooked meat and plants ......................................................7
1.1.11 Myth: Indian civilisation had no hunter gathering stage ...............................................7
1.2 But not every human can drink another animal’s milk ...............................................................7
2.
Brain and human development suffers without meat ..................................... 9
2.1 Complete proteins only found in meat ........................................................................................9
2.2 Key brain nutrients only obtained through meat ........................................................................9
2.3 Adverse effects of not eating meat ...........................................................................................10
2.3.1 Anemia (and certain brain damage) in ancient child ...................................................10
2.4 Universal recommendation by health associations to consume meat .....................................11
2.4.1 Is meat ESSENTIAL to complete a balanced nutrition profile? .....................................11
2.5 Validity of claims of adverse effects of meat eating ..................................................................11
2.5.1 True: Too much red meat is associated with heart disease .........................................11
2.5.2 Unproven: Meat eating causes colon cancer ...............................................................11
2.5.3 Maybe true but irrelevant: Meat eating raises cholestol and is therefore
bad ................................................................................................................................11
2.6 Alleged benefits of vegan diet ...................................................................................................11
3.
Sabhlok’s hypothesis: Vegetarianism partly explains low Indian IQ............... 13
3.1 Chidren’s early nutrition is related to brain development and intelligence .............................13
3.2 Severe malnourishment in Indian children ................................................................................13
3.2.1 Nearly half of India’s small children are malnourished ................................................13
3.2.2 Adolescent anemia in Indian children today ................................................................13
3.3 Low Indian IQ – an explanation .................................................................................................14
3.3.1 Indians have perhaps the lowest IQ in the world.........................................................14
3.3.2 Social oppression and vegetarianism are a lethal combination ...................................15
3.3.3 Vicious cycle: poverty leads to lower IQ.......................................................................15
ii
Draft 3 April 2014
3.4 Objections to the hypothesis that vegetarianismis linked to low IQ .........................................15
3.4.1 Why are SOME Indian vegetarians smart? ...................................................................15
3.4.2 If meat and IQ are related, why scientific advance after the agricultural
revolution? ...................................................................................................................16
3.4.3 Why do intelligent children apparently become vegetarian in later life?....................16
4.
Archaeological evidence of meat and beef eating in India ............................ 17
4.1 Conclusive evidence of beef and horsemeat eating in Kurukshetra during the
Vedic period ...............................................................................................................................17
4.2 Conclusive evidence of beef eating in the proximity of Ayodhya during the late
Vedic period ...............................................................................................................................19
4.3 Evidence of beef eating in the Gangetic plain during the Vedic period ....................................21
4.4 Beef was eaten in the Pune area at least till 1400 BC ...............................................................24
4.5 Beef was commonly eaten in Rishikesh-Haridwar till 5th century AD ......................................25
4.6 The precise method of cow slaughter in the Indus Valley Civilisation ......................................28
4.7 Beef Eating in the Ancient Tamizhagam ....................................................................................30
4.8 Other archaeological evidence of meat/beef eating in India ....................................................38
5.
Evidence of beef eating in non-Vedic literature of ancient India ................... 41
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.
DN Jha’s conclusion re: beef eating in non-Vedic texts .............................................................41
Beef and meat as medicine........................................................................................................43
Beef as remedy (in PV Sharma’s translation of Charaka Samhita) ............................................44
Sale of beef was fully authorised in the Athashastra ................................................................44
Myth: meat eating in ancient India wsa reserved for ceremonial occasions ............................46
Indian beef eating recorded in Buddhist documents ................................................................47
5.6.1 A Buddhist’s analysis of meat and beef eating in ancient India (by
Shravasti Dhammika) ....................................................................................................47
True of false: Cow slaughter in the Vedas ..................................................... 49
6.1 TRUE. The Vedas have extensive records of cow slaughter ......................................................49
6.1.1 Summary of extensive citations in Vedas about beef eating .......................................49
6.1.2 Vivekananda’s comments on beef eating in the Vedas ...............................................50
6.1.3 Beef-Eating in Ancient India, by Mahadev Chakravarti ................................................50
6.1.4 DN Jha’s conclusion re: beef eating in the Vedas.........................................................53
6.1.5 Ambedkar’s detailed analysis of beef eating in Hinduism and by
untouchables ................................................................................................................54
6.1.6 Beef eating in the Hindu Tradition by Rohini Bakshi ....................................................70
6.1.7 Ram Puniyani’s compilation on the subject .................................................................73
6.2 FALSE. Claims about beef in the Vedas are based on mistranslation ........................................73
6.2.1 Harsh Vora’s rebuttal ...................................................................................................73
6.2.2 Comment by Krishna Mohan on Facebook (here) .......................................................81
6.2.3 Other writers who oppose ...........................................................................................82
6.3 So what’s the truth? ..................................................................................................................82
7.
Beef eating in India today: the FACTS ............................................................ 84
7.1 Kerala 84
7.2 Meghalaya..................................................................................................................................87
8.
Role of Buddhism in making India vegetarian................................................ 88
8.1 Ashoka’s edicts...........................................................................................................................88
iii
9.
Let’s have Scientific Hinduism ....................................................................... 89
9.1 My call for a Hinduism to get a genuine scientific basis ............................................................89
9.2 I am an equal co-owner of India’s culture and heritage ............................................................91
9.3 How did the ‘taboo’ against cow slaughter arise?.....................................................................92
9.3.1 DN Jha’s analysis of the origin of the taboo against cow slaughter .............................92
9.4 How deep morality of the hunter gatherer ...............................................................................93
10.
Policy implications......................................................................................... 95
10.1 Banning cow slaughter is a really bad policy .............................................................................95
10.1.1 Such policy violates liberty and freedom of choice ......................................................95
10.1.2 Indian tribals and other older residents have full rights to eat beef ...........................96
10.1.3 Such policy will add to the low IQ problem of Indian children ....................................99
10.1.4 Economic ruin of farmers from prohibiting cow slaughter ..........................................99
10.1.5 Prohibiging cow slaughter leads to great disrespect for cows .....................................99
10.1.6 Sacred cow, sacred dog, sacred cat: either ALL animal meat must be
banned, or none ...........................................................................................................99
10.2 Meat animals must be killed without cruelty ..........................................................................102
iv
Draft 3 April 2014
1.
We are meat eaters, not plant eaters or milk
drinkers
A lot of people continue to deny that their own ancestors were meat eaters. They would not
exist without meat eating in their direct lineage.
They deny archaeological evidence, they deny scriptures, they deny the literature, they deny
biology.
I’ve written/studied this issue sporadically over the years. I’m now compiling some key
information here, more a cut-paste than a proper book. However, this covers most issues
raised by vegetarian fanatics and should satisfy their search for the truth if they are really
serious about finding the truth.
The overall condlusion is simple. Meat has been part of the human (hominid) diet particularly after hominids discovered how to cook. This meat eating was a very effective
way to get nourishment, and increased brain size. And on average, brain size does matter
(after controlling for gender differences). Australians, Japanese, etc. who live the longest in
the world are meat eaters. And smart, as well.
A good summary by Hemanth Pothula
Around 10,000 years ago, humans switched from being hunters/gatherers to agriculture and
pastoralism. We were evolved as omnivores, eating meat and vegetables, and fruits (this
explains why we have different taste buds, and cats which are pure carnivores don't have
sweet buds).
As our early humans started cultivating different crops, they gave up extensive hunting, but
use to eat their domestic live stock. We started eating cooked food, which explains why we
cant eat raw foods, we can't digest cellulose (present in raw greens, cannot be digested
unless cooked) and we can't raw meet without falling sick, this is mainly because we gave up
on eating raw foods, and the organ responsible for digesting raw greens and meat became
vestigial, and this organ is our appendix.
During the renaissance period, meat was eaten by only those who can afford it. Western
countries, which became wealthy by industrialization, have much meat to feed it's people
and army especially, to wage wars and conquer other parts of the world. This explains why
their men are physically strong and healthy, and much taller and bulkier than their
counterparts from less developed (or underdeveloped) parts of the world.
Animal protein builds muscles, vegetarian protein also builds muscles but you have to take
more amounts of food to get the same equivalent amount of proteins, now brahmins need
not have to be build, they are more into intellectual activities and followed strict diet, to
keep their hunger and other senses in check, to not to give into anything extreme.
My response
his is broadly a good summary. Just a minor correction: re: "We started eating cooked food,
which explains why we cant eat raw foods". That's incorrect. Hominids started eating
cooked meat 500,000 years ago (some say 2 million years ago) - that's how we evolved with
small teeth but big brain. And no, we can DEFINITELY eat raw meat and fully digest it. Even
today. The only problem is that digesting raw meat is costly in terms of calories used during
digestion. But it is actually much healthier. Japanese eat raw meat of all types including
Draft 3 April 2014
1
beef, and have a healthy lifestyle.
1.1
We are natural meat eaters; digesting plants is very hard for us
Our bodies are fully-equipped in every way to digest meat (which is relatively easy). It is
much harder for us to digest plant material (particularly fiber). [Source]
Try eating a raw grain of wheat or rice.
1.1.1
Timeline of food
This Wikipedia entry is a good starting point for the subject.
We evolved primarily as meat eaters [Source].
1.1.2
Further proof that we are predators: carnivores, meat eaters
I chanced upon this short video. It shows that having eyes in the front is often a key
characteristic of predators (for details also see this).
The owl is a classic example. Among the birds it is a pure predator. And this is how its eyes
focus on prey:
2
Some birds can see the full 360 degrees. Many herbivores can also see almost 360 degrees,
since they are designed to FLEE, not to ATTACK.
You can see below one of our closest animal relatives (chimpanzee) hunting for a monkey
which they EAT RAW.
Coupled with a lot of other evidence, this is CONFIRMATION that man is a predatory meat
eater.
1.1.3
Even before our ancestors learnt to cook, they ate meat
This evidence goes back 1.8 million years.[Source]
There are some disputes regarding when precisely man started to cook regularly (earlier it
was opportunistic). The 1.8 million date is disputed. [Source]
The earliest evidence of hominid fire control found thus far has been dated from 800,000
years ago, and regular use of fire for cooking doesn’t become widespread until more
recently. [Source]
But dining with dogs was worth it. Meat is packed with lots of calories and fat. Our brain —
which uses about 20 times as much energy as the equivalent amount of muscle — piped up
and said, "Please, sir, I want some more." As we got more, our guts shrank because we
didn't need a giant vegetable processor any more. Our bodies could spend more energy on
other things like building a bigger brain. Sorry, vegetarians, but eating meat apparently
made our ancestors smarter — smart enough to make better tools, which in turn led to
other changes. [Source]
1.1.3.1 We can still eat raw meat, in moderation
Hominids started eating cooked meat 500,000 years ago (some say about 2 million years
ago) - that's how we evolved with small teeth but big brain.
We can definitely eat raw meat and fully digest it even today.
The only problem is that digesting raw meat is costly in terms of calories used (and time
taken) during digestion. But it is actually much healthier.
Japanese eat raw meat of all types including beef, and have a healthy lifestyle.
1.1.4
After cooking was discovered, meat became even more important
1.1.4.1 Meat was a major part of hunting gathering Homo’s diet
Meat was a large component of Homo‘s diet. [Source]
1.1.4.2 Evidence from DNA in ancient teeth tartar confirms this
"DNA trapped in the tartar reveals that the meat-dominated, grain-free diet of the hunter
gatherers" [Source]
“Besides better taste, cooked food had other benefits — cooking killed some pathogens on
food. But cooking also altered the meat itself. It breaks up the long protein chains, and that
makes them easier for stomach enzymes to digest.” [Source]
1.1.5
Evolutionary adaptation: Eating of cooked meat has increased brain size
1.1.5.1 Increased protein intake contributed to increased human brain size
Humans have roughly three times as many neurons (86 billion) than our close primate
cousins, like gorillas (33 billion) or chimpanzees (28 billion). The Brazilian scientists found
that the number of neurons is directly linked to brain size, as well as to the amount of
Draft 3 April 2014
3
energy needed to feed the brain. Thus, humans need brains consume 20% of our body’s
energy when resting, compared with 9% in other primates – a hefty cost. [Source]
This indicates a need for highly efficient food which provides necessary energy to the brain.
Meat very likely played such a role.
“About oneand-a-half to two million years ago, male hominids probably borrowed and
adapted the “female” foraging technology to satisfy an increased demand for animal protein
that arose as the brain enlarged, the birth interval decreased, and the proportion of semidependent juveniles increased” [Source]
Researchers think they have finally found out why humans have larger brains than our
evolutionary ancestors (even though gorillas, our closest living relatives, grow to three times
the size of humans). The answer? Meat. [Source]
Eating meat and cooking food made us human, the studies suggest, enabling the brains of
our prehuman ancestors to grow dramatically over a period of a few million years.
The new studies demonstrate, respectively, that it would have been biologically implausible
for humans to evolve such a large brain on a raw, vegan diet and that meat-eating was a
crucial element of human evolution at least 1 million years before the dawn of humankind.
One study, published last month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, examined the brain sizes of several primates. For the most part, larger bodies have
larger brains across species. Yet human have exceptionally large, neuron-rich brains for our
body size, while gorillas — three times more massive than humans — have smaller brains
and three times fewer neurons. Why?
The answer, it seems, is the gorillas' raw, vegan diet (devoid of animal protein), which
requires hours upon hours of eating only plants to provide enough calories to support their
mass.
The second study, published in October the journal PLoS ONE, examined the remains of a
prehuman toddler who died from malnutrition about 1.5 million years ago. Shards of a skull
found in modern-day Tanzania reveal that the child had porotic hyperostosis, a type of
spongy bone growth associated with low levels of dietary iron and vitamins B9 and B12, the
result of diet lacking animal products in a species that requires them. [Source]
1.1.5.2 Our intestines shrank (a meat eating adaptation) as brain size increased
Wrangham's ideas follow the expensive-tissue hypothesis. That concept predicts an inverse
relationship between brain size and gut size - to accommodate a large, human-sized brain,
our guts shrank relative to our primate cousins. [Source]
1.1.5.3 But cooking in general was more important in increasing brain size, not meat
eating
Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to meat eating permitted an
increase in brain size and hence the emergence of modern man. However, comparative
studies of primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it is likely that, while
meat assumed a more important role in hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major
evolutionary shift. [Source]. Also see this.
Why cooking is more important than mere meat eating in increased human brain
“Some two million years ago, early human ancestors known as the Oldowan hominin began
to exhibit certain adaptions that required greater daily energy expenditures, including an
increase in brain and body size, heavier investment in their offspring and significant homerange expansion. How these early hominids had access to the necessary resources to
4
acquire such expensive evolutionary traits has been the subject of debate among scientists
for some time. The leading theory is that they began to consume meat, acquiring it by
means of hunting or scavenging game put down by specialized hunting animals like lions.
Demonstrating this proved to be challenging, however.” [Source]
Simply cooking starchy foods increases the net energy gain by 30 percent, he said. [Source]
The idea is that raw food just doesn't provide enough calories. You have to get out more
than you put in, and raw food takes a lot more work (meaning calories) for your muscles and
organs to chew and digest, resulting in a net decrease in the amount of calories available for
the rest of your cells. But you can only spend so many hours of the day eating - there must
be time to sleep, forage and procreate, too. This limits the amount of calories you can get
per day, and it turns out this is directly related to how many neurons you can grow,
according to Fonseca-Azevedo and Herculano-Houzel.
If we ate an only-raw diet, to maintain the body size we humans possess, as well as the
number of neurons our brains possess, people would have to eat for more than 9 hours
per day, they found.
And humans could afford to develop these more powerful brains, thanks to their
improved, cooked diet. This positive feedback drove the rapid increase in neurons that
took place in human evolution, the authors say.
Subsisting on raw foods is a hugely effective way to lose weight, which in and of itself
suggests that it's not enough for healthy development.
Our digestive systems can extract more calories from a cooked steak (for instance) than a
raw steak, and it takes much less energy to cook and eat a steak than to gnaw on a raw one
for hours. Access to cooked food means a hominid no longer needs enormous teeth to break
down all that raw meat and roughage into swallowable hunks, nor does it need as robust a
digestive system to process it all. The combination of more calories and less complicated
intestines means more energy can be devote to cogitating—hence H. erectus’ relatively big
brains, which suck up a lot of calories. [Source]
1.1.5.4 Also, social factors led to a larger brain size
From my notes here: Our brain developed in size because of the need to watch and judge
each other – i.e. to live in social groups. Our capacity for strategic thinking (sometimes
deceptive), and capacity to recognise a wide range of emotions/ moods in others, has been
the fundamental driver of our brain size (and perhaps imagination).
1.1.6
Evolutionary adaptation: Smaller length of intestine to digest meat
“Carnivores tend to have a well-developed acid stomach and long small intestine. The
human gut with its simple stomach, relatively elongated small intestine and reduced caecum
and colon, does not fit any one group but lies between the frugivore and faunivore groups,
suggestive of reliance on a high-quality diet in which meat is a predominant component. The
size of the human gut relative to body size is also small in comparison with other
anthropoids, with a much more pronounced small intestine similar to carnivores.” [Source]
1.1.7
Evolutionary adaptation: Smaller teeth to eat cooked meat
There is a myth that to eat meat you need particularly big teeth. No. You don't! That’s
because: human ancestors discovered how to cook meat about 1.8 million years ago. Hence
we id not need large teeth to eat meat. Cooking makes it very easy to digest.
We also have the capacity to cut meat into small bits with tools. Even today, Japanese and
many other cultures eat raw meat in small bites.
Draft 3 April 2014
5
Our teeth are now small and efficient, being perfectly adapted to COOKED meat eating.
My notes here: Our teeth are very small (compare with a chimp's, for instance), being
adapted to COOKED food. However, we do have strong molars capacity that can shred tough
raw meat and plant stems.
As we began to shy away from eating primarily fruit, leaves and nuts and began eating meat,
our brains grew. We developed the capacity to use tools, so our need for large, sharp teeth
and big grinders waned. From left, a cast of teeth from a chimpanzee, Australopithecus
afarensis and a modern human. [Source]
1.1.8
Hunting gathering societies today are heavily reliant on meat
Study of hunter-gatherer societies in recent times shows an extreme reliance on hunted and
fished animal foods for survival. [Source]
“While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of
wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and
a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake
(during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein,
considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's
almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the
way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine
of the 1840s.” [Source]
“the mean subsistence dependence upon gathered plant foods was 32%, whereas it was
68% for animal foods. Other evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic hominid
collagen tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity levels of certain enzymes, and
optimal foraging data all point toward a long history of meat-based diets in our
species.”[Source]
1.1.9
With agricultural diet humans became weaker and smaller
Our diet became less meat-based with agricultural settlement, but our body size also
shrank.
"Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-gatherers
toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5' 9'' for men, 5' 5'' for women. With the
adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5' 3'' for
men, 5' for women. " [Source]
6
1.1.10 Modern man can eat both cooked meat and plants
We have flexible eating capacity [Source]. However, it remains much harder to digest plants
than to digest meat.
1.1.11 Myth: Indian civilisation had no hunter gathering stage
I’m told that there’s a “Vedic” view that not all civilisations in the world were originally
cavemen and hunters. I’m told this is part of the free booklet compiled by Mr. Vidya Sagar
Garg from http://agnikart.com/vedic-wisdom-ppt. I’m told “As a matter of fact, if ancient
Indians can transition from cave dwellers to such an advanced race then why do we still
have tribes living in caves in different pockets across the world?”
This is such an absurd statement that I have no intention of reading this book nor
responding to this assertion.
1.2
But not every human can drink another animal’s milk
Unlike our UNIVERSAL ability to eat meat, drinking milk is highly specialised in a FEW
humans.
“Our human digestive systems evolved to deal with agriculture and the processing
(fermenting and cooking) of food. With agriculture, some human populations evolved extra
copies of amylase genes, arguably so as to better be able to deal with starchy foods. The
case of agriculture is the most clear. With agriculture, several human populations
independently evolved gene variants that coded for the persistence of lactase (which breaks
down lactose) so as to be able to deal with milk, not just as babies but also as adults.
Draft 3 April 2014
7
Drinking milk of another species as an adult is weird, but some human populations have
evolved the ability. If your ancestors were dairy farmers, you can drink milk as an adult
without trouble, you’ve “got lactase.” But if they were not, you tend to get diarrhea when
you drink milk and so you probably avoid the stuff (lest your friends avoid you).” [Source]
8
2.
Brain and human development suffers without
meat
There is a myth that just because someone promotes meat eating, it means eating meat in
excess. Moderate quantities are recommended by health bodies, not excess!
2.1
Complete proteins only found in meat
Proteins are only one part of the body/brain system. Even here, meat is a good ‘package’ of
food:
It is established that a human body requires a daily intake of about 50 gm of protein.
While people in the developed countries and most of the developing countries have
a satisfactory intake of protein, in India the per capita daily intake is only about 10
gm. This endangers health and work performance.
Proteins are amino acids. Out of the 22 amino acids required in the human diet, the
body supplies 14. The remaining eight have to come from food. If all the eight amino
acids are present in a single food item, it is called a complete protein food.
Since all proteins from animal sources are complete proteins, it is easy to meet the
dietary protein requirements of non-vegetarians. However, the main sources of
protein for vegetarians are leguminous plants — to which pulses belong. In general,
pulses have lower concentrations of protein than animal sources. Besides, none of
the pulses — except soybeans — are complete proteins. Therefore, combinations of
two or more pulses are needed in a vegetarian diet. Dairy products, which are
complete proteins, may also be used to supplement pulse proteins in vegetarian
diets. [Source]
2.2
Key brain nutrients only obtained through meat
Well, the main nutrients you get out of meat that you don't really get anywhere else to the
same level are iron, zinc and vitamin B12. B12 particularly you must get from meat. There
really isn't any plant source of vitamin B12. [Source]
“To manufacture serotonin the brain needs tryptophan, a substance found mainly in eggs
and meat - the good news is that a bacon and egg breakfast will supply your body with
serotonin building blocks to last the day.” [Source]
“There's lots of it in skeletal muscle, which we omnivores tend to eat and love because steak
is oh so yummy. Vegetarians are low in it and more apt to have mental illness, at least in
some observational studies.” [Source]
“Meat -- a cut of lean beef, let's say -- is not just a complete protein (unlike soy products, for
example, which need to be combined with supplemental proteins to be considered
"complete"). It's loaded with other healthful goodies, including high levels of: iron; B
vitamins like niacin and riboflavin that provide healthy skin and nerves as well as help
digestion and maintain good vision; selenium, which works as an antioxidant with vitamin E
to protect from heart disease and other health problems; phosphorus, which helps regulate
metabolism, among other things; and its the most abundant food source of zinc, an essential
mineral that helps build muscle and heal wounds.” [Source]
Draft 3 April 2014
9
“The Seven Ages Of Man study shows lean red meat is vital in all stages of our development
from infancy to old age while revealing that British diets can be “worryingly low” in nutrients
found in red meat such as vitamins A and D, zinc, iron and potassium. Researchers say
putting more red meat into our diets could close the gap between our -mineral and vitamin
intake and recommended levels. “There is emerging evidence that nutrients currently found
in red meat may play a role in supporting cognitive function, immune health and addressing
iron deficiency,” it states.” [Source]
2.3
Adverse effects of not eating meat
2.3.1
Anemia (and certain brain damage) in ancient child
There is strong evidence of the terrible effects of anemia (lack of red meat) in the diet of an
ancient child 1.5 million years ago. [Source]
Figure: Bone lesions in skull due to anemia.
Note that this is not merely an effect on longevity of children. It almost certain has effects
on brain development: “The second study, published in October the journal PLoS ONE,
examined the remains of a prehuman toddler who died from malnutrition about 1.5 million
years ago. Shards of a skull found in modern-day Tanzania reveal that the child had porotic
hyperostosis, a type of spongy bone growth associated with low levels of dietary iron and
vitamins B9 and B12, the result of diet lacking animal products in a species that requires
them.” [Source]
“Clinical research finds that people on vegan diets commonly suffer from a variety of
nutritional deficiencies. One study, for instance, showed that more than half of vegans
tested were deficient in vitamin B12, putting them at risk of mental health problems such as
fatigue, poor concentration, decreased brain volume with aging and irreversible nerve
damage.” [Source]
Sahana Singh A Vitamin B-12 deficiency is often due to poor absorption caused by intestinal
disorder which is why even meat-eaters can have a B-12 deficiency.
10
2.4
Universal recommendation by health associations to consume meat
It is universally recommended by all major health associations that meat is part of a
balanced diet.
 The Government guidelines in Australia are found here.
 The Heart Foundation of Australia's guidelines.
 Cancer Council of Australia guidelines.
2.4.1
Is meat ESSENTIAL to complete a balanced nutrition profile?
Some of this depends on the meaning of the word "vegetarian". If dairy products and milk is
included, then many proteins and mico-ingredients are obtained through this process. To
that extent, it will be good if each Indian child at least had access to a lot of milk. That's
better than nothing. But it is strongly desirable that they consume a moderate amount of
meat (and particularly sea fish) as well.
2.5
Validity of claims of adverse effects of meat eating
Note that I'm not advocating pure meat diet (like Atkins) but a mixed diet with sufficient
vegetables and a modest amount of meat.
2.5.1
True: Too much red meat is associated with heart disease
“There was a very good study looking at the intake of red meat and heart disease in Leiden
in the Netherlands: in regions where people didn't eat red meat, those populations had half
the rate of heart attack and stroke compared to the populations that did eat red meat.”
[Source]
It is true that eating more fish and chicken is healthier than eating only red meat. However,
in moderation, red meat is definitely good.
2.5.2
Unproven: Meat eating causes colon cancer
“The association between consumption of red and processed meats and cancer, particularly
colorectal cancer, is very consistent,” says Marji McCullough, PhD, a nutritional
epidemiologist with the American Cancer Society.” [Source]
The data I have examined do not prove causality. There could well be a number of other
environmental factors (e.g. chemicals) that are found in the West which cause colon cancer.
I would wait for further data before concluding this is a problem.
2.5.3
Maybe true but irrelevant: Meat eating raises cholestol and is therefore bad
"It's not true that meat raises your cholesterol in your diet. We've done these studies many
times over. If you trim the meat of all visible fat and you cut the fat from people's diet from
other sources, you can eat as much meat as you like and your cholesterol levels will actually
fall. [Source]
More importantly, cholesterol DOES NOT CAUSE HEART DISEASE. It is stress that is the
primary cause of heart issues.
2.6
Alleged benefits of vegan diet
Sahana Singh Have a look at this video about the benefits of a plant-based
diethttp://nutritionfacts.org/video/more-than-an-apple-a-day-preventing-our-mostcommon-diseases/
Draft 3 April 2014
11
According to Sahana, it is not vegetarianism which is responsible for India's poor health - it is
a lack of a balanced diet. A balanced diet is possible even with vegetarianism. Red meat is
rich in iron but is very high in bad cholesterol and dietitians always ask that it should be
taken in limited quantities.
Sahana Singh Since peer-reviewed articles are what you hanker for, let us give you a peerreviewed articlehttp://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1691926
Sanjeev Sabhlok Sahana, couldn't download the full article, but it clearly says that the study
being reviewed can be questioned: "The study provides association, not cause-and-effect".
You might be aware that there were 2000 studies on relationship between salt diet and high
blood pressure. At the end of it, there was found to be no association between the two.
Similarly, cholesterol was supposedly the cause of heart disease, but after thousands of
studies, they find no causal effect. In general, NO single medical study is conclusive. It needs
replication hundreds of times, under conditions which are often impossible to replicate.
So, no, I'll pass your "peer reviewed" journal comment as being premature in proving that
vegetarian diet is superior to (mixed) non-vegetarian diet.
Advocacy of vegetarianism by Sahana Singh
Even as you are decrying Indian vegetarianism, Americans and Europeans are making a
move towards vegetarianism and even veganism for the sake of the environment, for the
sake of ethics, for the sake of water conservation. Most of them say their health has
improved after switching to a plant-based diet.
Insisting on meat-eating is also a form of extremism. Some may even call it murder of
animals which are capable of feeling pain. Others will call it a murder of the environment.
Meat industries are heavily polluting. Raising animals for food consumes humongous
amounts of freshwater in a world which is facing a water crisis.
My response
In the field of nutrition some things can take 2000 studies to prove conclusively. If you wish
to ply a separate path and "prove" that this common sense view of the world is wrong,
please carry on, but I will stick to what science and common sense (including my own
analysis based on facts) tells me.
12
3.
Sabhlok’s hypothesis: Vegetarianism partly
explains low Indian IQ
Based on linking a number of facts together, I propose that at least part of the extremely
low IQ of Indians can be explained by their vegetarian fanaticism. The problem with the
freedom hypothesis that I have outlined in BFN is that it doesn’t explain the high Chinese IQ
despite low levels of freedom. I’m adding the following hypothesis to the freedom
hypothesis, with the hope that these two could, in combination, explain much of the IQ
variation between different nations of the world.
3.1
Chidren’s early nutrition is related to brain development and
intelligence
IQ is related to what babies eat. "The rapidly developing brain is more vulnerable to nutrient
insufficiency yet also demonstrates its greatest degree of plasticity. Certain nutrients have
greater effects on brain development than do others. These include protein, energy, certain
fats, iron, zinc, copper, iodine, selenium, vitamin A, choline, and folate."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/2/614S.full.
The World Bank: "In developing countries, where few children live to see their situation
improve, once the effects of undernutrition are established in early childhood, they typically
become permanent. The intellectual potential of such children at school entry most likely is
already damaged irrevocably." [Source]
http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/articles/updates/nutrition-and-early-braindevelopment
Also: Lynn R., Jindal S. Positive correlations between brain size and intelligence: Further
evidence from India. Mankind Quarterly. 1993;34:109–123.
3.2
Severe malnourishment in Indian children
3.2.1
Nearly half of India’s small children are malnourished
"Nearly half of India’s small children are malnourished: one of the highest rates of
underweight children in the world, higher than most countries in sub-Saharan Africa". (Read
my article on this subject here.)
3.2.2
Adolescent anemia in Indian children today
The fastest cure for iron deficiency is to have red meat. But India is largely vegetarian, so we
have massive anemia.
Country-wide war on adolescent anaemia: Such poor nutritional outcomes were not
present in ancient India where people at a HEALTHY mixed diet (including ALL meats). India's
vegetarian mania has surely added to the severe problems of brain and bodily development
observed across the poorer sections of India.
Comments by others on FB
Sharad Bailur I had this to say a very long time on this subject: We believe in simple living
and high thinking. The appeal to vegetarian food, to teetotalism and to ceremonious
Draft 3 April 2014
13
adherence to religious ritual, I suspect, began with the helplessness of a Hindu population
put upon by Muslim rulers and later by the British or more likely their Indian vassals who
had themselves become degenerate and tyrannical dinosaurs. It resulted in extreme levels
of poverty (hence the vegetarianism), and a feeling of helplessness that had lasted
hundreds of generations (hence the pursuit of religion and ritual as a form of escapism)
and the inability to band together resulting from extreme economic deprivation.
This deprivationist approach could not have succeeded ordinarily but it had to, as a result
of the loss of self-confidence that must have become the norm. The only way this could be
made to happen was to elevate it into a high religious and moral principle. What evolved
over hundreds of years cannot be taken away in the fifty or so years of Independence. Our
present hypocrisy is merely a hangover that refuses to go away, having pickled our
collective brains for those deprived centuries.
Kenneth Allen Hopf Given the popularity of vegetarianism in India, I've often wondered
why they don't have more health problems than they do.
Hemanth Pothula Most of Indians now, are eating nutritional deficit diet, even though they
can get better food for the same rupee. It is better to eat a kg meat, than chuck down a
costly laddu/sweet, or 5kg rice or any grain. It is better to eat an egg and two bananas
than pongal rice, or puri, or any grain related food.
3.3
Low Indian IQ – an explanation
3.3.1
Indians have perhaps the lowest IQ in the world
Sahana Singh Can you also point me to studies showing that Indians have the lowest IQ in
the world?
Sanjeev Sabhlok Re: Indians and low IQ, I studied this through publicly available data and
wrote thus in BFN:
"This figure is based on measurements conducted in India by a range of different
researchers over decades. Despite the methodological issues that the underlying
data may raise, I have little doubt that this IQ difference is real (I would be pleased to
be proven that this is an error.) We can’t simply shrug aside a difference of this
magnitude; we should try to explain it."
My report on Indian IQ is accurate as at 2007 - based on review of EXTENSIVE number of
studies. I suspect it wouldn't have changed much since then.
Sahana Singh What is BFN? Has your study about IQ of Indians been 'peer reviewed'? Is
there a hyperlink to it? Also did you eliminate other factors such as pre-existing illnesses,
genetic disorders etc? In one of the articles you posted about meat-eating causing increase
in brain size, it says "From health to the environment, there are many reasons to go
vegetarian, go vegan and even go raw, but evolution isn't one of them." We have apparently
been having this brain size for quite some time now. As for iron, zinc, B-12 etc, it is possible
to get them from fortified vegetarian sources. One has to always eat wisely and include
items such as nuts, yeast etc. Of course vegetarianism could involve unhealthy eating of
fried foods too. That is why right eating is important.
Sanjeev Sabhlok Sahana, re: IQ please search the internet. I had studied and did not keep a
record, but my notes are based on my studies. Indian children in villages are NOT getting
food that is "fortified" with necessary vitamins. I'm against any extremism, and
vegetarianism is a kind of fanaticism that's unsustainable.
14
3.3.2
Social oppression and vegetarianism are a lethal combination
The following simple model perhaps explains a significant extent of the variation:
With 40 per cent of the population oppressed socially and a vegetarian diet which prevents
proper brain development, what IQ can be expected in India?
3.3.3
Vicious cycle: poverty leads to lower IQ
"being poor can impair cognitive functioning, which hinders individuals’ ability to make good
decisions and can cause further poverty.” [Source] This adds interesting information to the
IQ debate although it may not explain why poor countries like China do so well in IQ tests.
Nutrition still must play a role, as well as SOCIAL oppression (which is typically found in
India, not in China).
3.4
Objections to the hypothesis that vegetarianismis linked to low IQ
3.4.1
Why are SOME Indian vegetarians smart?
Sahana Singh I suppose the physicist CV Raman, mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujam,
engineer-statesman M Vishveshwariah, Philosopher S Radhakrishnan and scores of
luminaries from India had pea-sized brains and were unsmart as a result of their vegetarian
diet?
Sanjeev Sabhlok Sahana, in statistics we talk about averages. Standard deviations in ALL
distributions ensure that there will be some very smart people even in poor average
populations. Indians' average IQ is 85, but that doesn't mean that people with 150+ IQ wont'
exist - particularly given the hundreds of millions of people involved. You are better advised
to study average IQ of vegetarian populations vs. average IQ of non-veg populations;
average brain size of vegetarians vs that of non-vegetarians; average longevity, average
muscle power (including ability to win prizes in athletics/ olympics, etc.). Even these won't
prove causality but they might disprove the view that vegetarian diet is healthy.
Sahana Singh Can you kindly refer me to a "peer reviewed study" citing low IQ to
vegetarianism and isolated for all other factors that could cause low IQ?
Sanjeev Sabhlok Sahana, this is my hypothesis based on two well documented facts:
Draft 3 April 2014
15
FACT 1: Hominid brain size increased DRAMATICALLY after we became capable of eating
meat (due to control over fire), and
FACT 2: Indians with the world's most vegetarian population have THE lowest IQs in the
world. Despite comparable poverty, Chinese average IQ has always measured in the range of
100-105. Chinese children eat ALL kinds of meat, thus nourishing their brain. [“We have
actually done Pisa in 12 of the provinces in China. Even in some of the very poor areas you
get performance close to the OECD average.” [Source]]
The fact that Indian children are so malnourished, and also score deplorably on cognitive
functions is a strong indicator of the link. Also, that historically the human species evolved a
better and bigger brain during hunting gathering era when cooked meat was a main part of
the diet.
Sahana Singh Ah so it's your hypotheses we were discussing all along. No peer reviewed
studies yet apparently.
Sanjeev: Yes. This is how hypotheses start – and then they get tested.
3.4.2
If meat and IQ are related, why scientific advance after the agricultural
revolution?
Even in European nations, the SIZE of humans AND their intelligence has increased
dramatically over the past 200 years as nutritional intake as improved. Finally, the last time
humans were this big was when they were hunter gatherers. Humans SHRANK after
agricultural era started. Only now, as nutrition has improved, they are growing back to what
they were during hunting gathering days. 98 per cent of human evolution took place as
hunter gatherers. Only recently has agricultural era come into effect.
Question by Sahana Singh Do you have any explanation for why most of the scientific and
technological advances made by humans happened after the brain size supposedly shrank
from the hunter-gatherer to the agricultural stage?
Answer: Most Indian advance took place during the meat and beef eating era. The
healthier/wealthier people of the agricultural era were NOT vegetarians. They were at the
forefront of such advance.
But in Europe, much scientific advance took place after freedom increased in late 18th
century, followed by increased prosperity and increased nutrition for the general
population.
There remains a very strong correlation between brain capacity and good nutrition. Good
nutrition INCLUDES meat all over the world.
3.4.3
Why do intelligent children apparently become vegetarian in later life?
Sahana Singh “Intelligent children are more likely to become vegetarians later in life, a study
says” [Source]
My response: This further confirms that these children were LIKELY intelligent because they
ate meat when they were children. That their so-called intelligence is not well developed
enough to allow critical thinking, probably leads them to the cult of vegetarianism.
16
4.
Archaeological evidence of meat and beef eating in
India
4.1
Conclusive evidence of beef and horsemeat eating in Kurukshetra
during the Vedic period
This is from my blog post here.
I've been browsing through a number of Archaeological Survey reports – it being quite a
treasure trove. My interest is in validating Sankalia's statements about beef eating in India.
Turns out that he is OVERWHELMINGLY corect. Not just cows, horses too were eaten. BY
THE HINDUS (those who lived by the Vedic lifestyle).
Now for proof that the Mahabharata was fought on soil where beef eating was a part of
normal life. Note that the Painted Grey Ware culture period is the iron age period between
1200 BC to 600 BC. Therefore the period referred to below is WELL WITHIN THE VEDIC
PERIOD. [Source: Indian Archaeology 1975-76 A Review]
==
26. EXCAVATION AT BHAGWANPURA, DISTRICT KURUKSHETRA.—The Explorations
Branch of the Survey, under Shri Jagat Pati Joshi, assisted by Kumari Madhu Bala
and Sarvashri A. K. Sharma, J. R. Batra and G. Laxminarayana, conducted horizontal
excavation at Bhagwanpura with a view to ascertaining the inter se relation of the
Late Harappan and the Painted Grey Ware cultures.
The excavation revealed a 2-70-m occupational deposit with a two-fold cultural
sequence, establishing for the first time the overlap between the Lata Harappan
(Sub-period I A) and the Painted Grey Ware (Sub-period I B) cultures.
The Late Harappans, the earliest settlers on the rich alluvium of the river Sarasvati,
had built their houses over solid mud-platforms, as a protection against the ravages
of the Sarasvati. Two structural phases were recognized in this Sub-period. One of
the excavated platforms (100×4-25 m) was found to have had a landing step,
suggesting that the access to the mud-platforms was by means of steps. After a
lapse of time, indicated by an accumulation of a 80-cm habitational deposit, the
floods in the river caused considerable damage to the occupation. The Late
Harappan people, however, continued to occupy the site even after this
devastation.
The major ceramic industry of the Sub-period I A is represented by a sturdy red
ware, comparable to that available at Bahadarabad, Bara, Daulatpur, Mitathal II B,
Raja Karnaka-Qila and Siswal II B.
Besides, a few sherds of thick grey ware, commonly associated with the Harappan
and Late Harappan fabrics, were also noticed. An incised ware simulating the preHarappan tradition, continued throughout the succeeding Late Harappan levels.
Common shapes met with include dish-on-stand, bowl, cup-on-stand, lid-cum-bowl,
ring-stand, dishes with drooping rims, cup, high-necked jar, basin and button-based
goblet. The painted design repertoire consisted of thick and thin horizontal bands,
criss-cross patterns, filled-in-triangles, fish-like pattern, rows of opposite triangles,
hatched triangles, arches with obliquely-filled lines, leaves and pipal leaf. Other
Draft 3 April 2014
17
finds of this Sub-period I A include: terracotta bull with long horns and pinched
hump, leg portion of a human figure, probably a deity, two anthropomorphic
figures; potsherds with graffiti marks of Harappan affinity; copper rods; hubbed
terracotta toy cart-wheels; beads of terracotta, faience and semi-precious stones;
and bangles of faience and terracotta.
Sub-period I B is marked by the appearance of the Painted Grey Ware occurring
along with the preceding Late Harappan assemblage, indicating the arrival of new
people. Soon after the arrival of the new people, a heavy flood washed away a
considerable portion of the habitation, which did not deter the Late Harappans and
the Painted Grey Ware people from continuing the occupation of the site.
The structural activity of the Sub-period is represented by three phases, the earliest
of which evidenced by twenty-three post-holes, forming a circle or semi-circle,
perhaps represented a thatched hut. From one of the huts, exposed in the southeastern part of the mound, four saddle querns and pestles of different kinds were
recovered. The residence probably belonged to a corn grinder. Two oval-shaped
structures, measuring respectively 1-80×0-85 and 1-65×0-92 m, one in the southeastern periphery (pl.XVIII A) and the other in the centre of the mound, were
exposed. Two structural phases were identified. One of these yielded fragment of a
dish-on-stand in red ware arid a horn, presumably of a terracotta animal figurine
and a fragment of a legged terracotta figurine. Perhaps, these oval structures may
have had some religious functions.
The second structural phase is marked by the houses of mud-walls. A large housecomplex (pl. XIX) with thirteen rooms, a corridor and a courtyard on the eastern
side was completely exposed. The thickness of the walls ranged between 0.70 to
1.00 m. The size of the rooms ranged from 1.60 x 1.60 to 3.35 x 4.20 m. The rooms
yielded Painted Grey Ware bowls and dishes, associated grey ware sherds, ghatashaped terracotta beads, bone styli and copper objects, besides 2 to 5 per cent of
Late Harappan pottery. Other important finds recovered from the excavation are:
bangles in sea-blue and black glass; copper bangles, rods and some indeterminate
pieces; a large number of terracotta ghata-shaped and incised biconical beads;
decorated beads of semi-precious stones and faience; and terraoctta lamps,
probably used for lighting the houses.
Two skeletons belonging to Sub-period I B, were found from the habitation area.
Both the skeletons were oriented north-south with head towards the north and
face turned towards west. Preliminary investigation of the skeletons indicated that
one of them belonged to an adult of advanced age (pl. XVIIIB) while the other was
that of a child of eight to ten years of age. Surprisingly, the graves were devoid of
any grave-goods.
The ceramic industry of this phase is represented by the continuance of the Late
Harappan wares, in association with the Painted Grey Ware (pl. XX) and grey, red
and a limited quantity of black-slipped wares. In the lower levels, however, the
Painted Grey Ware showed thick painted lines. Among the designs, the more
noteworthy were a Maltese Cross and intersecting circles which appeared for the
first time in the Painted Grey Ware repertoire. Shapes met with in this Ware
consisted of bowls, basins and dishes. Besides, a few jars and dish-on-stands,
apparently copies of the Late Harappan prototypes, were also noticed.
Other finds of this Sub-period include terracotta animal figurines (pl. XXI) and
anthropomorphic figures, recalling similar objects in the Gandhara Grave Culture. A
large quantity of bones of cattle, sheep, goat, ram, dog and horse were recovered
18
from different levels. It was observed that the bones of cattle from the lower
levels are mostly massive, while those from the upper belong to weaker and
small-sized animals, some of them exhibiting incomplete ossification.
Charred bones of cattle and tortoise indicate the dietary habits of the people.
The most significant find, however, is the presence of the bones of Equus Cabalus
Linn, from Sub-period I B.
Consumption of horse meat in Vedic India
By the way Equus Cabalus Linn is nothing but horse. Eating horse meat is ENTIRELY
CONSISTENT with the stories in Hindu scriptures regarding Ashvamedha or horse sacrifice.
The horse was eaten after being sacrified (a goat was usually sacrificed at the same time).
4.2
Conclusive evidence of beef eating in the proximity of Ayodhya
during the late Vedic period
This is from my blog post here.
The following is CONCLUSIVE evidence of beef eating near Ayodhya in the later Vedic
period. Source: Indian Archaeology 1996-97 A Review. I think with this I can now
personally confirm that Sankalia was right.
There is OVERWHELMING archaeological evidence of beef eating in Indus Valley
Civilisation and the Vedic era. This continued till at least around the 5th century AD.
I'm sorry to disappoint the "Hindu" fanatics who claim that Muslims introduced beef
eating into India. Even a CASUAL study of archaeological data over the course of two
days has confirmed overwhelming evidence that beef was REGULARLY eaten in India
well before Islam was even created. I can now PERSONALLY CHALLENGE anyone in
India or the world to prove that the cow was always sacred in India.
This also closes the case for any political argument to prohibit cow slaughter in
India.
==
51. EXCAVATION AT SISWANIA, DISTRICT BASTI
In continuation of the previous season's work (1995-96, pp. 83-86),
Excavation Branch II, New Delhi, of the Survey, under the direction of B.R.
Mani, assisted by Vishnu Kant, R.K. Verma, Ajay Kumar Srivastava, B.K.
Chauhan, L.S. Mamani, V.P. Verma, Y.S. Nayal, Vinod Kumar, R.S. Rana, Ajai
Kumar, Virendra Pandey, T.Z. Dani, Suresh Chaudhary, D.N. Yadav and
Mohan Sharma, resumed excavation at the main mound SWN-1 with the
objective to know more about the lay out and settlement pattern of the site
and its material culture. In all twenty-two quadrants of thirteen squares with
each square measuring 10 m x 10 m were fully or partly excavated (fig. 11;
pl. XXXVI).
It was observed that the early settlements of the site were located closer to
the River Kuwana (Kuwano) on its left bank and with the increase of
Draft 3 April 2014
19
population and building activities during the Kushan period the settlement
spread towards east. Although no structural remains of pre-NBPW phase
could be located, structures of NBPW phase and Sunga period were mostly
mud structures with floors having post-holes suggesting thatched roofs (pl.
XXXVII A). Brickbats, occasionally found in heaps of debris from these levels
provide evidence of some rich constructions.
Building activity increased to a great extent during the Kushan period when
burnt-brick structures were erected, but this being the last period of
activities at the site, the structures have been badly damaged mainly due to
levelling of the lands for agricultural purposes in recent years as evident
from the spread of brick debris throughout the top layers.
Three ring-wells (pls. XXXVIIB and XXXVIII) and a brick-well were found
during excavations which all belong to the Kushan period. Amongst the
three ring-wells, one was exposed in Qd 1 of Sq D1 cut through earlier levels
with fifty-two rings, each being 13 cm to 15 cm in height with the diameter
of 80 cm (fig. 12). Lime was used to seal the gaps between them and they
were sunk upto the water table. The brick-well (pl. XXXIX A) was exposed in
Qd 2 of E1 and Qd 3 of ZE 1 with fifty-seven courses of wedge-shaped bricks
measuring 26 cm x 24 cm to 30 cm x 8 cm. These structures of Kushan
period found on the eastern slope of the mound suggest existence of the
residential area there. Towards north-west of this, around the highest part
of the mound and to the north of the RamJanaki Temple, remains of a
workshop of metal smiths was located which existed from the late levels of
NBPW phase to the Kushan period. Slags, complete and broken pieces of
crucibles and metal pieces of iron and copper were found besides hearths of
various shapes and size in Qd 4 of Sq ZA5 (pl. XXXIX B).
Pottery as noticed during the previous year's excavation was again found
with some more shapes. The pre-NBPW levels contained red ware, black
slipped ware and black-and-red ware including a few sherds with white or
black strokes painted over them. These types without paintings continued
along with NBPW in the next phase. Ceramics of Sunga and Kushan periods
were mainly red ware, both plain as well as slipped. The typical dishes and
bowls of NBPW and pre-NBPW phases disappeared during Sunga and
Kushan periods when incurved bowls became diagnostic type. The Kushan
period red ware also included basins, cooking pots, ink-pot lids, spouted
pots, sprinklers, handled pots, pans and vases.
More than six hundred and fifty antiquities were found in the form of
terracotta plaques, human and animal figurines, pestles, ear-studs, toycarts, wheels, wheel-cum-pendants, balls, dabber, net sinker, rattle, whistle,
discs, tablets, stopper, stamp, ghata-and arecanut-shaped beads, bangles
and other miscellaneous objects, bone point, and arrowheads, bone and
ivory wheels, crucibles, stone objects, iron objects, semi-precious stone
beads, glass beads, bangles and copper objects. Amongst the important
antiquities, mention may be made of Mauryan and Sunga female and Yakshi
figures on terracotta plaques, Sunga gaja-Lakshmi plaques, Mauryan and
Sunga elephant figurines, Kushan bull, horse, a horse-rider and bird-shaped
20
toy-carts, a hoard of one hundred and thirty-five fragmentary bone points,
gold plated earring, copper antimony rods, beads, bangles and a ring with a
lion figure belonging to the Maurya-Sunga times. Fifty silver and copper
coins were found from different levels including the punch-marked coins,
uninscribed cast copper coins, coins of Ayodhya rulers including those of
Dhanadeva and Kushan coins in copper.
More than four thousand animal remains from the site were studied by U.C.
Chattopadhyaya of the University of Allahabad. The animal taxa identified
include Zebu, i.e., humped Indian cattle (Bos indicus), buffalo (Bubalus
bubalis), horse (Equus caballus), sheep/goat (Ovis/Capra), spotted deer (Axis
axis), antelope (Antelope sp), wild boar (Sus scrofa), domestic pig (Sus scrofa
cristatus), pigmy hog (Sus silvanius), dog (Canis familiaris), cat (Felis sp.),
hare (Lepus sp.), common rat (Rattus rattus), bandicoot rat (Bandicota
bengalensis), tortoise (at least two species-Chitra indicus and Trionyx
gangeticus) and fish of large, medium and small size, and Aves including fowl
(Gallus galliformes).
The overall picture from the lowest to the uppermost levels at the site
suggests a predominantly domesticated economy in which cattle bones
have the largest representations. Other domesticated animals include
sheep/goat, pig, dog and cat. A large specimen (a molar) of horse from layer
7 of Trench ZA3 (Quadrant 3) suggests that domesticated horse was
introduced in this area. At the same time aquatic animals, like tortoise and
fish, constituted an important source of human diet. The remains of
bandicoot rat and common rat suggest well settled life, associated with
storing grains. A few wild animals were also hunted including wild boar,
pigmy hog, deer and antelope.
The fact that most of these species (excluding perhaps dog and cat)
constituted items of human diet as is shown by the characteristic cut and
chopping marks observed in the bones. Another important feature of faunal
assemblage is the occurrence of worked bones. A number of pieces from
cattle metatarsus (compact tissue) were flaked to give shape of bone tools.
4.3
Evidence of beef eating in the Gangetic plain during the Vedic
period
This is from my blog post here.
This excavation in Gorakhpur relates to a period before 200 BC. The precise dates
are not reported here but almost certainly during the later Vedic period. Source:
Indian Archaeology 1984-85 A Review.
===
98. Excavation at Narhan, District Gorakhpur.— In continuation of previous
year's work the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and
Archaeology of the Banaras Hindu University, under the direction of
Purushottam Singh assisted by Makkhan Lai, Ashok Kumar Singh and
Draft 3 April 2014
21
Indrajeet Singh resumed the excavation at Narhan with the objectives of
ascertaining the cultural-sequence on Mound-1 and obtaining further
details of the early historical settlement on Mound-2.
Mound-1, partly eroded by the river Ghaghara and partly covered by the
present day Narhan village measures 425 m east-west along the river and
230 m north-south. Eight 2m x 2m test pits dug in different parts of this
mound yielded one metre of thick deposit of painted black-and-red ware
culture. The excavation of Mound-2 further yielded interesting details of
early historical culture noted last year. The revised cultural sequence of the
site Is as follows: Period I represented by an average deposit of 1 m on
Mound-1 was marked by the occurrence of white painted black-and-red
ware, black-slipped ware with occasional paintings in white, red slipped
ware and plain red ware. The principal pottery types in black-and-red ware
were bowls, basins and vases. Dishes were conspicuous by their absence in
this ware. More than 20% sherds in the fine and medium fabrics of this
ware were painted.
The first settlers lived in wattle-and-daub houses. Remains of post-holes
and reed marks in burnt clay lumps have been found. Mention may be
made of a curious looking hearth, partly exposed in Trench 7.
Although the first settlers practised agriculture, meat was an important
component of their diet as is evidenced from the presence of charred
animal bones, some of them having cut marks. Bones of humped Indian
cattle (Bos indicus L.), sheep, goat (Ovis/Capra), remains of a wild
ruminant like deer or antelope (? Axis sp.) and horse (Equus sp.) have
been identified in the limited collection of bones studied so far.
The small finds included pottery discs in large numbers. Of these, four pieces were
perforated and might have been used as toy-cart wheels. Bone points accounted
for 15 pieces and nine terracotta beads were recorded. Other finds comprised two
terracotta dabbers and two balls, one each of terracotta and stone. No evidence
of any metal was reported so far from the limited dig.
Period II represented by an average deposit of 90 cm on Mound-1 was
marked by the absence of black-and-red-ware, either plain or painted, but
the frequency of black slipped ware increased in this period. Although red
slipped ware continued in limited quantity, plain red-ware was the
dominant ceramic industry. The principal shapes in black slipped ware were
bowls and dishes and in red-ware bowls, dishes, basins and vases. Amongst
the small finds, terracotta discs appeared for the first time while pottery
discs continued to occur in limited quantity. Among the bone points some
interesting shapes with punched circlet designs engraved on them were
noticed. Beads of glass, agate and terracotta, .daggers and balls and a
terracotta figurine of a horse constituted the small finds. Iron objects
included a chisel and a nail. It seems that towards the end of Period II, due
to the menace of the river Ghaghara the inhabitants moved to safer places
like Mound-2 and Amauli village to the north-east and west of Mound-1
respectively.
Period III was represented on Mound-2 by red-ware, thick grey ware, black
22
slipped ware, a few sherds of N.B.P. ware and a kind of cord impressed
pottery, the last one hitherto unrecorded from the sites of the middle
Ganges plain, except in the neolithic context at sites like Mahagara and
Koldihwa in the Vindhyan ranges which however, belongs to an altogether
different tradition. Red ware was the principal ceramic industry divisible
into three fabrics viz., fine, medium and coarse. The fine fabric comprised
of the characteristic bowls with in-curved or vertical featureless rim and a
flat base, carinated handi with almost rounded base, reported from the
middle level of this period. Basins with a nail headed externally collared
rim, lipped basins, jars with splayed out rim and a pear-shaped vase with
collared rim were reported in the medium fabric. Cooking vessels were the
principal type in coarse fabric. The grey-ware was generally of coarse fabric
with such types as medium sized dishes with pronounced in-curved sides.
Some fine sherds of this ware were comparable to those of the EG.VV. of
western U.P. and Haryana. The NB.P sherds were limited in number and
included dishes and bowls.
The structural remains of Period III comprised of mud brick houses
associated with wattleand-daub constructions in the lowest levels. Burnt
lumps of clay with reed marks were met with. A noteworthy feature was
the discovery of a storage jar buried under a house floor and a copper
vessel placed in inverted position against this storage jar. Other antiquities
of this period included copper and iron objects, beads, bangles, human
figurines, discs, toy-cart wheels – all of terracotta from the upper levels of
this period. A squarish cast copper coin having an elephant, taurine,
swastika and jeyadhvaja on the obverse and tree-in-railing, taurine symbol,
a three arched hill and a hollow cross on the reverse was also encountered.
Charred grains recovered from this period included rice (oriza sativa),
barley (hordeum vulgare), wheat (triticum aestivum and T.sphaerococcum),
kodon millet (Paspalum scrobiculatum), black gram (vigna mungo), green
gram (vigna radiata), pea (pisum sativum), khesari (lathyrun sativus) and
sesame (sesamum indicum). Fruit-stone of jujube (ziziphus mauritiana) and
endocarp pieces of anwala (phyllanthus emblica) have also been recovered.
A study of the mud plasters indicated that the earliest inhabitants of Period
III made use of bamboo for pole or beam and used reed plants of
saccharum spontaneum for their huts.
Impressions of some textile on the mud attached to a potsherd showed
that the inhabitants of Period III knew the spinning and weaving of cotton
fabrics.
One charcoal sample from the upper levels of Period IIIA (Sample
no.B.S.564) has been dated to2200 ± 100 BP while two others, both
coming from the middle level of Period III B (Sample nos. B.S. 563 and
581) gave the dates of 2240 ± 100 BP and 2100 ± 100 BP respectively.
Remains of Period IV which were recorded from Mound-2 were dominated
by red-ware industry. The important shapes were bowls, dishes, vases,
basins, sprinklers (P1.29) and lids. A complete specimen of sprinkler was an
Draft 3 April 2014
23
important discovery. Some of the sherds were decorated with stamped and
incised designs. Another noteworthy find was a jar stand with three
perforations. The structural remains were marked by the use of burnt
bricks (size 44 x 23 x 6 cm and 50 x 26 x 6 cm). A large room having two
phases of construction, made of burnt bricks and having several post-holes
cut into the burnt bricks ascribed perhaps to a third phase was exposed on
Mound-2. A ring-well with an inner diameter of 0.70 m and exposed up to
five courses of rings to a depth of 0.80 m was found to the south-west of
this room. A charcoal sample from the lowest level of this period (Sample
no. B.S. 582) has been dated to 2200 ± 100 BP.
Period V was represented by red-ware with usual shapes reported from
comparable levels of other sites. The structures of this period were found
to be robbed by villagers.
4.4
Beef was eaten in the Pune area at least till 1400 BC
This is from my blog post here.
This is from Indian Archaeology 1979-80: A Review. It deals with an area well outside the
Indus Valley civilisation but roughly coterminous with it. It confirms that beef was a regular
part of Indian diet in the Pune area during the period up to 1400 BC.
==
68. EXCAVATION AT INAMGAON, DISTRICT PUNE.—In continuation of last year's
{1978-79, pp. 52-53) work, Drs M. K. Dhavalikar and Z. D. Ansari of the Deccan
College Post-graduate and Research Institute, Pune, assisted by Drs M. D. Kajale,
P. K. Thomas, Miss Shubha Khandekar, Sarvashri V. S. Shinde and Y. S. Rasar,
resumed excavation, limiting the work to the early levels of the Malwa period
(Period I : dated to circa sixteen hundred to fourteen hundred B.C.) with a view
to studying the material culture of the first settlers of Inamgaon.
Excavation revealed that the earliest settlers are people belonging to the Malwa
culture with very developed traits, and they, while occupying the site for the first
time, levelled the uneven top surface of the black cotton soil by spreading a thick
deposit, as thick as 15 cm at places, of yellow silt quarried from the river bank.
The earliest houses exposed are large rectangular structures generally with a
single room but one house-complex (no. 94-99) had six rooms. The structures
were thatched one with wattle-and-daub walls. The floors were made of rammed
yellow silt and black clay. They were periodically repaired and relaid. House no.
101 had at least a dozen floor levels. The edges of the floors were raised along the
dwarf wall with a view to preventing rain water entering into the house. The
houses were generally provided with well-laid courtyards. Almost all the houses,
except no. 87, were oriented southeast-northwest. This orientation continued till
the end of the Period II, belonging to Early Jorwe, dated to circa fourteen hundred
to one thousand B.C.
A distinguishing feature of the earliest houses is their fire-pits which are of two
types. One of these is a large oval pit having a flat stone in the centre plastered
with mud obviously for supporting the cooking vessel. It may have been used for
roasting hunted animals as it is usually to be found outside the house in the
24
courtyard. The other type, which is more interesting, was usually found inside the
house but very rarely outside as well. It had an oblong shallow pit with a clay disc
not in the centre but nearer the curved end whereas the opposite end was meant
for inserting the fire-wood. The most curious feature of this type of fire-pit was
that it had mud wall around the clay disc. The wall was probably 12 to 15 cm in
height and was obviously provided for preventing the fire being extinguished by
wind.
Almost every house had a large deep pit silo which is betoken of the prosperity of
the occupants. Generally the silos were located in the courtyard but they were
also found inside the house as in no. 96. They were found plastered with lime
which might have served as insecticide. The grain was also stored in huge flatbottomed storage jars which were supported by a set of four flat stones as in
House no. 93. Two silos, associated with House no, 87, looked rather unfinished
because even the pick-marks could be seen and were not plastered with lime or
mud. Therefore it is possible that they were used for keeping poultry or birds as is
done today in the villages of Maharashtra.
Another characteristic feature of the Malwa culture, as was noticed earlier and
confirmed this year, was the burials. Only child burials have been discovered
whereas adult burials are conspicuously absent. The children were buried in two
globular jars placed mouth-to-mouth horizontally inside a pit dug in the floor of
the house. Of the two jars, sometimes one was of the Malwa variety; the grey
ware urns with globular body and flared rim were also common. The burial goods
kept inside the pit consisted of vessels of grey ware and painted Malwa ware.
The early settlers cultivated barley (Hordeum vulgare), millets, ragi, lentil and
peas. The people also subsisted on hunting and fishing. Among the animal bones
recovered, a good number are those of deer as well as domesticated
sheep/goat, cattle, buffalo, etc. They were slaughtered sometimes for food.
The pottery is represented by distinct wares such as the Malwa, coarse red and
grey and handmade storage jars. In the Malwa ware the spouted jar is as common
as in the Jorwe ware. Its occurrence is significant because it is absent at Malwa
sites in central India. Other important antiquities of the Period include: specialized
blade/flake industry of chalcedony; tools and beads of copper points made of deer
bone; terracotta objects such as Mother goddess figurines with or without head,
usually unbaked, a male figurine probably representing a divinity; and a good
number of beads of semiprecious stones.
4.5
Beef was commonly eaten in Rishikesh-Haridwar till 5th century AD
This is from my blog post here.
Here's the full text of a report in Indian Archaeology 1973-74, a Review. This is pretty
strong (I would argue conclusive) archaeological evidence of beef eating well after the
Indus Valley Civisliation period.
By this time Buddhism had achieved over 900 years, including many centuries of
dominance over Vedic Hinduism. The views of Buddhists were therefore adopted into
mainstream Hinduism. Vedic Hinduism was supplanted by a vegetarian version of
Hinduism.
62. EXCAVATION AT VIRABHADRA TEMPLE-SITE, RISHIKESH, DISTRICT DEHRA DUN.
Draft 3 April 2014
25
The North-western Circle of the Survey under Shri N. C. Ghosh, assisted by
Sarvashri R. P. Sharma, B. P. Saxena, A. S. Sariyal, M. M. Srivastava and Ashok
Kumar conducted excavation at the site where the structures and antiquities of
the early centuries of the Christian era had been noticed earlier (1963-64, p. 45).
The excavation was conducted with a view to ascertaining the culture sequence of
the site as also to reveal the nature of the structures. Two trenches, VBA-I and
VBA-II, measuring 5×5 m and 20 x 10 m respectively, were taken up at northwestern part and the mid-eastern edge of the mound. The occupational deposit
(3.90 m in VBA-I and 3.70 m in VBA-II) lies over the sandy water borne virgin soil
resting on a pebble bed. The entire period of occupation (circa second century
A.D. to circa eighth century A.D.) is divided into Early, Middle and Late phases on
the basis of pottery, coins, other antiquities and brick-sizes. The occupation at the
site, however, was continuous. Five structural phases and two floor levels in VBA-I
and seven structural and four floor levels in VBA-II were encountered.
The Early phase (circa first century to third century A.D.) was represented by
sprinklers of red polished ware, bowls of dull red ware with a vertically sharpened
rim and sides tapering to a flat thickened base, lid of dull red ware with ledged
shoulders, black-on-red ware sherds having motifs like hatched triangles, simple
bands, etc. The pottery from these levels shows marked similarity with that
obtained from the early levels of Period IV at Hastinapur and Saka-Kushan period
at Purana Qila, Delhi. To this evidence may be added a copper coin from the
earliest strata, having on the obverse a king (diademed) standing with right hand
over an altar, left hand out of flan, trident above altar, and on the reverse, twoarmed Siva standing, holding noose (?) in right hand and trident (?) in left hand,
behind him bull standing left, and Brahmi letter ma in the field. This example
belongs to the Kushan copper coinage of circa first-second century A.D.
The Middle phase (circa fourth-fifth century A.D.) is distinguished by a mouldmade bowl, kaolin sherds, sprinklers of inferior variety, cooking vessels with
indentations and lug ears on their rims, sherds, bearing motifs in relief in imitation
of jack fruit and ornamented bricks. Identical pottery and bricks were also
recovered from excavations at Ahichch-hatra and Kashipur from the Gupta and
post-Gupta levels.
In the Last phase (circa seventh-eighth century A.D.) most of the pottery types
were a continuation of preceding phase. A marked decline in potting technique
and stagnation in pottery shapes can be noticed. A silver coin, bearing a crude
human figure (?) on the obverse and dots and lines on the reverse was recovered
from the penultimate structural level. The coin is similar to Gadahiya issues and
provides a date for the end of the occupation at the site. No precise reason,
however, can be assigned for the desertion of the site. The occupation in the
Early, Middle and Late phases flourished practically under political hegemony
respectively of the Kushans, the Guptas and the Katuris (a local dynasty).
Structural remains from the Early phase of VBA-I were represented by a portion of
a mud-brick structure built in two phases. The phase I of the structure was
exposed to a length of 1 m with thirteen courses of mud-bricks (size: 36x24x7 cm)
laid irregularly in mud mortar. The next phase of this structure was raised right on
the top of the earlier phase. It was found damaged considerably by a later pit. The
walls of this phase form an outer corner of a room, the north-south wall
measuring 1-16 m, and the east-west 1.52 m. There was no change in brick-size or
in mortar from the earlier phase. Associated with this structure was a rammed
floor of earth and mud-lined circular hearth (dia. 44 cm). A number of unique
26
handmade vases with pinched bottom and burnt patches were noteworthy finds
from this phase. A bone tool, shaped out from a shaft piece, having secondary
retouch and tempered tips and sides was also recovered from this level along with
animal bones.
Structures from the Middle phase were jerry built. A wall of boulders and pebbles
was exposed to a length of 3 m. Mud-bricks were also seen to have been used in
this wall.
Structure belonging to the upper level was equally improvised and was
represented by a portion of a room. Boulders and pebbles were used as building
material. A wall built of baked brick robbed from nearby structure and pebbles
was exposed below the north-south wall of the room.
Unlike in the cutting VBA-I, structural activities in VBA-II started with baked bricks.
The first of the four structural phases of the early phase (pl. XL) was represented
by a wall measuring 0.90 m in length and 0.48 m in width, having two courses and
laid in slaked lime-mortar. Lumps of lime were also found alongside the wall. To
the next phase belong two walls and a brick-on-edge lined hearth with its opening
towards north. The third phase was marked by a corner of a room. The east-west
wall of this room runs to a length of 1.10 m, and the north-south to 1.36 m, the
width of both the walls being 48 cm. To this phase also belongs a portion of brick
floor of 1.05 m in area. The size of brick is 35x22x6 cm which roughly corresponds
to the normal size of bricks from Period IV of Hastinapur. Brick-bats, however, are
mostly used in construction.
Foundation of a temple with a linga, in Structure 1, (pl. XXXIX A) and a house
adjacent to it was laid bare in the mid-phase. The structure was partially exposed.
The southern edge of the structure running east-west was traced to a length of
5.70 m. The maximum available courses were twenty-two, including four of the
foundation. Two sizes of bricks, viz., 33x22x7 cm and 36x24x6 cm were found to
have been used. The former, however, were used in the foundation. The plinth is
embellished with two off-sets. The facade is plain but exhibits neat and careful
treatment in laying bricks. A large number of ornamented bricks were recovered
from the debris.
In the late phase the Structure 1 remained under use. To this was added another
structure referred to hereafter as Structure 2. The remains of the structure were
exposed about 20 m south of Structure 1. Structure 2 (pl. XXXIX B) was oriented
east-west and follows the same alignment as that of Structure 1. It is rectangular
on plan with an approach from the east. It had a paved floor and was relaid at
least for a second time in its life span. A l.65 m wide platform could be traced only
on two sides of the floor. Apart of the platform probably supported the
superstructure. Bricks of 28 x 22 x 7 cm size used here follow the standard size of
bricks in north India during the Gupta and late Gupta periods.
A house adjacent to Structure 1 with six rooms and a corridor was laid bare. The
house had two independent sets. The eastern set comprised a long room (3.60
x2.26 m) inter-connected with an adjacent room by a 0.80 m wide door. The doorframe was fixed in an inset angle of the wall. In the western set there were at
least four rooms. The rooms were on average 2.20 m square and were interlinked
by doors having varying widths of 60 cm and 70 cm. All the rooms were paved
with bricks except the corridor. Access to this set from the river side was through
a corridor (3.66 m long and 1.32 m wide). There was no indication of cooking
inside the rooms. It is interesting to note that iron spearheads, arrow-heads,
Draft 3 April 2014
27
plough-share and a sickle were recovered from inside and around the house.
Evidence regarding dietary habits of the people, as revealed by bones recovered
from the excavation, deserves special mention. Nearly eighty per cent of the
animal bones come from VBA-I while the remaining from VBA-II. It was seen that
while only cattle bones have been recovered from the latter, the former yielded
bones of both cattle and goat. The collection consists of fragments of long bone,
ribs and vertebrals and some molars. It was observed that animal bones were
confined to the early phase, the later phases being free from such remains. This
change could be linked with the establishment of Structures 1 and 2 which may
thus represent remains of temples.
Probably the present emphasis on vegetarianism in Rishikesh-Hardwar could be
traced back to circa sixth century A.D.
As a result of the operations in two selected areas of the mound, useful
information was gathered on the settlement pattern of this ancient township. On
the bank of the river (site VBA-II) structures were built of baked bricks right from
the earliest phase. In the next two phases massive religious structures and vast
complex of residential establishments attached to the above structures came up
in the area. In the south-eastern part of the mound (VBA-I), however, houses were
found to have been built of mud-bricks, boulders and pebbles. It would be
reasonable to argue, therefore, that the former area was preferred by the elite
and opulent, whereas laymen of the township dwelt further away. It is significant
to note that settlement pattern has remained unaltered through the centuries.
4.6
The precise method of cow slaughter in the Indus Valley Civilisation
This is from my blog post here.
A few days ago I chanced upon HD Sankalia's comment (which I recall seeing earlier as well
somewhere):
“After a survey of the evidence from various excavations since 1921, the doyen of
Indian archaeologists, H.D. Sankalia, has opined that ‘ the attitude towards cow
slaughter shows that until the beginning of the Christian era the cow/ ox were
regularly slaughtered for food and for the sacrifice etc., in spite of the preaching
of Ahimsa by Mahavira and the Buddha. Beef eating, however, did decrease owing
to these preachings, but never died out completely’ http://iisdb.stanford.edu/evnts/824/Panikkar_speech.pdf
I sporadically review evidence both in favour of and against beef eating in ancient India
because this is a MAJOR political issue in India, and so the true facts about this question
are important.
In this case, regardless of my deep respect for Sankalia, I'm not one to "believe" in Sankalia
blindly. I needed first hand evidence regarding actual studies and actual artefacts.
I don't care for Vedic/scriptural translations to that extent since these are highly debatable
and my problem is that I can't personally confirm which translator is right.
Archeological evidence is ALWAYS best in such cases. And I really appreciate this science. I
spent nearly two years in 1980-82 visting Deccan College in Pune tens of times (where my
cousin Arun Sabhlok was studying for a doctorate). I met all the faculty many times,
attended lectures by world-reknowned archaeologists, and visited the museum and
28
studied various artefacts.
While browsing google scholar today I chanced upon the first genuine proof I have about
cow slaughter in ancient Indian history: Harappan settlement of Gola Dhoro: a reading
from animal bones (Brad Chase, Social change at the Harappan settlement of Gola Dhoro:
a reading from animal bones, ANTIQUITY 84 (2010): 528–543)
This is the MOST CONCLUSIVE proof one can possibly get that Indus Valley Civilisation was
a MAJOR beef consuming civilisation.
These are specific illustrations about how cows were slaughtered in ancient Panjab:
This is not based on debatable Vedic translations.
The following discussion is based on a study of over 20 000 bone fragments
sampled from all spatial areas of the site during the first two occupational
phases at Gola Dhoro (Chase 2007: 50-82). In conjunction with the archaeological
context of deposits from which they derive, these observations suggest that the
faunal assemblages under consideration are largely comprised of domestic food
waste rather than the contents of more functionally specialised butchers’ dumps.
Given the greater frequency of their remains in conjunction with the larger body
size of cattle and buffalo, as compared to sheep and goats, it is clear that beef was
by far the most common meat consumed during Phase I. This pattern of heavy
reliance on the meat of large domesticates is characteristic of archaeological sites
in the region (Thomas et al. 1997) as well as throughout the Indus civilisation
more generally (Meadow 1989). Consumers obtained whole animals on-the-hoof
and processed them near the location where their meat was consumed and the
resulting bones discarded.
I will search some more, but one thing is now 100 per cent clear, that Ancient Panjabis
were MAJOR beef eaters.
==
Now comes the twist.
Prof. NS Rajaram argues that Harappan civilisation is Vedic. He writes: "Harappan
archaeology represents the material remains of the culture and civilization described in
the Vedic literature." [Source]
Now there are two possibilities: He is right or he is wrong.
If he is right then there is now 100 per cent evidence that the Vedic period was a MAJOR
beef eating period in India's history. But this contradicts those who use their own
translation of the Vedas to argue that the Vedic period did not involve cow slaughter. So is
Draft 3 April 2014
29
Prof. NS Rajaram right?
If he is wrong, then the Vedic period started post-Indus civilisation, which contradicts
those who believe that Vedas are older than 1900 BC (some Hindutva leaders have
suggested that the Vedas are well over 5000 years old – and I must admit I started thinking
in these lines myself, briefly!). I'm not passing any judgement on that since I've not had
time to examine this properly.
But one thing is very clear. You can't place the Vedas before 1900 BC and YET claim that
the cow was protected during the Vedic period.
There is a line in the sand which says that at least till 1900 BC India was a MAJOR beef
consumer.
4.7
Beef Eating in the Ancient Tamizhagam
This is from my blog post here.
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao (A paper presented during the 57th session of Indian History Congress
held at Madras from December 27-29, 1996).
Introduction: Eating of fish, mutton, beef, venison, meat in general is found in many
references in the ancient Tamil literature, hereinafter mentioned as “Sangam literature” for
convenience1. Though, emphasis has been given for food produced with the combination of
water and earth and thus, rice eating or vegetarian food2, it is evident that a differentiation
between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food was not made in those days. Surprisingly,
there have been many references which reveal about mixing of both vegetarian and nonvegetarian food together and taking by the ancient Tamils3. This again goes to prove that
religious restriction was not there or religion did not play any role in the food habits.
Though, scholars4 previously discussed about cattle-raiding / lifting vividly and compared
with “gogharana” of Vedic / Sanskrit literature, the subject of beef eating has not been
discussed by them. Definitely, they were perplexed by observing the contradictory habit of
beef-eating by the so-called “cattle-protectors”. They have dealt with the subject on the
basis of so called “Brahmanical interpretation” or “Sanskrtic interpretation” and perhaps,
thus totally missed the significance or prevalence of beef-eating in the supposedly
“Aryanized” Tamil / Dravidian society.
The transition from beef-eating to cow deification leading to banning of the former must
have taken place during the complete change over of the social factors with the strong
religious and political conditions and compulsions, that too within a short period, as it could
not have been implemented immediately. Then, the society should have been conducive
and favourable enough to accept such change.
Man has every right to eat anything. He can eat beef, mutton, pork, fish, venison or meat of
any animal or bird. If he wants, he can eat man also, as history is replete with many such
examples. During food shortage, the concept of “survival of the fittest” works faithfully
according to the principles of natural selection and evolution. Then, when he must have
shunned a particular flesh for eating? Why he should have stopped eating man at a
particular time? Why vegetarianism should be advocated against non-vegetarianism? The
answers to these questions should be found only in the cultured, refined, advanced and
civilized society. When the ancient Tamils stopped beef-eating, shunned meat and
advocated vegetarianism, definitely such exigency could have arisen due to well planned
design to change.
Different words used for meat: Many words have been used in the literature to denote
meat of different varieties5. They are Un (meat), Thu, Thasai (flesh), Thadi, Ninam (fat), Pulal
30
(dried meat with smell / dried salt-fish), Vidakkudai, Muri (removed flesh) characteristically.
References found about Beef-eating
: The specific references found in the Sangam literature about beer-eating are mentioned
and discussed.
Mazhavar ate the flesh of a fatty cow in the palai (desert) region (Agam.129:12).
The place where Mazavar killed a calf and ate its flesh was filled with the bad smell (pulal
visum) of meat, again in the palai region (Agam.249:12-13).
A fatty cow was sacrificed at the bottom of a neem tree where a God resided, its blood
sprinkled and then its flesh cooked by the Mazhavar – Vetch virar – warriors who captured
cows during their raids from the depradators – Karandai, again in the palai region
(Agam.309:1-5).
A Panan, with the instrument “Tannumai” killed a calf, stripped off and ate its flesh, in the
marudha region (Nat.310.9). As the instrument is mentioned along with his act of killing a
calf, it may be implied that the leather used for it might be that of a calf. Tannumai is a
leather instrument, used to beat to drive away cattle lifter and Aralai kalavar or to warn
about their presence and attack. Here, the irony is the “Tannumai” made of calf-leather is to
be used to drive away the “cattle-lifters”, though, the “Tannumai”-player happened to be –
not only a beef-eater, but also not a “cattle-protector”. Therefore, from the above
references, Mazhavar, Aalai kalvar, Panar resorted to beef-eating.
Leather usage and Cattle-killing
: Leather usage implies obtaining such leather from the dead or killed cattle. References are
there how leather was obtained after the death of bull / ox. Agananuru and Purananuru6
refer to it: In a bull fight, the victorious bull is taken and its leather is used for the
manufacture of Royal drum / tabour, implying the skin of fallen bull / or ox after killing is
used for the purpose mentioned and the flesh for eating. Accordingly, it is evident that bull /
ox was killed wantonly for the purpose mentioned. But, again there was no evidence for
killing a cow in the context.
The references found about the usage of such leather for drums / tabours are as follows:
ó The skin of an Ox, which was without any blemish and not used in any other work, was
used to cover the drum (Madu.732-733).
ó The skin of a beautiful Ox, which daringly killed a tiger, was selected for covering the drum
(Agam.334).
ó Two Bulls were selected and made them to fight. Of which, the winner’s skin was used for
the drum (Puram.288).
Why Beef should be eaten? Eating of flesh of cow or for that matter any animal, that too
raw with blood, shows the status of the evolutionary man at lower pedestal determined by
archaeological factors. Then, justification of beef-eating based on the following arguments
put forward by advanced, civilized and scientific man do not hold water:
1. Beef is nutritious, cheaper, easily available, and digestible – cow-protection can thus
be controlled effectively. Cows are bred and protected for their value.
2. Scientific and rational – though sanctioned in a particular religion etc., there is no
meaning in continuance of keeping the aged cattle.
Therefore, if the ancient Tamils were eating beef, mutton, meat, fish etc., singing Sangam
poems, then, their status should be carefully assessed. Again, it may be noted that beefeating in such an advanced, civilized and refined state would not deprive their status.
Draft 3 April 2014
31
How were cows available for killing
? Was there any organized cow killing during Sangam period for beef-eating with abattoirs?
The answer is definitely not, as we do not come across breeding of cows, capturing cows of
others – using, buying cows from others for the purpose, milking till they last and then killing
for beef and leather. The act of Mazhavar / Kalvar / Panar shows their barabaric, uncivilized
and uncultured nature, as there are references, where they used to kill travelers also
irrespective of their status and hide their bodies covering7. Again, it is not specifically
mentioned in the literature as to whether they were keeping the human bodies for
concealing from others to hide their inhuman crime or for other purposes to suspect
cannibalism. Then, one cannot become wild, when it was prevalent in the golden age of
Sangam literature or “Aryans” cannot be blamed for.
If the “Aryanization” had been complete and total or the influence of Jains and Buddhists
was so predominant, then, the ancient Tamil literature should not have given a mosaic food
habit of the Tamils. Archaeological evidences of megalithic culture8, which have been
compared with the Sangam, period as depicted by the literature itself give such mosaic
picture with contradicting food habits. The main problem is due to the clear mixing up of
poems together belonging to different periods under the category of “Sangam literature”
restricted it to c.500 BCE to 500 CE or 300 BCE to 300 CE. Therefore, the issue should be
analyzed without racial and linguistic bias, prejudice and bigotry.
Beef-eating and Priests: Whether the “priestly class” of the Sangam society ate beef? Did
“Brahmans / Brahmins” stop meat-eating to project themselves as superior to ahimsa
preaching Jains? These are the interesting and crucial questions to be covered in the
context.
The presence of a priestly class in a society should be a normal indicator for an established
religion or popular religion acceptable to the majority of people, so their influence could
create an impact on the fellow members. However, such a priestly class of the Sangam
society should only be “Brashmans / Brahmins” as has been popularly believed is not
supported by the Sangam literature, as no “Brahman / Brahmin” word is found.
Though, P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar discussed about “Brahmans” eating meat quoting Kapilar, but
he was silent about his reference about rice-eating (Puram.337:13-15). Kapilar addresses to
a Chera king, “Your hands have become hard due to warfare and giving alms to poets,
whereas, the hands of poets have become soft, as they used to sing about you and eat
smelling meat, seasonings of food, curry and boiled with rice with meat” (Puram.14:12-14).
Again, at another place, when he leaves Parambunadu, he praises it, “You used to provide us
opened jars filled with liquor, slayed rams, boiled rice and curry with friendship. Now, as Pari
was dead, I am going away from you ………(Puram.113:1-3). Taking these references, P. T.
Srinivasa Iyengar interprets that Kapilar himself as desiring them as reward of his poems.
However, none has pointed out significantly that they ate beef also. The famous and
favourable argument put forward by some scholars is that the meat / beef-eating Brahmans
suddenly stopped it to promote cow-protection to project themselves to superior to ahimsapreaching Jains or they had to fight the atheistic Jains and Buddhists were preaching and
practicing non-violence, they should and could not have been so cruel to meat / beef eating,
so that the Brahmans could found an ingenous trict to take over them.
The glaring example of Kalabras and their attitude towards Tamils, in spite of their Jaina or
Buddhist religious affiliation is a clear mark of contradiction. So also the contradicting
position of the meat eating Buddhists, as they were preaching love, ahimsa etc., at one side
and eating meat at another side. Definitely, this must have created a strong impression
upon the minds of the men and women of Sangam society. If we take the example of
Kapilar, it can be said that only certain Parppar ate meat, but not all Parppar. Moreover,
32
nothing is mentioned to prove that Andanar, Aruthozhilalar, Aravor, Maraiyavar,
Muppirinulor, Pusurar, Vedhiyar, Mudhalvar, Kuravar and other classes of Sangam society,
who are also considered as “Brahmans / Brahmins” ate meat. As the Vela Parppar were
cutting conch shells and manufacturing bangles, there might have been some Parppar eating
meat as referred to by Kapilar.
Incidentally, the conch-shell bangle manufacture involves removal of fleshy material from
inside, cleaning it and then used for further processing. A Brahman by nature might not be
accustomed to do such undesirable act. Therefore, a question arises as to whether he
himself does such work or the Vela-Parppan group received cleaned conch-shells for cutting,
sawing, polishing and painting completing the process of manufacture.
Therefore, as for as Tamizhagam is concerned, the argument that “Brahmans / Brahmins”
ate beef or stopped beef eating to browbeat Jains and Buddhists in their maneuvers has no
basis at all, as nothing is mentioned in the Sangam literature. The failure of Jainism and
Buddhism in Tamizhagam proves the impossibility of co-existence of contradictory precept,
preaching and practices. Therefore, if beef-eating Brahmins were performing yagnas or cow
were sacrificed during yagnas, definitely, they would have been opposed by the public for
their contradiction or totally wiped out from the society or they would not have been
recognized and respected. What had happened to Jains and Buddhists should have
happened to them also. But, that the atheist groups dwindled down proves the minimal
acceptance of such contradicting practices. If general public had hated anything against their
culture, tradition and heritage, definitely, such practices could not have been imposed on
them, whether such method of imposition was carried out overtly or covertly with authority
or submission.
When Cow was deified? The cow protecting communities were living in the Mullai region of
the Sangam geography, Mayon (the Black one) or Tirumal (sacred mountain, ancient
mountain, Black) or Nediyon (the Lengthy / Tall One, Great) was their God, who is identified
with Vishnu or Krishna. Though, Indra Vizha (festival of Indra, the god of Marudha nilam) is
mentioned, deification of cow or festival of cows is not found. Neither he nor Mayon is
implied as “Govindan or “Gopalan” (= protector or saviour of cows). As Krishna stopped the
celebration of festival meant for Indra, after his victory over him and advised their followers
to celebrate the same in the his name, there should have been some “Vizha”
commemorating him, but we do not find any festival meant for Mayon, except “Tainniradal”
by women. The name “Kannan” equivalent to of “Krishna” has been so popular in the
literature, as even pots have it as suffixes. As he is the god of mullai region, automatically,
the cow should have also received due respect theologically. As Pongal festival has closely
been associated with cow deification and the culture of the ancient Tamils, it is implied that
such deification of cow might have begun, as supported by the Neolithic / megalithic cattle
keepers, periodical burning of cow-pans etc. however, deification of cow is also not found in
the Sangam literature, in spite of many references about cow and cattle-raidings and this,
again clearly proves the independent food habit of the ancient Tamils or non-infiltration of
the so called “Aryan influence” or principles of the Tamil society.
The different words used for cow in the literature are – a, an, aninam, aniral, avinam, anirai
etc. The Vedic names for cow are aghnya, ahi, aditi etc. In fact, they mean aghnya = not to
be killed, ahi = not to be slaughtered, aditi = not to be cut into pieces. Therefore, it is
evident, that the Tamil words used to denote cow also started to convey such meaning and
thus, they were to be protecxted by Kings and others.
Protectors of Cows: Though, Kovalar, Idaiyar, Kongar, Ayar, Andar and other communities
specifically lived depending upon cattle with Mayon as their God, it could not prevent
Mazhavar / aralai kalvar of Palai from preventing killing of cows and beef-eating, even
though, they were also supposedly worshipping Kotravai, who is nothing but sister-in-law of
Draft 3 April 2014
33
Mayon, according to the interpretation of the commoners. On the other hand, the cattle
lifters were Kalvar, Mazhavar, Panar, Maravar and Vadugar. And all were part of the Sangam
society and considered “Dravidians”. But, how then certain groups of “Dravidians” had been
“cow-slaughterers” and some others “Cow-protectors” is not known.
Protection of Cows: the emphasis is given in the literature for the protection of cows is also
noted9. Netrimaiyar (Velalar by caste), a Tamil poet records that cows having the character
of weak should be protected, by grouping such categories – cow, women and the sick.
Another poet, Alattur Kizhar (Vellalar) notes that the crime of cutting off of a udder of a cow
tops the list of heinous crimes committed by anybody. Then comes the destruction of foetus
of pregnant ladies and crime committed against “kuravar”, implying priestly class.
Tiruvalluvar10 also emphasizes in more or less in the same way. He says that there is
redemption for any sin / crime committed against good act, but not against ingratitude.
Again in another place, he points out that if ruler does not rule or protect properly, the fruits
of cows would decrease and those with six duties (Arutozhilalatr) forget their books /
scriptures. Therefore, it is evident that the respect for cows and its protection got
importance in the Sangam society. Moreover, another important point should be noted is
that why Velalar should advocate cow protection, while Anthanar / Parppar poet Kapilar was
aping for meat, if not for beef. Tiruvalluvar is quoted here, as he has been totally against
flesh-eating of anykind.
Yagnas and Cows: Vedic infiltration has been detected at many places, because of the
performance of yagna by the Tamil kings and so on. Palyagasalai Mudhukudimi
Peruvazhudhiyan, as his name connotes a Pandya King, performer of many yagnas with
lengthy tuft, but not in a poem referring to his yagnas records about the cow sacrifice.
Rasasuyam was also performed by a Chola King by earning name “Rasasuyam Vettiya
Perungilli”. But, no reference of sacrifice of “horse” in Rasasuyam is there, though goat was
sacrificed repeatedly by Velan to please Murugu / Muruga / Murugan during Veriyadal. If
beef-eating was so intimately connected with or mandatory for yagnas, then, definitely, it
should have been mentioned to record its performance.
Sanction and Prohibition of Beef
: Sanction or prohibition of eating anything starts from the association of it with God,
Prophet or religion itself. Ample examples can be seen in the world religious literature about
such evolution as pointed out by Frazer, Blavatsky and others. Depending upon myth,
theology and social necessity, such evolution mostly embraces economic factors. That is why
economic or social necessity gets sanctified with religious order or political dominance with
authority enforced. So also prohibition starts for producing counter factors. Thus, what is
sanctioned in one religion is prohibited in another religion and vice versa. Thus, beef-eating,
pork-eating, carrion-flesh eating, fish eating etc., are sanctioned and prohibited in the world
religions.
Beef eating and yagna practices were definitely prevalent among the ancient Tamils.
Therefore, if combination of such could have been effected, had they been really any such
affinity between and necessity for them. Even, the invading, alien culture imposing or
“dominating Aryans” could have manipulated it seizing the wonderful prevailing
opportunity. But, neither the Aralai kalvar stopped their beef-eating without yagnas nor the
“Aryanized kings” performed yagnas killing cows. Here, the “Aryan-Dravidian” interpretation
falls down completely.
Chronological Puzzles: Moreover., the Jaina and Buddhist infiltration could have been taken
place during 3rd. century BCE. But, their scholarly works, mostly covered under
Padinemkizhkanakku, which strongly advocate non-abstinence from meat, praise of
vegetarianism etc., are dated to 1st to 8th cent. CE. Therefore, if the priestly class was already
34
sacrificing cows in the yasgnas and eating beef, why they should have started to write
against it later period? Why their persecution should start in the 8th cent. CE, when they
were already supporting vegetarianism, non-eating of meat etc?
It is also intriguing to note the Neolithic and megalithic Tamils with Iron technology were
composing Sangam literature and leading refined, cultured and advanced social life as
depicted in the literature itself, but historians dub them as living in “barabaric condition” or
in a “tribal state” without any “state formation”.
Archaeological Evidences: There are many archaeological evidences found at Neolithic and
megalithic burials prove the mixed food habit of the ancient Tamils11. Lower Neolithic
people were leading pastoral life heavily depending upon cattle and agriculture, tallying with
the depiction of mullai region. Upper neoloithic people were practicing mixed farming, a
combination of fishing (hooks found), hunting (different hunting implements, charred bone
showing roasting of meat, cut marks on the bones proving the extraction of marrow from
them etc) and gathering (deer, squirrel, tortoise, udumbu = guna lacerta ignana etc),
domestication of animals (cattle, sheep, pigs, fowls – Gaudhar = patridge, kadai = quail etc)
and agriculture (growing rice, ragi, maize, millets, horse gram etc).
The nature of settled life led is proved by the megalithic evidences. Food habits show more
or less the same pattern as that of Neolithic culture with more refined implements. Use of
ferrous and non-ferrous technology was however prevalent with both the cultures. As the
archaeological evidences of both cultures overlap or exhibit almost similar structure and
carbon datings have extremities of c.3000 to 300 BCE, a thorough study in consonance with
literary study may reveal further interesting details about the Sangam society.
Conclusion: Based on the above discussion, the following conclusions are arrived at:
È Sangam society as depicted in the Sangam literature adated and adopted mixed food
habit.
È Beef-eating was prevalent in the Sangam period without any religious compulsion or
restriction.
È Aralai kalver / Mazhavar / Panar etc., ate beef. Some of the Parppar might have eaten
meat, but not beef and such Parppar did not belong to priestly class or engaged in the
performance of yagnas.
È Yagnas were performed, but no cow, horse or any animal was sacrificed.
È Mostly goat and cock were sacrificed during veriyadal and other occassins and cow in few
occasions to please nature, but such sacrificial rites cannot be considered yagnas. Similarly,
“Kala velvi”, the so called yagnas conducted at the battle fields as depicted by the poets, is
nothing to do with “velvi”.
È Chronologically, nothing could be specifically mentioned about the starting and
introduction of beef-eating in the Tamizhagam based on the evidence of religion and
theology.
È Racial and linguistic interpretation does not help to find facxts about the Sangam society.
È The exact penetration of “Krishna myth” and worship of cow as “Goddess” into the minds
of the ancient Tamils must had taken place, if Mayon is a “Black Dravidian God”, since time
immemorial based on the literary evidence.
Notes and References
1. In Pattuppattu and Ettuttogai, as there have been hundreds of references about the
topic and sub-topics dealt with in this paper, for the sake of convenience and sace constraint
only selected poem references are given.
Draft 3 April 2014
35
Venison = meat of deer (Puram.33: 1-6; 152.26).
Fork (Puram.177:12-16; 379:8; Porunatru.343-345; Malai.175-177).
Elephant (Agam.106:10).
Tortoise (Puram.212:3).
Porcupine (Malai.176).
Fowl (Puram.320:11; 324:2).
2.
Puram. 18: 19-24: 186:1.
3.
Mixing of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food together:
Puram. 14:13 – Meat with rice and vegetable curry.
Venison with butter – 33:1-6
Milk with the flesh of deer – 168:12-16
Chicken, bird and fish with millet – 320:10-11.
Mutton with rice – 366:16-18
Pork roasted in ghee and mixed with rice 379:8-10.
Meat with rice mixed with milk, jaggery etc – 381:1-3.
Roasted meat in ghee mixed with rice – 382: 8-10.
Meat with rice – 391:3-6.
Rabbit meat with old rice – 395: 3-5.
Flesh of rabbit with rice – 396:12-13.
Venison with rice – 398: 13-14,
Meat, fish with fruits – 399:1-6.
Malai. 422-425; 563-566.
Agam. 60:3-6.
Natri.41:8; 45”6; 60:6; 281:6.
4.
P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar,
History of Tamils from the Earliest times to 600 A. D
., C. Coomarasamy Naidu & Sons, Madras, 1929, Madras.
He, while discussing about meat-eating by Brahmans, wonders as to when and why South
Indian Brahmanas (part of ancient Tamil society) gave up meat-eating being an interesting
problem. He concludes that with the rise of Bakti cult and teaching kf Jainas, theyt gave up
meat = eating to become first teachers of Vaishnava and Saiva Agamas (pp.121-122).
Though he quiotes Kapilar to prove that Brahmans ate meat, he has not specifically noted
that they ate beef also. In fact, Kailar talks about eice eating in a poem (Puram 337:14).
N. Subramaniam, Sangam Polity, Ennes Publications, Madurai, 1980.
M. G. S. Narayanan,
Social History from the Text Book of Poetrics in The Sangam Age
(A Study of Tolkappiyam – Section IV. Porulatikaram), Proceedings of Indian History
Congress, Calcutta, 1990, p.96.
He wonders about the cow protectors becoming cow sacrifiucers and eaters. He comments:
“The cow protectors of Prof. Subramaniam appear in fierce light as cow sacrificres and cow
36
eaters in another song in the same collection”.
He again accuses him for interpreting vetchi as the opening in war, meant for protecting the
valuable life of the cows which could not protect themselves. “However, the present writer
found a group of poems in Purananuru which gave an entirely different picture, singing the
praise of the warrior chiefs who would go to neighboring villages, plunder the cattle and
make a grand feat with meat and drink or distribute them in gifts to their followers. These
poems received the true nature of the tribal practice”.
But, he is totally wrong as the reference is found in Agananuru and not in Purananuru.
Moreover, the so called warriors are “Mazhavar” who are in the habit of committing
heinous crimes including killing the travelers as pointed out above.
C. E. Ramachandran,
Ahananuru in its Historical Setting
, University of Madras, Madras, 1974, pp.72-74.
Though, references about beef-eating are available in Agananuru, he is conspicuously silent
about it in his work, while discussing about food habits of the ancient Tamils.
F. R. Allchin,
Neolithic Cattle Keepers of South India
, Cambridge University Press, London, 1963.
He records that the bones recovered almost all from living areas wewre mosytly cut up as if
purposes of food (p.174). though over 200 specimen of cattle bones were identified, he
opines that it is not clear whether this indicates the presence of two separate breeds one
milch variety and the other used for transport and ploughing purposes (p.45). in
introduction, he mentions about the western attitude towards cows, cowdung, cow
worship, gosalas etc., (pp.ix-x).
5.
Un
Thu
Puram.14.13; 96.6; 381:1-3; 382:8
Padit.51:33.
Dhasai Puram.14:12-16, 64:3-4; 74:1-2; 168:6-10; 235:6-7; 396:15-16;
Pernatru. 336, 343-345,
Malai. 175-177, 422-426, 563-566.
Agam.60:3-6; 193:6-10; 265:12-17;
Nat.120:5-6.
Kali.104:52-53.
Pari.4:19-21.
Ninam Puram.150.9; 152.26; 325:9; 396:12.
Vidakkudai Natri.281.6.
Muri
Puram. 391:5.
6.
Agam. 334:1-3; Puram. 288: 1-4; Madurai.732-733.
7.
Nat. 252:2-3.
Kurun.77:2-3
Agam.113:18; 161:2-4; 175:1-6; 313: 12-132.
8.
S. Gurumurthy, Archaeology and Tamil Culture, University of Madras, Madras, 1974,
Draft 3 April 2014
37
p.25.
He asserts that megalithic people were living during the Sangam period and it can be put
within 1000 to 500 BCE and the Sangam literature shows their cultural traits.
9.
Puram.9:1-2; 34:1.
10. Tirukkural.110, 560.
11. A. Ghose (Ed.), An Encyclopedia of Indian Archaeology, 2 vols.,, Munshiram Manoharlal,
New Delhi, 1989.
K. S. Ramaschandran, Neolithic Cultures of India, Department of Archaeology, Madras,
1980.
B. K. Gururaja Rao,
The Megalithic Culture in South India
, University of Mysore, Mysore, 1982.
S. B. Deo,
Problem of South Indian Megaliths
, Karnatak University, Dharwar, 1974.
4.8
Other archaeological evidence of meat/beef eating in India
This is from my blog post here.
1) 51. EXCAVATION AT LAL QILA, DISTRICT BULANDSHAHR.— [Indian Archaeology 1969-70
A Review]
Thermoluminiscence dating of a few potsherds of the Ochre Colour Ware from the site,
conducted by the Archaeological Research Laboratory at Oxford, indicate a mean date of
1880 B.C. Besides other finds, animal bones were found in large numbers. The cut-marks,
present on many of them, suggest that meat was the staple diet. Evidence of some grains
(cereal), suggesting agriculture as a subsidiary occupation, was also available.
2) 62. EXPLORATION IN DISTRICT UDAIPUR. VEDIC PERIOD [Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.]
While the occurrence of animal bones attested to a meat diet, querns, pounders and
rubbers indicated a grinding-activity suggestive of the use of grains, though no grains were
obtained.
3) 81. EXCAVATION AT NARHAN, DISTRICT GORAKHPUR.— [Indian Archaeology 1985-85 A
Review]
Deep pits cut into the natural soil containing pottery fragments, animal bones, antlers and
loose ashy earth were encountered. Some of the bones and antlers bearing cut mark and
occasionally charred, indicated that meat was an important component of their diet.
Remains of charred grains were collected by flotation technique.
4) 9. EXCAVATION AT RAMAPURAM, DISTRICT KURNOOL. [Indian Archaeology 1980-81 A
Review]
[note this is from possibly a pre-Vedic period]: People domesticated animals like Bos
indicus (cattle), Bubalus bubalis (buffalo), Capra aegagrus (goat), Oris aries (sheep), Sus
scrofa cristatus (pig), etc. It is interesting to know that there is some indication for killing
cattle at a very advanced age. If the cattle was kept only for food purposes, the inhabitants
38
would have killed these animals at an early age, possibly around the age of three when the
meat is tender and in plenty. It is possible, therefore, that the inhabitants kept these as
domesticated animals, some of them being used for agricultural purposes. As there is a
scarcity of vertabrae, ribs and lower parts of the limb-bones in the collection, it seems that
majority of these animals were slaughtered outside the habitation and later the fleshbearing parts brought in. The inhabitants supplemented their food economy by
occasionally hunting wild animals like Cervus Unicolor (sambar), Gazella Gazella (chinkara)
and birds. It is also certain that they exploited aquatic resources like mollusc and fish. The
presence of a few pieces of marine shells indicate that the people might have contacts with
outsiders living nearer the sea.
5) 1. Excavation at Gandlur, District Guntur.— [Indian Archaeology 1983-84 A Review]
[Note: This is neolithic, i.e. pre-Vedic] From inside the pits of the dwelling complex, objects
of household use were recovered. These included a fragmentary quern, several mullers,
pounders, belt hammers, a few stone axes, microliths, dabbars, clay and steatite beads and
one terracotta lamp, which interestingly has a tubular provision for inserting wick. Clods of
burnt earth were a recurrent phenomenon in the pits; a complete hearth except for one
near the rim of the quardrupartite pit was not noticed elsewhere. Pottery and animal
bones have been found both inside and outside the dwelling pits. Occasionally full pots in
fragments were also present in the pits. The pottery was handmade with coarse fabric.
Most of the animal bones appear to be of cattle. There were many cut and charred bones
of cattle, probably suggesting consumption of beef. Food grains were also recovered from
the dwelling pits which throw some valuable light on the agricultural practices and dietary
habits of the people.
6) 65. Excavation at Ganeshwar, District Sikar [Indian Archaeology 1983-84 A Review]
[Note: this is probably from the Indus/pre-Vedic/copper age] A preliminary study of the
available bones revealed three groups of animals (1) animals which were in the process of
domestication like cattle, sheep and goat, swine, dog, ass, camel and fowl, (2) animals that
lived in the houses or in the vicinity of township like hog, shrew, rat, etc. and (3) wild
animals including those hunted for food like Nilgai, antelope, deer, hyena, wild bore, wolf,
comb duck, hare, rabbit and fresh water fish. In case of the bones of cattle, fish, fowl,
sheep, goat and wild animals, a number of them bore cut marks, besides being occasionally
charred, pointing to their use as food. Evidence for extraction of bone marrow from various
bones was also observed.
7) 90. Excavation at Damdama (Warikalan), District Pratapgarh.[Indian Archaeology 198384 A Review]
[Note: this is pre-Vedid] The excavations at the site brought to light a large number of
animal bones belonging to cattle, sheep/goat, ass, deer, stag, tortoise, fish, birds, in
charred, semi-charred or unchar-red condition. The availability of these bones at the site in
such a large number furnished evidence not only about the hunting economy of the people
but also about the range of animals roaming in the area at that time. Besides, the
assemblage also gave some indication about the prevailing climatic conditions during the
Mesolithic times in this part of the Ganga Valley.
8) 28. EXCAVATION AT PRABHAS PATAN, DISTRICT JUNAGADH.— [Indian Archaeology
1976-77 A Review]
Interesting feature of the collection is that the bones of horse (Equus caballus) and fish
were found only in the early historical period. Bones of cattle (Bos indicus), sheep (ovis
orientalis vignei), goat (capra hircus aegagrus) and pig {Sus scrofa cristatus) are found
right from chalcolithic to early historical periods, in almost all levels. Bones of camel
(camelus dromedarius) occur in the chalcolithic and early historical periods. Most of the
Draft 3 April 2014
39
bones collected belong to the domesticated animals, except two wild examples of Sambar
(Cervus unicolor) and Chital (Axis axis). A few bones of turtles (possibly Trionyx) and
rodents have also been collected.
9) 49. EXCAVATION AT DAIMABAD, DISTRICT AHMEDNAGAR.— [Indian Archaeology 197576 A Review]
[Note this is chalolithis, i.e. Vedic/pre-Vedic] A preliminary study of the plant remains
found elsewhere in this Phase by Shri Kajale of the Deccan College Post-graduate and
Research Institute, Pune, revealed that wheat, barley, rice, ragi, safflower, jowar, gram,
peas and lentil were cultivated. The large number of animal bones indicate that meat
formed an important part of the diet of the chalcolithic people. The animal skeletal
remains belonged to sheep, goat, cattle, horse, buffalo, dog, tortoise and fish.
DENTAL RECORD
It is not just the prevalance of animal bones that matter in providing insights into meat
eating in ancient India. The dental record also matters. It can corroborate the findings of
animal bones, since the teech of meat eaters change (and become different) to the teeth
of those who eat less meat. An incidental feature of this information is that in the past
Indians very often did not cremate, but buried their dead. Most human skeletons
recovered in ancient India are from burial sites. The following article corroborates the wide
prevalence of meat eating in north India in the mesolithic period (around
Mesolithic Subsistence in North India: Inferences from Dental Attributes, by John R.
Lukacs and J. N. PalSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 5 (Dec., 1993), pp. 745-765.
Research on the vertebrate faunas from MDH and DDM is still in progress, but preliminary
identifications suggest a wide diversity of mammals, birds, reptiles, gastropods, and fish.
The presence of bison, elephant, and hippopotamus in these contexts lends support to the
idea of a moister climate than today’s. Many of the animal bones are charred, most are
recovered from hearths, and many yield evidence of cut marks. Taken together, these
observations point to the importance of meat in the diet. This interpretation is
counterbalanced, however, by the fact that querns and grinding stones are among the
most frequently found stone objects at MDH and DDM, attesting to the dietary
significance of gathered wild grains and roots.
Caries prevalence is dramatically greater at Harappa. The key differences are attributable
to the tendency for the Gangetic Plains samples to show severe dental wear, dental
abscessing and antemortem tooth loss attributable to wear rather than caries, a greater
prevalence of calculus (reflecting higher meat consumption), and a greater prevalence of
alveolar resorption resulting from heavy masticatory stress in combination with calculus
deposition.
40
5.
Evidence of beef eating in non-Vedic literature of
ancient India
5.1
DN Jha’s conclusion re: beef eating in non-Vedic texts
The subsequent Brahmanical texts (e.g. Grhyasutras and Dharmasutras) provide ample
evidence of the eating of flesh including beef. Domestic rites and rituals associated with
agricultural and other activities involved the killing of cattle. The ceremonial welcome of
guests (sometimes known as arghya but generally as madhuparka) 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 meat mandatory in the madhuparka — an injunction more or
less dittoed by several later legal texts. The sacred thread ceremony for its part was not all
that sacred; for it was necessary for a snataka to wear an upper garment of cowhide.
Next in point of time is the law book of Yajnavalkya (AD 100-300) who not only enumerates
the kosher animals and fish but also states that a learned brahmana (srotriya) should be
welcomed with a big ox or goat, delicious food and sweet words. That the practice of flesh
eating and killing cattle for food was customary right through the Gupta period and later is
sufficiently borne out by references to it found in the Puranas and the Epics.
Several Puranictexts, we are told, bear testimony to the feeding of brahmanas with beef at
the funeral ceremony, though some of them prohibit the killing of a cow in honour of the
guest and others recommend buffalo sacrifice for the goddess atDurga Puja, Navaratri,
or Dasara.
The evidence from the epics is quite eloquent. Most of the characters in
the Mahabharata are meat eaters.Draupadi promises to Jayadratha and his retinue
that Yudhisthira would provide them with a variety of game including gayal, sambara and
buffalo. The Pandavas seem to have survived on meat during their exile.
TheMahabharata also makes a laudatory reference to the king Rantideva in whose kitchen
two thousand cows were butchered each day, their flesh, along with grain, being distributed
among the brahmanas. Similarly the Ramayanaof Valmiki makes frequent references to the
killing of animals including the cow for sacrifice and for food. Ramawas born after his
father Dasaratha performed a big sacrifice involving the slaughter of a large number of
animals declared edible by the Dharmasastras. Sita, assures the Yamuna, while crossing it
that she would worship the river with a 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 Marica, a deer in disguise. Bharadvaja welcomes Rama by slaughtering a
fatted calf in his honour.
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, the early Puranas and the two epics.
Caraka, Susruta and Vagbhata provide an impressive list of fish and animals and all three
speak of the therapeutic uses of beef. The continuity of the tradition of eating beef 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. More than two
centuries later, Bhavabhuti refers to two instances of guest reception, which included the
killing of heifer. In the tenth century, Rajasekhara mentions the practice of killing an ox or a
goat in honour of a guest. Later Sriharsa mentions a variety of non-vegetarian delicacies
Draft 3 April 2014
41
served at a dazzling marriage feast and refers to two interesting instances of cow killing. At
that time, however, Somesvara shows clear preference for pork over other meats and does
not mention beef at all.
While the above references, albeit limited in number, indicate that the ancient practice of
killing the kine for food continued till about the twelfth century, 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
commantators on the secular literature, Candupandita from Gujarat, Narahari from
Telengana in Andhra Pradesh, and Mallinatha 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 eighteenth century Ghanasyama, a
minister for a Tanjore ruler, states that the killing of cow in honour of a guest was the
ancient rule.
Similarly the authors of Dharmasastra commentaries and religious digests from the ninth
century onwards keep alive the memory of the archaic practice of beef eating and some of
them even go so far as to permit beef in specific circumstances. For
example, Medhatithi, probably a Kashmiri brahmana, says that a bull or ox was killed in
honour of a ruler or anyone deserving to be honoured, and unambiguously allows eating the
flesh of cow (govyajamamsam) on ritual occasions. Several other writers of exegetical works
seem to lend support to this view, though sometimes indirectly. Viswarupa of Malwa,
probably a pupil of Sankara, Vijnanesvara who may have lived not far fromKalyana in
modern Karnataka, Haradatta, also a southerner (daksinatya), Lakshmidhara, a minister of
theGahadwala king Hemadri, Narasimha a minister of the Yadavas of Devagiri, and Mitra
Misra from Gopacala(Gwalior) support the practice of killing a cow on special occasions.
Thus even when the Dharmasastracommentators view cow killing with disfavour, they
generally admit that it was an ancient practice but to be avoided in the kali age.
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
society began to be gradually feudalized, leading to major socio-cultural transformation.
This phase of transition, first described in the epic and puranicpassages as the kaliyuga,
i.e. kalivarjyas. While the list of kalivarjyas swelled up over time, most of the relevant texts
mention cow slaughter, as forbidden in the kaliyuga. 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 killing 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.
Equally interesting is the fact that almost all the prescriptive texts enumerate cow killing as a
minor sin (upapataka), not 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 cattle slaughter may not have been
uncommon in society, and the atonements were prescribed merely to discourage eating of
beef. To what extent the Dharmasastric injunctions were effective, however, remains a
matter of speculation; for the possibility of at least some people eating beef on the sly
cannot be ruled out. As recently as the late nineteenth century it was alleged that Swami
Vivekananda ate beef during his stay in America, though he vehemently defended his
action. Also, Mahatma Gandhi spoke of the hypocrisy of the orthodox Hindus who
[Source]
42
5.2
Beef and meat as medicine
This an extract from DN Jha’s book:
The non-vegetarian culinary tradition is also reflected in the classical Indian texts on
medicine. The treatises of Caraka (first-second century) and Susruta (third-fourth century),
available to us in their later redacted form, and of Vagbhata (seventh century) mention no
less than three hundred animals (not all of them kosher ones!) and bear ample testimony to
the therapeutic use of meats. The Caraka Samhita provides a list of at least twenty-eight
animals whose flesh is recommended for the cure of various ailments and the Susruta
Sainhita catalogues one hundred and sixty-eight meat types endowed with pharmaceutical
properties,' though references to various meat diets in the Astanga Hrdayam of Vagbhata
may be comparatively less. The meat types mentioned in the classical Indian medical texts
give an idea of their authors' familiarity with a wide range of ancient fauna. But, more
importantly, they also include almost all those animals whose flesh was declared edible by
the lawgivers: goats, rohita fish, tortoises, deer, parrots, quails, partridges, hares, peacock
and alligators were considered good. Although the list of animals and birds whose flesh is
recommended by the classical Indian medical texts is fairly long, these treatises extol the
importance of ahimsa, which, according to Caraka, is 'the most perfect of all means of
increasing the longevity of living beings. . . .'
But the ahimsa doctrine does not seem to have been a major concern for him and
subsequent Indian authorities on medicine. For, according to the requirements of the art of
healing, Caraka, like Susruta and other later experts, recommends a large variety of meats
and meat soups to patients suffering from different diseases. No doubt, he traces the origin
of diarrhoea to the eating of flesh of cows killed in a sacrifice performed by one of Manu's
numerous sons, Prsadhara, whose legends, centring on the murder of the cow, occur later in
the Puranic texts and even goes to the extent of asserting that the unhealthiest of the meats
of the quadrupeds is the meat of the ox." But elsewhere in his text Caraka unhesitatingly
recommends a gruel prepared with beef gravy soured with pomegranates as a remedy for
intermittent fevers! He is unequivocal in describing the virtues of beef for disorders of wind,
catarrh and irregular fever!' Similarly, Sugruta tells us that beef 'proves curative in dyspnoea,
catarrh, cough, chronic fever and in cases of a morbid craving for food (atyagni) and, going a
step further, describes it as 'holy' (pavitra) and coveted. He speaks of pregnant women
craving for ox meat—a craving that was predictive of the vigour and endurance of the child
in the womb. Several centuries later, Vagbhata (seventh century) speaks in a similar vein
about the curative powers of beefs' Laudatory references to the properties of beef continue
till late. Halayudha (tenth century) preserves the memory of Susruta's therapeutic use of
beef.
None of the above-mentioned works on medicine, even by implication, suggest that the cow
was inherently sacred or inviolable or that beef was taboo. One may, of course, argue that
medical texts deal with emergency situations and hence, like the law books laying down
norms for times of distress (apaddharma), recommend various meat diets depending on
their prophylactic and curative powers. But this is far from convincing. The classical Indian
works on medicine give due place to vegetarian dietetics in their taxonomy of food.
Vegetarianism, in fact, coexists with non-vegetarianism in them and the recommended diet
depended both on the physician's preference and the patient's choice. Had animal food of
any kind been taboo, it would not be talked of highly in the medical texts.
This is corroborated by astrological works. Varahamihira (sixth century), for example, not
only gives the impression that meat eating was common but also says that the flesh of
elephants, buffaloes, sheep, boars, cows or bulls, hares, deer, lizards and fish could be
eaten. He also recommends to a monarch 'the ceremonial eating of the fish, the flesh of
Draft 3 April 2014
43
buffalo, bull, he-cat, goat, deer and so on.
For, several centuries later the Calukya king Somesvara (twelfth century), whose
Manasollasa deals mainly with various aspects of the life of royalty, recommends several
animals (saranga, harina, sasa) for food but indicates his preference for pork and fish, and
beef does not figure in his list of inedibles. Be that as it may, there is substantial evidence
against the inherent sanctity of the bovine including the cow.
5.3
Beef as remedy (in PV Sharma’s translation of Charaka Samhita)
There are ample references to a range of meats and beef in PV Sharma’s translation of
Charaka Samihta (http://www.rencapp.com/TamilCube_Charaka_Samhita.pdf)
Beef, in particular is prescribed for absolute V, chronic rhinitis, intermittent fevers, dry
cough, fatigue, excess agni and wasting of muscles.
5.4
Sale of beef was fully authorised in the Athashastra
This is from my blog post here.
Sale of beef (including beef jerky) was OFFICIALLY ALLOWED by Hindu KINGS
during the Gupta period (reported in Arthashastra)
My previous notes on archeological findings of meat eating (including beef) should
be supplemented by the following proof that there was REGULAR MEAT EATING in
India during the Gupta period (550 to 320 BC) – INCLUDING BEEF.
If not all of them, then at least a good proportion of Indians during the Gupta
empire were clearly NON-VEGATARIAN. Eating cow meat (see details below) was
PERFECTLY FINE, during that period.
In fact, there was so much meat eaten in Hindu society that the king established
significant bureaucracies to manage both the animals and revenues arising from
butchery.
Also, like any other good system, there were protections for animal welfare.
With this, I can't find even the slightest shred of evidence that Hindus worshipped
cow in the so-called Vedic or post-Vedic period. And during Indus Valley Civilisation,
beef was consumed in great quantities. That I've already outlined.
This means that the idea of a "sacred cow" in Hinduism was invented well after the
5th century AD – most likely in the last 150 years.
==EXTRACT from the L N Rangarajan's translated and annotated Arthashastra==
1) Sale of beef was officially permitted by the King
THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF CROWN HERDS
RESPONSIBILITIES
The Chief Superintendent shall employ, for each herd of 100 animals, one
cowherd or buffalo herdsman, a milker, a churner and a hunter-guard [to
protect the herd from wild animals]. They shall be paid only in cash,
because if they are paid in milk or ghee, they will starve the calves to death
[by milking the cows dry, leaving nothing for the calves]. {2.29.2,3}
44
Every animal shall be identified in the records with the details of the
branding mark, any natural identification marks, the colour and peculiarity
of horns. An account shall be maintained of cattle lost (by theft, straying
into another herd or disappearance) and of cattle totally lost [by death].
(v) By-products:
Churned buttermilk [from which butter for making ghee had been
removed] shall be fed to dogs and pigs. Cheese shall be delivered to the
armed forces. Whey shall be mixed with oilcake [from the expeller] for [use
as] animal feed.
Hair, skin, bladder, bile, tendon, teeth, hooves and horns of all animals
dying naturally shall be delivered to the Chief Superintendent. The flesh
may be sold by the herdsman, either as fresh meat or dried. {2.29.26-29}
[Sanjeev: as beef or other meat jerky]
2) The king collected revenues from butchers.
The text refers to the Chief Protector of Animals and Controller of Animal
Slaughter simply as the Head of the Department of Meat. However, his
main responsibility was the protection of animals, thereby making him
responsible also for control over butchers and the sale of meat.]
THE CHIEF PROTECTOR OF ANIMALS (AND CONTROLLER OF ANIMAL
SLAUGHTER)
Revenue:
Butchers shall pay tax at the rates given below:
TAX ON BUTCHERS: {2.26.3}
Sale of meat : revenue collected by Chief Protector of Animals and
Controller of Animal Slaughter:

Animals, not in sanctuaries, whose slaughter is permitted 1/6th

Fish and birds 11/60th

Deer and cattle 1/60th + (4 or 5%)
Control of butchers
Only meat from freshly killed animals shall be sold.
The sale of swollen meat, rotten meat and meat from [naturally] dead
animals is prohibited.
Fish without head or bones shall not be sold. Meat may be sold with or without
bones. If sold with bones, equivalent compensation [for the weight of the bone]
shall be given. {2.26.7,8,12}
3) But animal welfare was also ensured
Some animals, like deer, were given special treatment {4.10.5}. Temple
bulls, stud bulls and cows for up to ten days after calving were exempt
Draft 3 April 2014
45
from payment of grazing charges {3.10.24}. Riding or driving a temple
animal, a stud bull or a pregnant cow was prohibited {4.13.20}. Animals
fights between horned or tusked animals was also prohibited {4.13.19}.
Among animals customarily slaughtered for meat, the killing of the calf,
the bull and the milch cow shall be prohibited. [Sanjeev: Note that if a cow
was no longer producing milk or if it died naturally - as noted above, then
it WAS slaughtered for meat]
New terrritories
In newly conquered territory, animal slaughter was prohibited for four days
around full moon day and during one fortnight in each of the four months
of devotion (chaturmasya). Slaughter of female and young animals and
castration of males was prohibited {13.5.12,13}.
Slaughter of animals shall be prohibited during one fortnight in each
month of chaturmasya [the four-month period set apart for devotions],
for four days around the full moon day and for a day on the birth star of
the king or country.
5.5
Myth: meat eating in ancient India wsa reserved for ceremonial
occasions
Sahana Singh You are misleading people by making it seem that India was a major meateating country. In India, meat-eating was reserved for ceremonial occasions not in daily
diets. It was not as easy to obtain meat as it is today with modern production methods. It
was a lot more expensive too. Please distinguish between 'widely consumed' and 'consumed
during ceremonial occasions when animal sacrifices were conducted'. Also given that it was
not slaughtered large scale with machinery as in today's world, meat-eating was a LOT
lesser.
Sanjeev Sabhlok There was - for most of India's history of the past 50,000 years, no
"prohibition" against meat eating. That meant the people ate a healthy mixed diet. Evidence
is clear that meat including beef etc. was widely consumed. Given the ready availability of
animals even today in tropical India (e.g. in NE India where meat is a key part of the diet), I
see no reason to not classify India as a major meat eating nation of the past. No one is
saying to eat anything in excess. But yes, meat is DEFINITELY part of a good balanced diet. In
moderation everything is good.
Finally, your view that meat was only consumed as part of "ceremonial" occasions is NOT
correct. Arthashastra records the regular business of butchers and how revenue was
collected. Meat was regularly bought and sold. Regular shops existed (as they exist in NE
India and most part of India today).
Sahana Singh The existence of meat shops does not establish that everyone had a heavy
meat diet. It's like an alien looking at the shops selling so many products in our malls today
and assuming that everyone uses all these products.
My final comment
The issue is NOT heavy individual consumption. The issue is REGULAR consumption by the
vast majority of the people.
Let me also cite DN Jha’s notes
46
The Vedic and the post-Vedic texts often mention the killing of animals including the kine in
the ritual context. There was, therefore, a relationship between the sacrifice and
sustenance. But this does not necessarily mean that different types of meat were eaten
only if offered in sacrifice. Archaeological evidence, in fact, suggests non-ritual killing of
cattle. This is indicative of the fact that beef and other animal flesh formed part of the
dietary culture of people and that edible flesh was not always ritually consecrated. [Source]
5.6
Indian beef eating recorded in Buddhist documents
5.6.1
A Buddhist’s analysis of meat and beef eating in ancient India (by Shravasti
Dhammika)
From TO EAT OR NOT TO EAT MEAT, A BUDDHIST REFLECTIONS. BUDDHA DHAMMA
MANDALA SOCIETY 2010 [Word version]
There is no evidence that Brahmanism, the main religion during the Buddha’s time, taught
vegetarianism. Vedic sacrifices in which animals were slaughtered were still being practiced
and are frequently mentioned in the Tipitaka (e.g. Anguttara Nikaya I,66; II,42; IV,41).
However, the Vinaya mentions what were called maghata, certain days of the month when
animals were not slaughtered and meat was not available in the markets (Vinaya I,217). The
Jataka also mentions maghata and adds that they would be announced by the beat of a
drum (Jataka IV,115). Were these non-killing days a result of a general unease about meat
eating, or due to the influence of Buddhism, or of Jainism? We don’t know. The Kama Sutra
(3rd cent CE?) points out that alcohol and dog meat increase a man’s virility but then adds,
somewhat halfheartedly, that a circumspect man would nonetheless take neither. It also
gives recipes for aphrodisiacs, many of them including animal flesh and organs. So once
again we have an ambiguous attitude towards consuming meat.
Neither of the two great Hindu epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata teach
vegetarianism and both often refer to eating meat as if it were normal and uncontroversial,
as indeed it was. In his detailed study of everyday life as depicted in the Ramayana Ananda
Guruge writes, “The Aryans of ancient India were not altogether vegetarians. Their diet was
a mixed one; they ate fish as was offered to Bharata and his party by Guha. Meat too was
consumed quite widely. Not only did Rama say that animals are killed by men for their flesh
but he also killed many animals – deer, wild boar, antelope, etc., – for food during his
sojourn in the forest. Meat was eaten with relish and a verse which describes a meal of
Rama and Sita states, ‘He sat on a rock tempting Sita with meat (saying) this is pure, this is
tasty and this is well cooked by fire.’ In Bharadvaja’s hermitage Bharata’s army was supplied
with venison, mutton, pork and flesh of the peacock and the snipe Likewise, Kumbhakarna
consumed large quantities of venison, beef and pork and drank blood. Although the Vanaras
are generally depicted as vegetarians, the Brahmans were actually not. The concept that ‘a
purely vegetarian diet is an indication of spiritual progress and an advanced culture’ is a
later development in India. Even ascetic Brahmans were not strict vegetarians. Although
their usual fare consisted of vegetables, they did not abstain from meat-eating as a principle
of either religious or social significance. In fact, Agastya is represented as eating rams and he
says, ‘I am able to eat comfortably even one whole ram at a Sraddha ceremony.’ There
seems to have been no ban on meat-eating by Brahmans even at the time of Bhavabhuti for
his Uttararamacarita depicts Vasistha as eating a tawny calf Further, Valin’s statement
specifically mentions the animals whose flesh could be eaten by Brahmans. (The Society of
the Ramayana, 1960, p.147-8).
In the chapter on food the Sushruta Samhita (1st– 4th cent CE) recommends all kinds of fish,
bird and animal flesh showing that meat eating was commonplace during that period. This
and a great deal of other evidence shows that like Buddhists, Hindus were for centuries in
Draft 3 April 2014
47
two minds about vegetarianism. It was only after the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries that
vegetarianism started to become widespread in India.
48
6.
True of false: Cow slaughter in the Vedas
6.1
TRUE. The Vedas have extensive records of cow slaughter
6.1.1
Summary of extensive citations in Vedas about beef eating
Extract from my blog post here.
Almost all independent experts of Sanskrit (including Vivekananda) affirmed that the Vedas
refer to beef eating (sacrifice) repeatedly. In tens of places. However, some new
interpretations by non-published experts suggest that this view is incorrect. Since I cannot
understand Sanskrit I'm unable to form a personal view on this matter. If one goes by peer
reviewed literature, though, then there is overwhelming proof that the Vedas make
repeated references to beef eating. The likelihood of these peer reviewed experts being
right is very high, almost certain, given the corroborative evidence of charred cow/bull bone
fragments found in key Vedic sites and in abundance in Indus Valley civilisation sites.
Examples of citations in Vedic and related literature are provided here. (There are tens of
other articles/books on this subject.)

Beef eating was … popular with the Vedic Indians also.

There are ample evidences how the Rgvedic people were fond of beef-eating. Even
in funeral ceremony beef-eating was considered an essential part.

During the Brahmana period the habit of beef-eating seems to have increased.

From the Taittiriya and the Pancavimsa Brahmanas we learn that the sage Agastya
slaughtered hundred bulls at a sacrifice.

In the days of Atharva Veda beef-eating remained unaltered, although it was
censured here and there in that Veda. During the Brahmana period the habit of
beef-eating seems to have increased.

According to Sankhyayana-sutra a bull or a sterile cow should be killed in the house
of the father of the bride on the wedding day and also in the house of the
bridegroom when the husband and the wife arrive after marriage.

The madhuparka ceremony seems to have been very old because the custom of
entertaining a distinguished guest with beef is found both in the Satapatha
Brahmana and the Aitareya Brahmana

Manu also recommends the madhuparka with beef for the reception of kings.

The ancient medical works like the Charaka Samhita recommend beef for pregnant
women, but prohibits it for everyday use for everybody. R L Mitra enlightens us that
in some medieval Indian medical works beef soup is especially recommended for
people recovering from fainting fits.
Now, I'm not sure whether these writers were masters of Sanskrit, but I do know that most
of these statements are corroborated by archaeological findings. No doubt as time passes
and more archaeological studies are conducted, the evidence will become totally impossible
to refute.
Draft 3 April 2014
49
6.1.2
Vivekananda’s comments on beef eating in the Vedas
From the hard copy book I have: Letters of Swami Vivekananda, footnote 2, p. 10
"Madhuparka was a Vedic ceremony, usually in honour of a guest, in which a respectful
offering was to be made consisting, among other dainties, of beef." [This confirms that
Vivekananda was not imagining things when he wrote about beef eating in the Vedas]
6.1.3
Beef-Eating in Ancient India, by Mahadev Chakravarti
Beef-Eating in Ancient India
Mahadev Chakravarti, Social Scientist, Vol. 7, No. 11 (Jun., 1979), pp. 51-55
BEEF-EATING was not peculiar to the people of the Western countries alone, but was
popular with the Vedic Indians also. The food items of the Vedic Indian can be gathered
from the list of sacrificial victims because what man ate he usually presented to his gods.1
Practically all the important ceremonies and sacrifices were attended with slaughter of bulls
and cows. The Gomedha and Asvamedha sacrifices are important in this respect. The
Sulagava sacrifice, in which the bull, as the name implies, seems to have been pierced with a
spike or lance to appease Rudra, is described in detail in the grhyasutras.
Restrictions in Vedic Literature
In a hymn of the RgVeda it is said that “Indra will eat thy bulls.”2 In another hymn of the
RgVeda3 Agni is styled Uksanna and Vasanna i.e. “eater of bulls and barren cows.” Not only
for the purpose of sacrifices but for food also, the bovine species were killed in regular
slaughter-houses and this is evident from another hymn of the RgVeda.4 Again, it is
suggested in the RgVeda that the cow was cut up with a sword or axe.5 It is interesting to
note in this context that the modern Hindu practice of Jhatka-bali, that is, severing the head
of the animal at one stroke, had not yet come into fashion. There are ample evidences how
the Rgvedic people were fond of beef-eating. Even in funeral ceremony beef-eating was
considered an essential part.6
Interestingly enough in the same Veda the cow is sometimes considered inviolable as
indicated by her designation aghnya (‘not to be slain’) which occurs sixteen times in the
entire RgVeda,7 as opposed to three instances of aghnya8 (masculine). But this fact cannot
be regarded as showing that beef-eating was condemned in the Rgvedic period. In this
connection, we should point out that the Sanskrit word used for the sacrificial cow is Vasa
(i.e. ‘sterile cow’) and a milch cow was seldom sacrificed.9 It is only in this way that one can
50
1
A A Macdonell and A B Keith, Vedic-Index, Varanasi, 1958, Vol II, p 147.
2
Rgveda X 85, 13-14.
3
Ibid., VIII 43, 11.
4
Ibid., X 89, 14.
5
Ibid., X 79, 6.
6
Ibid., X 16, 7.
7
Ibid., I 164, 27 and 40, IV 16, V 83, 8, VIII 69, 21. X 87, 16 etc.
8
A A Macdonell Vedic Mythology, Delhi, 1974, p 151.
9
D R Bhandarkar Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture, Madras.
explain the lavish praise bestowed on the cow in the RgVeda where she is described in a
number of hymns as “the mother of Rudras, the daughter of the vasus, the sister of Adityas,
and the centre of nectar.”10
Although we have three references of aghnya in the RgVeda, still apparently no strict
restriction in regard to the slaughter of bulls (as opposed to milch cows) is found. It seems
probable that some composers of Rgvedic hymns were pre-Aryan (non-Aryan) Indians (who
disliked beef-eating) who became Aryanized like the Asuras and the Vratyas and labelled the
whole bovine species inviolable, because outside India this inviolability is utterly unknown.11
In the days of Atharva Veda beef-eating remained unaltered, although it was censured here
and there in that Veda. During the Brahmana period the habit of beef-eating seems to
have increased. Among the Kamya Ishtis or minor sacrifices set forth in the Taittiriya
Brahmana different bovine species were sacrificed to different gods, namely, a dwarf ox to
Visnu, a drooping horned bull with a blaze on the forehead to Indra, a red cow to Rudra, a
white barren cow to Surya and so on. The Aitareya Brahmana lists the bull as one of the
sacrificial animals.12 From the Taittiriya and the Pancavimsa Brahmanaswe learn that the
sage Agastya slaughtered hundred bulls at a sacrifice.’13 The Satapatha Brahmana gives a
picture of the inordinate fondness of Yajnavalkya for beef who said: “I for one eat it,
provided it is tender (amsala)”.14 But, strangely enough, we are to face two exhortations in
the same Brahmana against eating beef.15
Among the Sutras, kalpasutra and grhyasutra, display less reticence and distinctly suggest
beef as an item of food on different occasions of life. According to Sankhyayana-sutra a bull
or a sterile cow should be killed in the house of the father of the bride on the wedding day
and also in the house of the bridegroom when the husband and the wife arrive after
marriage.16 Even at sraddhas or periodical oblations to the manes, the sacrifice of a bull or
cow is recommended by the Apastamba and Paraskara grhyasutras.17 Yajnavalkya indicates
how the aroma of beef was thought to be an ailment for the spirits.18 According to
Vasistha-sutra “an ascetic who, invited to dine at a sacrifice . . . rejects meat shall go to hell
for as many years as the slaughtered beast has hairs.”19 The Khadira and Gobhila-Sutras
prescribed the sacrifice of a black cow to the deity of the dwelling-houses when a new
house was constructed.20
Distinguished guests like one’s teachers, priests, kings, bridegrooms and Vedic students on
their return home after the completion of their studies are to be honoured with the
10
Rgveda VI 28, 1-8, VIII 101. 15-16.
11
D R Bhandarkar op. cit., p 73.
12
Aitareya Brahmana VI 8.
13
Taittiriya Brahmana II 7, 11/1; Pancavimsa Brahmana XXI/14,5.
14
Satapatha Brahmana III 1, 2, 21.
15
Ibid., I 2 3, 6-9.
16
Sankhyayana- sutra I 12, 10.
17
Apastamba II 7, 16-26; Paraskara III 10, 41-49.
18
Yanavalkya I 258-60.
19
Vajsistha XI 34.
20
Khadira IV 2, 17, Gobhila IV 7, 27. 54
Draft 3 April 2014
51
presentation of a bull or a barren cow to be slaughtered – hence, a guest is denominated in
the Vedic literature as goghna or cow-killer.21 The ceremony of madhuparka is notable in
this context. The madhuparka ceremony seems to have been very old because the custom
of entertaining a distinguished guest with beef is found both in the Satapatha Brahmana22
and the Aitareya Brahmana23 and it was in all likelihood known also in the Rgvedic period.
Moral Codes and Beef-eating
We now turn to the Smrti literature. Manu, like Vasistha, sanctions the consumption of the
flesh of all domestic animals which have but one row of teeth.24 That this would obviously
include beef becomes clear from the comments of even such orthodox pundits like
Medhatithi and Raghavananda.25 Manu also recommends the madhuparka with beef for
the reception of kings.26 The Yajnavalkya-smrti distinctly lays down that a mah-oksa or ‘big
bull’ is to be slaughtered on such occasions.27 In fact, both the Manu and Yajnavalkya-Smrtis
permit the killing of bovine species on such special occasions, in sacrifices and in rites for
manes etc.; otherwise beef-eating was regarded as upapataka or minor offence, though not
mahapataka or mortal sin.28 In spite of the individual predilections of the author of ManuSmrti, who was a staunch upholder of ahimsa, who even said that no flesh can be had
without killing living beings and killing such beings cannot lead to heaven and so one should
give up flesh eating,29 the general usage was different in his times and centuries were
required before the views propounded by Manu became predominant.30
From Ancient Science and Literature
The ancient medical works like the Charaka Samhita recommend beef for pregnant
women, but prohibits it for everyday use for everybody.31 R L Mitra enlightens us that in
some medieval Indian medical works beef soup is especially recommended for people
recovering from fainting fits.32
The Epics allude to the gomedha without any details. In the ‘Vanaparva’ of the
Mahabharata33 it is stated that animals killed in sacrifices to the accompaniment of Vedic
mantras went to heaven and it narrates the story of king Rantideva in whose sacrifices two
thousand animals, including cows, were killed every day. In the ‘Udyogaparva’ king
Nahusha was cursed and hurled down from heaven by the great sage Agastya because he
52
21
Asiatic Researches VII p 289; according to Panini (III 4 73): gam hantitasinai goghno.
22
Satapatha III 4 1 2.
23
Aitareya I 3 4.
24
Manu-Smrti V 18.
25
D R Bhandarkar Op. cit., p 77.
26
Manu-Smrti III 119-20.
27
Yajnavalaka Smrti I 109-10.
28
Manu V 27-44, XI 60; Yajnavalkya I 109-10.
29
Manu V 48.
30
P V Kane, History of Dharmasastra, 1941, Poona, pp 779-80.
31
R L Mitra, Indo-Aryans, Calcuta, 1881, p 360.
32
Loc. cit.
33
Mahabharata 208, 11-12.
ventured to cast doubts on the Vedic injunctions for the sacrifice of cows and offered
insult to a Brahmana.34
Bhavabhuti in his Uttara-Rama-Charita (Act IV) describes how the venerable poet Valmiki,
when preparing to receive the sage Vasistha, slaughtered a number of calves for the
entertain- ment of his guest. From the Mahaviracharita of the same author it is evident how
Vasistha, in his turn, likewise entertained Visvamitra, Janaka, Satananda and other sages
with ‘fatted calf’, and tempted Jamadagnya by saying: “The heifer is ready for sacrifice and
the food is cooked in ghee.”35
In Kautilya’s Arthasastra cattle are classified, where bulls are intended for the slaughterhouse, but the killing of the milch cows, and calves, though permitted for sacrificial
purposes, is forbidden for butchers’ stalls.36 Asoka in his Rock Edict I and Pillar Edict I
declared how originally thousands of animals were killed in the royal kitchen. Considering
the popularity of beef-eating among the people even Asoka, the great propagator of
ahimsa, resolved later on to discontinue the slaughter of animals only for some days in the
year; for example, he included the breeding bull but not the cow in the list of animals not to
be slaughtered on those days.37
6.1.4
DN Jha’s conclusion re: beef eating in the Vedas
Several points emerge from our limited survey of the textual evidence, mostly drawn from
Brahmanical sources drawn from the Rgveda onwards. In the first place, it is clear that the
early Aryans, who migrated to India from outside, brought along with them certain cultural
elements. After their migration into the Indian subcontinent pastoralism, nomadism and
animal sacrifice remained characteristic features of their lives for several centuries until
sedentary field agriculture became the mainstay of their livelihood. Animal sacrifices were
very common, the most important of them being the famous asvamedha and rajasuya.
These and several other major sacrifices involved the killing of animals including cattle,
which constituted the chief form of the wealth of the early Aryans. Not surprisingly, they
prayed for cattle and sacrificed them to propitiate their gods. The Vedic gods had no marked
dietary preferences. Milk, butter, barley, oxen, goats and sheep were their usual food,
though some of them seem to have had their special preferences. Indra had a special liking
for bulls. Agni was not a tippler like Indra, but was fond of the flesh of horses, bulls and
cows. The toothless Pusan, the guardian of the roads, ate mush as a Hobson’s choice. Soma
was the name of an intoxicant but, equally important, of a god, and killing animals (including
cattle) for him 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, by implication for divine as well as human consumption. The Taittiriya
Brahmana categorically tells us: Verily the cow is food(atho annam vai
gauh) and Yajnavalkya‘s insistence on eating the tender (amsala) flesh of the cow is well
known. Although there is reason to believe that a brahmana’s cow may not have been killed,
that is no index of its inherent sanctity in the Vedic period or even later.
34
E W Hopkins, Epic Mythology, New Delhi, 1968, p 19.
35
R L Mitra op. cit., pp 357-58
36
Arthasastra II 26, 29.
37
Journal of the Asiatic Society, VII, p 249; R L Mitra op. cit., p 359.
Draft 3 April 2014
53
The slaughter of animals formed an important component of the cult of the dead in the
Vedic texts. The thick fat of the cow was used to cover the corpse and a bull was burnt along
with it to enable the departed to ride in the nether world. Funerary rites include the feeding
of brahmanas after the prescribed period and quite often the flesh of the cow or ox was
offered to the dead. The textual prescriptions indicate the degree of satisfaction obtained by
the ancestors’ souls according to the animal offered — cow meat could keep them content
for at least a year! The Vedic and the post-Vedic texts often mention the killing of animals
including the kine in the ritual context. There was, therefore, a relationship between the
sacrifice and sustenance. But this does not necessarily mean that different types of meat
were eaten only if offered in sacrifice. [Source]
6.1.5
Ambedkar’s detailed analysis of beef eating in Hinduism and by
untouchables
[The following is excerpted from Chapters 11 to 14 of B.R. Ambedkar’s 1948 work The
Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables? as reprinted in
Volume 7 of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, published by Government of
Maharashtra 1990. Source]
The Census Returns [of 1910] show that the meat of the dead cow forms the chief item of
food consumed by communities which are generally classified as untouchable communities.
No Hindu community, however low, will touch cow’s flesh. On the other hand, there is no
community which is really an Untouchable community which has not something to do with
the dead cow. Some eat her flesh, some remove the skin, some manufacture articles out of
her skin and bones.
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.
In the first place, we have the fact that the Untouchables or the main communities which
compose them eat the dead cow and those who eat the dead cow are tainted with
untouchability and no others. The co-relation between untouchability and the use of the
dead cow is so great and so close that the thesis that it is the root of untouchability seems to
be incontrovertible. In the second place if there is anything that separates the Untouchables
from the Hindus, it is beef-eating. Even a superficial view of the food taboos of the Hindus
will show that there are two taboos regarding food which serve as dividing lines. There is
one taboo against meat-eating. It divides Hindus into vegetarians and flesh eaters. There is
another taboo which is against beef eating. It divides Hindus into those who eat cow’s flesh
and those who do not. From the point of view of untouchability the first dividing line is of
no importance. But the second is. For it completely marks off the Touchables from the
Untouchables. The Touchables whether they are vegetarians or flesh-eaters are united in
their objection to eat cow's flesh. As against them stand the Untouchables who eat cow’s
flesh without compunction and as a matter of course and habit.
In this context it is not far-fetched to suggest that those who have a nausea against beefeating should treat those who eat beef as Untouchables.
There is really no necessity to enter upon any speculation as to whether beef-eating was
or was not the principal reason for the rise of Untouchability. This new theory receives
54
support from the Hindu Shastras. The Veda Vyas Smriti contains the following verse which
specifies the communities which are included in the category of Antyajas and the reasons
why they were so included
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.”
Generally speaking, the Smritikars never care to explain the why and the how of their
dogmas. But this case is exception. For in this case, Veda Vyas does explain the cause of
untouchability. The clause “as well as others who eat cow's flesh” is very important. It
shows that the Smritikars knew that the origin of untouchability is to be found in the eating
of beef. The dictum of Veda Vyas must close the argument. It comes, so to say, straight from
the horse’s mouth and what is important is that it is also rational for it accords with facts as
we know them.
The new approach in the search for the origin of Untouchability has brought to the surface
two sources of the origin of Untouchability. One is the general atmosphere of scorn and
contempt spread by the Brahmins against those who were Buddhists and the second is the
habit of beef-eating kept on by the Broken Men. As has been said the first circumstance
could not be sufficient to account for stigma of Untouchability attaching itself to the Broken
Men. For the scorn and contempt for Buddhists spread by the Brahmins was too general and
affected all Buddhists and not merely the Broken Men. The reason why Broken Men only
became Untouchables was because in addition to being Buddhists they retained their
habit of beef-eating which gave additional ground for offence to the Brahmins to carry
their new-found love and reverence to the cow to its logical conclusion. We may therefore
conclude that the Broken Men were exposed to scorn and contempt on the ground that
they were Buddhists, and the main cause of their Untouchability was beef-eating.
The theory of beef-eating as the cause of untouchability also gives rise to many questions.
Critics are sure to ask: What is the cause of the nausea which the Hindus have against beefeating? 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 laterstage? 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?….
Did the Hindus never eat beef?
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.
What is the evidence in support of the construction that the Hindus never ate beef and were
opposed to the killing of the cow?
There are two series of references in the Rig Veda on which reliance is placed. In one of
these, the cow is spoken of as Aghnya. They are Rig Veda 1.164, 27; IV.1.6; V 82-8; V11.69.
71; X.87. Aghnya means ‘one who does not deserve to be killed’. From this, it is argued that
this was a prohibition against the killing of the cow and that since the Vedas are the final
authority in the matter of religion, it is concluded that the Aryans could not have killed the
Draft 3 April 2014
55
cows, much less could they have eaten beef. In another series of references the cow is
spoken of as sacred. They are Rig Veda V1.28.1.8. and VIII, 101. 15. In these verses the cow
is addressed as Mother of Rudras, the Daughter of Vasus, the Sister of the Adityas and the
Centre of Nectar. Another reference on the subject is in Rig Veda VIII. 101. 16 where the cow
is called Devi (Goddess).
Reliance is also placed on certain passages in the Brahmanas and Sutras.
There are two passages in the Satapatha Brahmana which relate to animal sacrifice and
beef-eating. One is at 111.1.2.21 and reads as follows:
“He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of
either the cow or the ox, for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here
on earth. The gods spake, ‘verily, the cow and the ox support everything here;
come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other
species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most Hence were one to
eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything,
or, as it were, a going to the end (or, to destruction)… Let him therefore not eat
(the flesh) of the cow and the ox’.”
The other passage is at 1, 2, 3, 6. It speaks against animal sacrifice and on ethical grounds.
A similar statement is contained in the Apastambha Dharma Sutra at 1, 5, 17, 29.
Apastambha lays a general embargo on the eating of cow's flesh.
Such is the evidence in support of the contention that the Hindus never ate beef. What
conclusion can be drawn from this evidence?
So far as the evidence from the Rig Veda is concerned the conclusion is based on a
misreading and misunderstanding of the texts. The adjective Aghnya applied to the cow in
the Rig Veda means a cow that was yielding milk and therefore not fit for being killed.
That the cow is venerated in the Rig Veda is of course true. But this regard and veneration of
the cow are only to be expected from an agricultural community like the Indo-Aryans. This
application of the utility of the cow did not prevent the Aryan from killing the cow for
purposes of food. Indeed the cow was killed because the cow was regarded as sacred. As
observed by Mr. P.V. Kane: “It was not that the cow was not sacred in Vedic times, it was
because of her sacredness that it is ordained in the Vajasaneyi Samhita that beef should
be eaten.”
That the Aryans of the Rig Veda did kill cows for purposes of food and ate beef is abundantly
clear from the Rig Veda itself. In Rig Veda (X. 86.14) Indra says: “They cook for one 15 plus
twenty oxen”. The Rig Veda (X.91.14) says that for Agni were sacrificed horses, bulls, oxen,
barren cows and rams. From the Rig Veda (X.72.6) it appears that the cow was killed with a
sword or axe.
As to the testimony of the Satapatha Bramhana, can it be said to be conclusive? Obviously, it
cannot be. For there are passages in the other Bramhanas which give a different opinion.
To give only one instance. Among the Kamyashtis set forth in the Taittiriya Bramhana, not
only the sacrifice of oxen and cows are laid down, but we are even told what kind and
description of oxen and cows are to be offered to what deities. Thus, a dwarf ox is to be
chosen for sacrifice to Vishnu; a drooping horned bull with a blaze on the forehead to Indra
as the destroyer of Vritra; a black cow to Pushan; a red cow to Rudra; and so on. The
Taittiriya Bramhana notes another sacrifice called Panchasaradiya-seva, the most important
element of which was the immolation of seventeen five-year old humpless, dwraf-bulls, and
as many dwarf heifers under three year-old.….
…The killing of cow for the guest had grown to such an extent that the guest came to be
56
called ‘Go-ghna’ which means the killer of the cow. To avoid this slaughter of the cows the
Ashvateyana Grahya Sutra (1.24.25) suggests that the cow should be let loose when the
guest comes so as to escape the rule of etiquette….
Such is the state of the evidence on the subject of cow-killing and beef-eating. Which part of
it is to be accepted as true? The correct view is that the testimony of the Satapatha
Brahmana and the Apastamba Dharma Sutra in so far as it supports the view 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. And that, notwithstanding
these exhortations, cow-killing and beef-eating continued. That most often they fell on
deaf ears is proved by the conduct of Yajnavalkya, the great Rishi of the Aryans. The first
passage quoted above from the Satapatha Brahmana was really addressed to Yajnavalkya as
an exhortation. How did Yajnavalkya respond? After listening to the exhortation this is what
Yajnavalkya said: “I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.”
That the Hindus at one time did kill cows and did eat beef is proved abundantly by the
description of the Yajnas given in the Buddhist Sutras which relate to periods much later
than the Vedas and the Brahmanas. The scale on which the slaughter of cows and animals
took place was colossal. It is not possible to give a total of such slaughter on all accounts
committed by the Brahmins in the name of religion. Some idea of the extent of this
slaughter can however be had from references to it in the Buddhist literature. As an
illustration reference may be made to the Kutadanta Sutta in which Buddha preached
against the performance of animal sacrifices to Brahmin Kutadanta. Buddha, though
speaking in a tone of sarcastic travesty, gives a good idea of the practices and rituals of the
Vedic sacrifices when he said:
“And further, O Brahmin, at that sacrifice neither were any oxen slain, neither
goats, nor fowls, nor fatted pigs, nor were any kind of living creatures put to death.
No trees were cut down to be used as posts, no Darbha grasses mown to stress
around the sacrificial spot. And the slaves and messengers and workmen there
employed were driven neither by rods nor fear, nor carried on their work weeping
with tears upon their faces.”
Kutadanta on the other hand in thanking Buddha for his conversion gives an idea of the
magnitude of the slaughter of animals which took place at such sacrifices when he says:
“I, even I betake myself to the venerable Gotama as my guide, to the Doctrine and the
Order. May the venerable One accept me as a disciple, as one who, from this day forth, as
long as life endures, has taken him as his guide. And I myself, 0, Gotama, will have the seven
hundred bulls, and the seven hundred steers, and the seven hundred heifers, and the seven
hundred goats, and the seven hundred rams set free. To them I grant their life. Let them eat
grass and drink fresh water and may cool breezes waft around them.”
In the Samyuta Nikaya (111,1-9) we have another description of a Yajna performed by
Pasenadi, king of Kosala. It is said that five hundred bulls, five hundred calves and many
heifers, goats and rams were led to the pillar to be sacrificed.
With this evidence no one can doubt that there was a time when Hindus-both Brahmins and
non-Brahmins ate not only flesh but also beef.
Why did non-Brahmins give up eating beef?
THE food habits of the different classes of Hindus have been as fixed and stratified as their
cults. Just as Hindus can be classified on their basis of their cults so also they can be
classified on the basis of their habits of food. On the basis of their cults, Hindus are either
Saivites (followers of Siva) or Vaishnavites (followers of Vishnu). Similarly, Hindus are either
Draft 3 April 2014
57
Mansahari (those who eat flesh) or Shakahari (those who are vegetarians).
For ordinary purposes the division of Hindus into two classes Mansahari and Shakahari may
be enough. But it must be admitted that it is not exhaustive and does not take account of all
the classes which exist in Hindu society. For an exhaustive classification, the class of Hindus
called Mansahari shall have to be further divided into two sub-classes: (i) Those who eat
flesh but do not eat cow's flesh; and (ii) Those who eat flesh including cow’s flesh. In other
words, on the basis of food taboos, Hindu society falls into three classes: (i) Those who are
vegetarians; (ii) Those who eat flesh but do not eat cow’s flesh; and (iii) Those who eat flesh
including cow's flesh. Corresponding to this classification, we have in Hindu society three
classes : (1) Brahmins; (2) Non-Brahmins; and (3) The Untouchables. This division though not
in accord with the fourfold division of society called Chaturvarna, yet it is in accord with
facts as they exist. For, in the Brahmins we have a class which is vegetarian, in the nonBrahmins the class which eats flesh but does not eat cow’s flesh and in the Untouchables a
class which eats flesh including cow’s flesh.
This threefold division is therefore substantial and is in accord with facts. Anyone who stops
to turn over this classification in his mind is bound to be struck by the position of the NonBrahmins. One can quite understand vegetarianism. One can quite understand meat-eating.
But it is difficult to understand why a person who is a flesh-eater should object to one kind
of flesh namely cow’s flesh. This is an anomaly which call for explanation. Why did the NonBrahmin give up beef-eating? For this purpose it is necessary to examine laws on the
subject. The relevant legislation must be found either in the Law of Asoka or the Law of
Manu.
II
To begin with Asoka. The edicts of Asoka which have reference to this matter are Rock Edict
No.I and Pillar Edict Nos.II and V. Rock Edict No.l reads as follows:
“This pious Edict has been written by command of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty) the
King. Here (in the capital) no animal may be slaughtered for sacrifice, nor may the holiday
feast be held, because His Sacred and Gracious Majesty, the king sees much offence in the
holiday feasts, although in certain places holiday feasts arc excellent in the sight of His
Sacred and Gracious Majesty the king.
“Formerly, in the kitchen of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King, each day many
hundred thousands of living creatures were slaughtered to make curries. But now, when this
pious edict is being written, only three living creatures are slaughtered (daily) for curry, to
wit, two peacocks and one antelope: the antelope, however, not invariably. Even those
three living creatures henceforth shall not be slaughtered.”
Pillar Edict No.II was in the following terms:
“Thus saith His Sacred and Gracious Majesty, the King: “The Law of Piety is excellent. But
wherein consists the Law of Piety? In these things, to wit, little piety, many good deeds,
compassion, liberality, truthfulness and purity.
The gift of spiritual insight I have given in manifold ways: whilst on two-footed and fourfooted beings, on birds and the denizens of the waters, I have conferred various favourseven unto the boon of life; and many other good deeds have I done.
For this purpose, have I caused this pious edict to be written, that men may walk after its
teaching, and that it may long endure; and he who will follow its teaching will do well.”
Pillar Edict V says:
“Thus said His Sacred and Gracious Majesty, the king:
When I had been consecrated twenty-six years the following species were declared exempt
58
from slaughter, namely: parrots, starlings adjutants, Brahmany ducks, geese, pandirnukhas,
gelatas, bats, queen-ants, female tortoises, boneless fish, vedaveyakas, gangapuputakas,
skate, (river) tortoise, porcupines, tree-squinrels, barasingha stag, Brahmany bulls, monkeys,
rhinoceros, grey doves village pigeons, and all fourfooted animals which are not utilised or
eaten.
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. The caponing of cocks must not
be done. Chaff must not be burned along with the living things in it Forests must not be
burned either for mischief or so as to destroy living creatures.
The living must not be fed with the living. At each of the three seasonal full moons, and at
the full moon of the month Tishya (December-January) for three days in each case, namely,
the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the first fortnight, and the first day of the second
fortnight, as well as on the first days throughout the year, fish is exempt from killing and
may not be sold.
On the same days, in elephant-preserves or fish-ponds no other classes of animals may be
destroyed.
On the eighth, fourteenth and fifteenth days of each fortnight, as well as on the Tishya and
Punarvasa days and festival days, the castration of bulls must not be performed, nor may
he-goats, rams, boars and other animals liable to castration be castrated.
On the Tishya and Punarvasa days, on the seasonal full moon days, and during the fortnights
of the seasonal full moons the branding of horses and oxen must not be done.
During the time upto the twenty-sixth anniversary of my consecration twenty-five jail
deliveries have been effected.”
So much for the legislation of Asoka.
III
Let us turn to Manu. His Laws contain the following provisions regarding meat-eating:
V.11. Let him avoid all carnivorous birds and those living in villages, and one hoofed animals
which are not specially permitted (to be eaten), and the Tithbha (Parra) Jacana.
V.12. The sparrow, the Plava, the Hamsa, the Brahmani duck, the village-cock, the Sarasa
crane, the Raggudal, the woodpecker, the parrot, and the starling.
V.13. Those which feed striking with their beaks, web-footed birds, the Koyashti, those
which scratch with their toes, those which dive and live on fish, meat from a slaughterhouse and dried meat.
V.14. The Baka and the Balaka crane, the raven, the Khangartaka (animals) that eat fish,
village-pigs, and all kinds of fishes.
V.15. He who eats the flesh of any (animals) is called the eater of the flesh of that
(particular) creature, he who eats fish is an eater of every (kind of) flesh; let him therefore
avoid fish.
V.16. (But the fish called) Pathine and (that called) Rohita may be eaten, if used for offering
to the gods or to the manes; (one may eat) likewise Ragivas, Simhatundas, and Sasalkas on
all occasions.
V.17. Let him not eat solitary or unknown beasts and birds though they may fall under (the
categories of) eatable creatures, not any five-toed (animals).
V.18. The porcupine, the hedgehog, the iguana, the rhinoceros, the tortoise, and the hare
they declare to be eatable; likewise those (domestic animals) that have teeth in one jaw
Draft 3 April 2014
59
excepting camels."
IV
Here is survey of the legislation both by Asoka and by Manu on the slaughter of animals. We
are of course principally concerned with the cow. Examining the legislation of Asoka the
question is: Did he prohibit the killing of the cow? On this issue there seem to be a
difference of opinion. Prof. Vincent Smith is of opinion that Asoka did not prohibit the killing
of the cow. Commenting on the legislation of Asoka on the subject, Prof. Smith says: “It is
noteworthy that Asoka's rules do not forbid the slaughter of cow, which, apparently,
continued to be lawful.”
Prof. Radhakumud Mookerji joins issue with Prof. Smith and says that Asoka did prohibit the
slaughter of the cow. Prof. Mookerji relies upon the reference in Pillar Edict V to the rule of
exemption which was made applicable to all four-footed animals and argues that under this
rule cow was exempted from killing. This is not a correct reading of the statement in the
Edict. The Statement in the Edict is a qualified statement. It does not refer to all four-footed
animals but only to four-footed animals, which are not utilised or eaten. 'A cow cannot be
said to be a four-footed animal which was not utilised or eaten. Prof. Vincent Smith seems
to be correct in saying that Asoka did not prohibit the slaughter of the cow. Prof. Mookerji
tries to get out of the difficulty by saying that at the time of Asoka the cow was not eaten
and therefore came within the prohibition. His statement is simply absurd for the cow was
an animal which was very much eaten by all classes.
It is quite unnecessary to resort as does Prof. Mookerji to a forced construction of the Edict
and to make Asoka prohibit the slaughter of the cow as though it was his duty to do so.
Asoka had no particular interest in the cow and owed no special duty to protect her against
killing. Asoka was interested in the sanctity of all life human as well as animal. He felt his
duty to prohibit the taking of life where taking of life was not necessary. That is why he
prohibited slaughtering animal for sacrifice which he regarded as unnecessary and of
animals which are not utilised nor eaten which again would be want on and unnecessary.
That he did not prohibit the slaughter of the cow in specie may well be taken as a fact which
for having regard to the Buddhist attitude in the matter cannot be used against Asoka as a
ground for casting blame.
Coming to Manu there is no doubt that he too did. not prohibit the slaughter of the cow. On
the other hand he made the eating of cow's flesh on certain occasions obligatory.
Why then did the non-Brahmins give up eating beef? There appears to be no apparent
reason for this departure on their part. But there must be some reason behind it. The reason
I like to suggest is that it was due to their desire to imitate the Brahmins that the nonBrahmins gave up beef-eating. This may be a novel theory but it is not an impossible theory.
As the French author, Gabriel Tarde has explained that culture within a society spreads by
imitation of the ways and manners of the superior classes by the inferior classes. This
imitation is so regular in its flow that its working is as mechanical as the working of a natural
law. Gabriel Tarde speaks of the laws of imitation. One of these laws is that the lower classes
always imitate the higher classes. This is a matter of such common knowledge that hardly
any individual can be found to question its validity.
That the spread of the cow-worship among and cessation of beef-eating by the nonBrahmins has taken place by reason of the habit of the non-Brahmins to imitate the
Brahmins who were undoubtedly their superiors is beyond dispute. Of course there was an
extensive propaganda in favour of cow-worship by the Brahmins. The Gayatri Purana is a
piece of this propaganda. But initially it is the result of the natural law of imitation. This, of
course, raises another question: Why did the Brahmins give up beef-eating?
60
What made the Brahmins become vegetarians?
THE non-Brahmins have evidently undergone a revolution. From being beef-eaters to have
become non-beef-eaters was indeed a revolution. But if the non-Brahmins underwent one
revolution, the Brahmins had undergone two. They gave up beef-eating which was one
revolution. To have given up meat-eating altogether and become vegetarians was another
revolution.
That this was a revolution is beyond question. For as has been shown in the previous
chapters there was a time when the Brahmins were the greatest beef-eaters. Although the
non-Brahmins did eat beef they could not have had it every day. The cow was a costly
animal and the non-Brahmins could ill afford to slaughter it just for food. He only did it on
special occasion when his religious duty or personal interest to propitiate a deity compelled
him to do. But the case with the Brahmin was different. He was a priest. In a period
overridden by ritualism there was hardly a day on which there was no cow sacrifice to which
the Brahmin was not invited by some non-Brahmin. For the Brahmin every day was a beefsteak day. The Brahmins were therefore the greatest beef-eaters. The Yajna of the Brahmins
was nothing but the killing of innocent animals carried on in the name of religion with pomp
and ceremony with an attempt to enshroud it in mystery with a view to conceal their
appetite for beef. Some idea of this mystery pomp and ceremony can be had from the
directions contained in the Atreya Brahamana touching the killing of animals in a Yajna.
The actual killing of the animal is preceded by certain initiatory Rites accompanied by
incantations too long and too many to be detailed here. It is enough to give an idea of the
main features of the Sacrifice. The sacrifice commences with the erection of the Sacrificial
post called the Yupa to which the animal is tied before it is slaughtered. After setting out
why the Yupa is necessary the Atreya Brahamana proceeds to state what it stands for. It
says:
“This Yupa is a weapon. Its point must have eight edges. For a weapon (or iron club) has
eight edges. Whenever he strikes with it an enemy or adversary, he kills him. (This weapon
serves) to put down him (every one) who is to be put down by him (the sacrificer). The Yupa
is a weapon which stands erected (being ready) to slay an enemy. Thence an enemy (of the
sacrificer) who might be present (at the sacrifice) comes of all ill after having seen the Yupa
of such or such one.”
The selection of the wood to be used for the Yupa is made to vary with the purposes which
the sacrificer wishes to achieve by the sacrifice. The Atreya Brahamana says :
“He who desires heaven, ought to make his Yupa of Khadira wood. For the gods conquered
the celestial world by means of a Yupa, made of Khadira wood. In the same way the
sacrificer conquers the celestial world by means of a Yupa, made of Khadira wood.
“He who desires food and wishes to grow fat ought to make his Yupa of Bilva wood. For the
Bilva tree bears fruits every year; it is the symbol of fertility; for it increases (every year) in
size from the roots up to the branches, therefore it is a symbol of fatness. He who having
such a knowledge makes his Yupa of Bilva wood, makes fat his children and cattle.
“As regards the Yupa made of Bilva wood (it is further to be remarked), that they call light
Bilva. He who has such a knowledge becomes a light' among his own people, the most
distinguished among his own people.
“He who desires beauty and sacred knowledge ought to make his Yupa of Palasa wood. For
the Palasa is among the trees of beauty and sacred knowledge. He who having such a
knowledge makes his Yupa of Palasa wood, becomes beautiful and acquires sacred
Draft 3 April 2014
61
knowledge.
“As regards the Yupa made of Palasa wood (there is further to be remarked), that the Palasa
is the womb of all trees. Thence they speak on account of the palasam (foliage) of this or
that tree (i.e. they call the foliage of every tree palasam). He who has such a knowledge
obtains (the gratification of) any desire, he might have regarding all trees (i.e., he obtains
from all trees any thing he might wish for).”
….
Given these facts, no further evidence seems to be necessary to support the statement that
the Brahmins were not merely beef-eaters but they were also butchers.
Why then did the Brahmins change front? Let us deal with their change of front in two
stages. First, why did they give up beef-eating?
II
As has already been shown cow-killing was not legally prohibited by Asoka. Even if it had
been prohibited, a law made by the Buddhist Emperor could never have been accepted by
the Brahmins as binding upon them.
Did Manu prohibit beef-eating? If he did, then that would be binding on the Brahmins and
would afford an adequate explanation of their change of front. Looking into the Manu Smriti
one does find the following verses:
V. 46. He who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures,
(but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss.
V. 47. He who does not injure any (creature), attains without an effort what he thinks of,
what he undertakes, and what he fixes his mind on.
V. 48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient
beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use
of) meat.
V. 49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering
and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.
If these verses can be treated as containing positive injunctions they would be sufficient to
explain why the Brahmins gave up meat-eating and became vegetarians. But it is impossible
to treat these verses as positive injunctions, carrying the force of law. They are either
exhortations or interpolations introduced after the Brahmins had become vegetarians in
praise of the change. That the latter is the correct view is proved by the following verses
which occur in the same chapter of the Manu Smriti:
V. 28: 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.
V. 29. 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.
V. 30. 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 (for those special
purposes).
V. 56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse,
for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards.
V. 27. . One may eat meat when it has been sprinkled with water, while Mantras were
recited, when Brahmanas desire (one's doing it) when one is engaged (in the performance of
62
a rite) according to the law, and when one's life is in danger.
V. 31. The consumption of meat (is befitting) for scrifices,' that is declared to be a rule made
by the gods, but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy
of Rakshasas.
V. 32. He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes commits no sin, whether he
has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal) or has received it as a present from others.
V. 42. A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for
these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.
V. 39. Swayambhu (the self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices;
sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering
(of beasts) for sacrifice is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).
V. 40. Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and other animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices,
receive (being reborn) higher existences."
Manu goes further and makes eating of flesh compulsory. Note the following verse:
V. 35. But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses to
eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences.
That Manu did not prohibit meat-eating is evident enough. That Manu Smriti did not
prohibit cow-killing can also be proved from the Smriti itself. In the first place, the only
references to cow in the Manu Smriti are to be found in the catalogue of rules which are
made applicable by Manu to the Snataka [brahmin student-scholar]. They are set out below:
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.
From these references it will be seen that Manu did not regard the cow as a sacred animal.
On the other hand, he regarded it as an impure animal whose touch caused ceremonial
pollution.
There are verses in Manu which show that he did not prohibit the eating of beef. In this
connection, reference may be made to Chapter III. 3. It says:
“He (Snataka) who is famous (for the strict performance of) his duties and has received his
heritage, the Veda from his father, shall be honoured, sitting on couch and adomed with a
garland with the present of a cow (the honey-mixture).”
The question is why should Manu recommend the gift of a cow to a Snataka? Obviously, to
enable him to perform Madhuparka [a dish whose essential element is flesh and particularly
cow’s flesh served to six types of guests – (1) Ritwija or the Brahmin called to perform a
sacrifice, (2) Acharya, the teacher, (3) The bridegroom (4) The King (5) The Snatak, the
student who has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Any person who is dear to
the host. Some add Atithi to this list. Except in the case of Ritvija, King and Acharya,
Madhuparka is to be offered to the rest once in a year. To the Ritvija, King and Acharya it is
to be offered each time they come.] If that is so, it follows that Manu knew that Brahmins
did eat beef and he had no objection to it.
Draft 3 April 2014
63
Another reference would be to Manu’s discussion of the animals whose meat is eatable and
those, whose meat is not. In Chapter V.18 he says: “The porcupine, the hedgehog, the
iguana, the rhinoceros, the tortoise, and the hare they declare to be eatable, likewise those
(domestic animals) that have teeth in one jaw only, excepting camels.”
In this verse Manu gives general permission to eat the flesh of all domestic animals that
have teeth in one jaw only. To this rule Manu makes one exception, namely, the camel. In
this class of domestic animals those that have teeth in one jaw only- falls not only the camel
but also the cow. It is noteworthy that Manu does not make an exception in the case of the
cow. This means that Manu had no objection to the eating of the cow's flesh.
Manu did not make the killing of the cow an offence. Manu divides sins into two classes (i)
mortal sins and (ii) minor sins. Among the mortal sins Manu includes:
XI. 55. Killing a Brahmana, drinking (the spirituous liquor called Sura) stealing the (gold of
Brahmana) a adultery with a Gum's wife, and associating with such offenders.
Among minor sins Manu includes:
XI. 60. Killing the cow, sacrificing for those unworthy to sacrifice, adultery, setting oneself,
casting off one's teacher, mother, father or son, giving up the (daily) study of the Veda and
neglecting the (sacred domestic) fire.
From this it will be clear that according to Manu cow-killing was only a minor sin. It was
reprehensible only if the cow was killed without good and sufficient reason. Even if it was
otherwise, it was not heinous or inexplicable. The same was the attitude of Yajnavalkya.
All this proves that for generations the Brahmins had been eating beef. Why did they give up
beef-eating? Why did they, as an extreme step, give up meat eating altogether and become
vegetarians? It is two revolutions rolled into one. As has been shown it has not been done as
a result of the preachings of Manu, their Divine Law-maker. The revolution has taken place
in spite of Manu and contrary to his directions. What made the Brahmins take this step?
Was philosophy responsible for it? Or was it dictated by strategy?
Two explanations are offered. One explanation is that this deification of the cow was a
manifestation of the Advaita philosophy that one supreme entity pervaded the whole
universe, that on that account all life human as well as animal was sacred. This explanation
is obviously unsatisfactory. In the first place, it does not fit in with facts. The Vedanta Sutra
which proclaims the doctrine of oneness of life does not prohibit the killing of animals for
sacrificial purposes as is evident from 11.1.28. In the second place, if the transformation was
due to the desire to realise the ideal of Advaita then there is no reason why it should have
stopped with the cow. It should have extended to all other animals.
Another explanation more ingenious than the first, is that this transformation in the life of
the Brahmin was due to the rise of the doctrine of the Transmigration of the Soul. Even this
explanation does not fit in with facts. The Brahadamyaka Upanishad upholds the doctrine of
transmigration (vi.2) and yet recommends that if a man desires to have a learned son born
to him he should prepare a mass of the flesh of the bull or ox or of other flesh with rice and
ghee. Again, how is it that this doctrine which is propounded in the Upanishads did not have
any effect on the Brahmins upto the time of the Manu Smriti, a period of at least 400 years.
Obviously, this explanation is no explanation. Thirdly, if Brahmins became vegetarians by
reason of the doctrine of transmigration of the soul how is it, it did not make the nonBrahmins take to vegetarianism?
To my mind, it was strategy which made the Brahmins give up beef-eating and start
worshipping the cow. 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. The strife between Buddhism and Brahmanism is a crucial fact in
64
Indian history. Without the realisation of this fact, it is impossible to explain some of the
features of Hinduism. Unfortunately students of Indian history have entirely missed the
importance of this strife. They knew there was Brahmanism. But they seem to be entirely
unaware of the struggle for supremacy in which these creeds were engaged and that their
struggle, which extended for 400 years has left some indelible marks on religion, society and
politics of India.
This is not the place for describing the full story of the struggle. All one can do is to mention
a few salient points. Buddhism was at one time the religion of the majority of the people of
India. It continued to be the religion of the masses for hundreds of years. It attacked
Brahmanism on all sides as no religion had done before.
Brahmanism was on the wane and if not on the wane, it was certainly on the defensive. As a
result of the spread of Buddhism, the Brahmins had lost all power and prestige at the Royal
Court and among the people. They were smarting under the defeat they had suffered at the
hands of Buddhism and were making all possible efforts to regain their power and prestige.
Buddhism had made so deep an impression on the minds of the masses and had taken such
a hold of them that it was absolutely impossible for the Brahmins to fight the Buddhists
except by accepting their ways and means and practising the Buddhist creed in its extreme
form. After the death of Buddha his followers started setting up the images of the Buddha
and building stupas. The Brahmins followed it. They, in their turn, built temples and installed
in them images of Shiva, Vishnu and Ram and Krishna etc – all with the object of drawing
away the crowd that was attracted by the image worship of Buddha. That is how temples
and images which had no place in Brahmanism came into Hinduism. The Buddhists rejected
the Brahmanic religion which consisted of Yajna and animal sacrifice, particularly of the cow.
The objection to the sacrifice of the cow had taken a strong hold of the minds of the masses
especially as they were an agricultural population and the cow was a very useful animal. The
Brahmins in all probability had come to be hated as the killer of cows in the same way as the
guest had come to be hated as Gognha, the killer of the cow by the householder, because
whenever he came a cow had to be killed in his honour. That being the case, the Brahmins
could do nothing to improve their position against the Buddhists except by giving up the
Yajna as a form of worship and the sacrifice of the cow.
That the object of the Brahmins in giving up beef-eating was to snatch away from the
Buddhist Bhikshus the supremacy they had acquired is evidenced by the adoption of
vegetarianism by Brahmins. Why did the Brahmins become vegetarian? The answer is that
without becoming vegetarian the Brahmins could not have recovered the ground they had
lost to their rival namely Buddhism. In this connection it must be remembered that there
was one aspect in which Brahmanism suffered in public esteem as compared to Buddhism.
That was the practice of animal sacrifice which was the essence of Brahmanism and to which
Buddhism was deadly opposed. That in an agricultural population there should be respect
for Buddhism and revulsion against Brahmanism which involved slaughter of animals
including cows and bullocks is only natural. What could the Brahmins do to recover the lost
ground? To go one better than the Buddhist Bhikshus not only to give up meat-eating but to
become vegetarians- which they did. That this was the object of the Brahmins in becoming
vegetarians can be proved in various ways.
If the Brahmins had acted from conviction that animal sacrifice was bad, all that was
necessary for them to do was to give up killing animals for sacrifice. It was unnecessary for
them to be vegetarians. That they did go in for vegetarianism makes it obvious that their
motive was far-reaching. Secondly, it was unnecessary for them to become vegetarians. For
the Buddhist Bhikshus were not vegetarians. This statement might surprise many people
owing to the popular belief that the connection between Ahimsa and Buddhism was
immediate and essential. It is generally believed that the Buddhist Bhikshus eschewed
Draft 3 April 2014
65
animal food. This is an error. The fact is that the Buddhist Bhikshus were permitted to eat
three kinds of flesh that were deemed pure. Later on they were extended to five classes.
Yuan Chwang, the Chinese traveller was aware of this and spoke of the pure kinds of flesh as
San-Ching, The origin of this practice among the Bhikshus is explained by Mr. Thomas
Walters. According to the story told by him “In the time of Buddha there was in Vaisali a wealthy general named Siha who was a convert
to Buddhism. He became a liberal supporter of the Brethren and kept them constantly
supplied with good flesh-food. When it was noticed abroad that the Bhikshus were in the
habit of eating such food specially provided for them, the Tirthikas made the practice a
matter of angry reproach. Then the abstemious ascetic Brethren, learning this, reported the
circumstances to the Master, who thereupon called the Brethren together. When they
assembled, he announced to them the law that they were not to eat the flesh of any animal
which they had seen put to death for them, or about which they had been told that it had
been slain for them. But he permitted to the Brethren as ‘pure’ (that is, lawful) food the
flesh of animals the slaughter of which had not been seen by the Bhikshus, not heard of by
them, and not suspected by them to have been on their account. In the Pali and Ssu-fen
Vinaya it was after a breakfast given by Siha to the Buddha and some of the Brethren, for
which the carcass of a large ox was procured that the Nirgianthas reviled the Bhikshus and
Buddha instituted this new rule declaring fish and flesh ‘pure’ in the three conditions. The
animal food now permitted to the Bhikshus came to be known as the ‘three pures’ or ‘three
pure kinds of flesh’, and it was tersely described as ‘unseen, unheard, unsuspected’, or as
the Chinese translations sometimes have it ‘not seen, not heard nor suspected to be on my
account’. Then two more kinds of animal food were declared ‘lawful for the Brethren viz.,
the flesh of animals which had died a natural death, and that of animals which had been
killed by a bird of prey or other savage creature. So there came to be five classes or
descriptions of flesh which the professed Buddhist was at liberty to use as food. Then the
‘unseen, unheard, unsuspected’ came to be treated as one class, and this together with the
‘natural death’ and ‘bird killed’ made a san-ching.”
As the Buddhist Bhikshus did eat meat the Brahmins had no reason to give it up. Why then
did the Brahmins give up meat-eating and become vegetarians? It was because they did not
want to put themselves merely on the same footing in the eyes of the public as the Buddhist
Bhikshus.
The giving up of the Yajna system and abandonment of the sacrifice of the cow could have
had only a limited effect. At the most it would have put the Brahmins on the same footing as
the Buddhists. The same would have been the case if they had followed the rules observed
by the Buddhist Bhikshus in the matter of meat-eating. It could not have given the Brahmins
the means of achieving supremacy over the Buddhists which was their ambition. They
wanted to oust the Buddhists from the place of honour and respect which they had acquired
in the minds of the masses by their opposition to the killing of the cow for sacrificial
purposes. To achieve their purpose the Brahmins had to adopt the usual tactics of a reckless
adventurer. It is to beat extremism with extremism. It is the strategy which all rightists use
to overcome the leftists. The only way to beat the Buddhists was to go a step further and be
vegetarians.
There is another reason which can be relied upon to support the thesis that the Brahmins
started cow-worship gave up beef-eating and became vegetarians in order to vanquish
Buddhism. It is the date when cow-killing became a mortal sin. It is well-known that cowkilling was not made an offence by Asoka. Many people expect him to have come forward to
prohibit the killing of the cow. Prof. Vincent Smith regards it as surprising. But there is
nothing surprising in it.
Buddhism was against animal sacrifice in general. It had no particular affection for the cow.
66
Asoka had therefore no particular reason to make a law to save the cow. What is more
astonishing is the fact that cow-killing was made a Mahapataka, a mortal sin or a capital
offence by the Gupta Kings who were champions of Hinduism which recognised and
sanctioned the killing of the cow for sacrificial purposes. As pointed out by Mr. D. R.
Bhandarkar:
“We have got the incontrovertible evidence of inscriptions to show that early in the 5th
century A. D. killing a cow was looked upon as an offence of the deepest turpitude,
turpitude as deep as that involved in murdering a Brahman. We have thus a copper-plate
inscription dated 465 A.D. and referring itself to the reign of Skandagupta of the Imperial
Gupta dynasty. It registers a grant and ends with a verse saying : 'Whosoever will transgress
this grant that has been assigned (shall become as guilty as) the slayer of a cow, the slayer of
a spiritual preceptor (or) the slayer of a Brahman. A still earlier record placing go-hatya on
the same footing as brahma hatya is that of Chandragupta II, grandfather of Skandagupta
just mentioned. It bears the Gupta date 93, which is equivalent to 412 A.D. It is engraved on
the railing which surrounds the celebrated Buddhist stupa at Sanchi, in Central India. This
also speaks of a benefaction made by an officer of Chandragupta and ends as follows : … …
"Whosoever shall interfere with this arrangement .. he shall become invested with (the guilt
of) the slaughter of a cow or of a Brahman, and with (the guilt of) the five anantarya" Here
the object of this statement is to threaten the resumer of the grant, be he a Brahminist or a
Buddhist, with the sins regarded as mortal by each community. The anantaryas are the five
mahapatakas according to Buddhist theology. They are: matricide, patricide, killing an Arhat,
shedding the blood of a Buddha, and causing a split among the priesthood. The
mahapatakas with which a Brahminist is here threatened are only two : viz., the killing of a
cow and the murdering of a Brahman. The latter is obviously a mahapataka as it is
mentioned as such in all the Smritis, but the former has been specified only an upapataka by
Apastamba, Manu, Yajnavalkya and so forth. But the very fact that it is here associated with
brahma-hatya and both have been put on a par with the anantaryas of the Buddhists shows
that in the beginning of the fifth century A.D., it was raised to the category of mahapatakas.
Thus go-hatya must have come to be considered a mahapataka at least one century earlier,
i.e., about the commencement of the fourth century A.D.”
The question is why should a Hindu king have come forward to make a law against cowkilling, that is to say, against the Laws of Manu? The answer is that the Brahmins had to
suspend or abrogate a requirement of their Vedic religion in order to overcome the
supremacy of the Buddhist Bhikshus. If the analysis is correct then it is obvious that the
worship of the cow is the result of the struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism. It was a
means adopted by the Brahmins to regain their lost position.
Why should beef eating make broken men untouchables?
THE stoppage of beef-eating by the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and the continued use
thereof by the Broken Men had produced a situation which was different from the old. This
difference lay in the face that while in the old situation everybody ate beef, in the new situation one section did not and another did. The difference was a glaring difference.
Everybody could see it. It divided society as nothing else did before. All the same, this
difference need not have given rise to such extreme division of society as is marked by
Untouchability. It could have remained a social difference. There are many cases where
different sections of the community differ in their foods. What one likes the other dislikes
and yet this difference does not create a bar between the two.
There must therefore be some special reason why in India the difference between the
Settled Community and the Broken Men in the matter of beef eating created a bar between
Draft 3 April 2014
67
the two. What can that be? The answer is that if beef-eating had remained a secular affair-a
mere matter of individual taste-such a bar between those who ate beef and those who did
not would not have arisen. Unfortunately beef-eating, instead of being treated as a purely
secular matter, was made a matter of religion. This happened because the Brahmins made
the cow a sacred animal. This made beef-eating a sacrilege. The Broken Men being guilty of
sacrilege necessarily became beyond the pale of society.
The answer may not be quite clear to those who have no idea of the scope and function of
religion in the life of the society. They may ask: Why should religion make such a difference?
It will be clear if the following points regarding the scope and function of religion are borne
in mind.
To begin with the definition of religion. There is one universal feature which characterises all
religions. This feature lies in religion being a unified system of beliefs and practices which (1)
relate to sacred things and (2) which unite into one single community all those who adhere
to them. To put it slightly differently, there are two elements in every religion. One is that
religion is inseparable from sacred things. The other is that religion is a collective thing
inseparable from society.
The first element in religion presupposes a classification of all things, real and ideal, which
are the subject-matter of man's thought, into two distinct classes which are generally
designated by two distinct terms the sacred and the profane, popularly spoken of as secular.
This defines the scope of religion. For understanding the function of religion the following
points regarding things sacred should be noted:
The first thing to note is that things sacred are not merely higher than or superior in dignity
and status to those that are profane. They are just different. The sacred and the profane do
not belong to the same class. There is a complete dichotomy between the two. As Prof.
Durkhiem observes:
“The traditional opposition of good and bad is nothing beside this; for the good and the bad
are only two opposed species of the same class, namely, morals, just as sickness and health
are two different aspects of the same order of facts, life, while the sacred and the profane
have always and everywhere been conceived by the human mind as two distinct classes, as
two worlds between which there is nothing in common.”
The curious may want to know what has led men to see in this world this dichotomy
between the sacred and the profane. We must however refuse to enter into this discussion
as it is unnecessary for the immediate purpose we have in mind.
Confining ourselves to the issue the next thing to note is that 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. To quote
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.”
Religious interdicts take multiple forms. Most important of these is the interdiction on
contact. The interdiction on contact rests upon the principle that the profane should never
touch the sacred. Contact may be established in a variety of ways other than touch. A look is
a means of contact. That is why the sight of sacred things is forbidden to the profane in
certain cases. For instance, women are not allowed to see certain things which are regarded
as sacred. The word (i.e., the breath which forms part of man and which spreads outside
68
him) is another means of contact. That is why the profane is forbidden to address the sacred
things or to utter them. For instance, the Veda must be uttered only by the Brahmin and not
by the Shudra. An exceptionally intimate contact is the one resulting from the absorption of
food. Hence comes the interdiction against eating the sacred animals or vegetables.
The interdictions relating to the sacred are not open to discussion. They are beyond
discussion and must be accepted without question. The sacred is 'untouchable' in the sense
that it. is beyond the pale of debate. All that one can do is to respect and obey.
Lastly the interdictions relating to the sacred are binding on all. They are not maxims. They
are injunctions. They are obligatory but not in the ordinary sense of the word. They partake
of the nature of a categorical imperative. Their breach is more than a crime. It is a sacrilege.
The above summary should be enough for an understanding of the scope and function of
religion. It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the subject further. The analysis of the working of
the laws of the sacred which is the core of religion should enable any one to see that my
answer to the question why beef-eating should make the Broken Men untouchables is the
correct one. All that is necessary to reach the answer I have proposed is to read the analysis
of the working of the laws of the sacred with the cow as the sacred object. It will be found
that Untouchability is the result of the breach of the interdiction against the eating of the
sacred animal, namely, the cow.
As has been said, the Brahmins made the cow a sacred animal. They did not stop to make a
difference between a living cow and a dead cow. The cow was sacred, living or dead. Beefeating was not merely a crime. If it was only a crime it would have involved nothing more
than punishment. Beef-eating was made a sacrilege. Anyone who treated the cow as
profane was guilty of sin and unfit for association. The Broken Men who continued to eat
beef became guilty of sacrilege.
Once the cow became sacred and the Broken Men continued to eat beef, there was no
other fate left for the Broken Men except to be treated unfit for association, i.e., as
Untouchables.
Before closing the subject it may be desirable to dispose of possible objections to the thesis.
Two such objections to the thesis appear obvious. One is what evidence is there that the
Broken Men did eat the flesh of the dead cow. The second is why did they not give up beefeating when the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins abandoned it. These questions have an
important bearing upon the theory of the origin of untouchability advanced in this book and
must therefore be dealt with.
The first question is relevant as well as crucial. If the Broken Men were eating beef from the
very beginning, then obviously the theory cannot stand. For, if they were eating beef from
the very beginning and nonetheless were not treated as Untouchables, to say that the
Broken Men became Untouchables because of beef-eating would be illogical if not
senseless. The second question is relevant, if not crucial. If the Brahmins gave up beef-eating
and the non-Brahmins imitated them why did the Broken Men not do the same? If the law
made the killing of the cow a capital sin because the cow became a sacred animal to the
Brahmins and non-Brahmins, why were the Broken Men not stopped from eating beef? If
they had been stopped from eating beef there would have been no Untouchability.
The answer to the first question is that even during the period when beef-eating was
common to both, the Settled Tribesmen and the Broken Men, a system had grown up
whereby the Settled Community ate fresh beef, while the Broken Men ate the flesh of the
dead cow. We have no positive evidence to show that members of the Settled Community
never ate the flesh of the dead cow. But we have negative evidence which shows that the
dead cow had become an exclusive possession and perquisite of the Broken Men. The
evidence consists of facts which relate to the Mahars of the Maharashtra to whom
Draft 3 April 2014
69
reference has already been made. As has already been pointed out, the Mahars of the
Maharashtra claim the right to take the dead animal. This right they claim against every
Hindu in the village. This means that no Hindu can eat the flesh of his own animal when it
dies. He has to surrender it to the Mahar. This is merely another way of stating that when
eating beef was a common practice the Mahars ate dead beef and the Hindus ate fresh beef.
The only questions that arise are : Whether what is true of the present is true of the ancient
past? Can this fact which is true of the Maharashtra be taken as typical of the arrangement
between the Settled Tribes and the Broken Men throughout India.
In this connection reference may be made to the tradition current among the Mahars
according to which they claim that they were given 52 rights against the Hindu villagers by
the Muslim King of Bedar. Assuming that they were given by the King of Bedar, the King
obviously did not create them for the first time. They must have been in existence from the
ancient past. What the King did was merely to confirm them. This means that the practice of
the Broken Men eating dead meat and the Settled Tribes eating fresh meat must have
grown in the ancient past. That such an arrangement should grow up is certainly most
natural. The Settled Community was a wealthy community with agriculture and cattle as
means of livelihood. The Broken Men were a community of paupers with no means of
livelihood and entirely dependent upon the Settled Community. The principal item of food
for both was beef. It was possible for the Settled Community to kill an animal for food
because it was possessed of cattle. The Broken Men could not for they had none. Would it
be unnatural in these circumstances for the Settled Community to have agreed to give to
the Broken Men its dead animals as part of their wages of watch and ward? Surely not. It
can therefore be taken for granted that in the ancient past when both the Settled
Community and Broken Men did eat beef the former ate fresh beef and the latter of the
dead cow and that this system represented a universal state of affairs throughout India and
was not confined to the Maharashtra alone.
This disposes of the first objection. To turn to the second objection. The law made by the
Gupta Emperors was intended to prevent those who killed cows. It did not apply to the
Broken Men. For they did not kill the cow. They only ate the dead cow. Their conduct did
not contravene the law against cow-killing. The practice of eating the flesh of the dead cow
therefore was allowed to continue. Nor did their conduct contravene the doctrine of Ahimsa
assuming that it has anything to do with the abandonment of beef-eating by the Brahmins
and the non-Brahmins. Killing the cow was Himsa. But eating the dead cow was not. The
Broken Men had therefore no cause for feeling qualms of conscience in continuing to eat
the dead cow. Neither the law nor the doctrine of Himsa could interdict what they were
doing, for what they were doing was neither contrary to law nor to the doctrine.
As to why they did not imitate the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins the answer is two fold.
In the first place, imitation was too costly. They could not afford it. The flesh of the dead
cow was their principal sustenance. Without it they would starve. In the second place,
carrying the dead cow had become an obligation though originally it was a privilege. As they
could not escape carrying the dead cow they did not mind using the flesh as food in the
manner in which they were doing previously.
The objections therefore do not invalidate the thesis in any way.
6.1.6
Beef eating in the Hindu Tradition by Rohini Bakshi
(Source)
Ask any Hindu to respond spontaneously to this question: What are the two most holy
70
things in your religion? Chances are the first two responses will be ‘the Vedas’ and ‘the
Cow’. Conflated, these two have been used for years (centuries!) to feed a Hindu
abhorrence toward beef eating. How often I’ve heard it said – “Of course the cow is sacred –
it says so in the Hindu scriptures. It says so in the Vedas!” The Vedas. Which 99.99% of
Hindus haven’t read. We have no clue what they contain. At best we may be able to name
them and tell you which is the oldest, since we learnt that in Ancient Indian History at
school.
This article aims to correct the misconception that beef eating should be taboo based on
what the scriptures supposedly say. I respect a Hindu’s right not to eat beef, or any meat for
that matter. But to quote the scriptures in support of this belief is quite ridiculous. To prove
my point, I will refer to a variety of ancient Hindu sources including the Samhit?s (oldest
portions of the Vedas), the Br?hma?as (Vedic texts which lay down the rules for the Vedic
sacrifice) and the Dharma-sutr?s, (post Vedic texts which continue to be the bedrock of
orthodox Hindu belief.)
Early Vedic Period
The cow was undoubtedly very important, indeed sacred to Vedic Indians. But not in the
way we most of us imagine. It was the ?rya's sustenance, his wealth, his most prized
possession. Not surprisingly, it was therefore the best offering to his gods in sacrifice.
The laity, as well the priests who conducted the sacrifice partook of the left over (ucchi??a)
of the ceremony. In fact in the words of Dr. B.R Ambedkar, “For the brahmin, everyday was
a beef-stake day.” (From his 1948 work “The Untouchables…)
That the ?rya of the ?g Veda ate beef and meat is clear from the text itself. The killing of
cows for guests was so wide-spread that go-ghna (killer of cows) became a synomym
of atithi (guest). RV X.68.3 mentions a hero called Atithigva*, which means literally ‘slaying
cows for guests’. Madhuparka, an offering for special guests mentioned first in
the Jaimin?ya-Upani?ad-Br?hma?a was not just curd and honey as the name might suggest,
but a cow was immolated or let loose as part of the welcome. Either way, in no case
was Madhuparka complete without beef or some other meat. Perhaps there were
exhortations to limit the killing, reflected in the response of Yajñavalka, a renowned
ancient ??i who said “I for one eat it (beef) provided it is tender.” The Taittireya
Samhit? tells us how to cut up the animal and gives an idea of the distribution of its flesh (TS
6.3.10. 2-6).
?g Vedic Indians fed their gods their own favourite foods – milk, butter, ghee, barley, goats
and sheep. But Indra, their mightiest god, destroyer of enemy strongholds, preferred the
flesh of the bull. Sometimes he ate one, sometimes fifteen, twenty, a hundred, 300 bulls.
Even a thousand buffaloes.1 Agni was not so particular. He mostly liked ghee, but was not
averse to horses, bulls, oxen, cows and rams. (RV X.91.14). The third most important god
was Soma, and in the Soma sacrifice including cows as bali (victim) was crucial. It was the
Soma sacrifice that went on to become the defining practice that
demarcated ?rya from an?rya.2
Late Vedic Period
The Gopatha Br?hma?a describes 21 types of yajñas (sacrifices), the most important of
which included animal sacrifice. The offering varied depending on which god was being
propitiated. Bulls were sacrificed to Indra, dappled cows to the Maruts, a copper coloured
cow to the A?vins, a regular one to Mitra-Varu?a. The A?vamedha, the R?jas?ya, and
the V?japeya yajñas all included animal sacrifice in large numbers, including cows and bulls.
In theA?vamedha for instance, more than 600 animals were killed, and its finalé was the
sacrifice of 21 cows. In fact an independent yajña is actually
Draft 3 April 2014
71
called pa?ubandha, pa?u meaning animal (Gopatha Br?hma?a 1.5.7)
There isn’t space to go into the detail of even the main yajña here, but this extract from
the ?atapatha Br?hma?a should give you an idea. This is from the Sautr?ma?i rite, which is
said to replenish the sacrificer: “He (the priest) consecrates him (the sacrificer) by sprinkling
him with the fat gravy of the sacrificial animals, for the gravy of the animals means
excellence … But that gravy is also the highest kind of food: with the highest kind of food he
thus sprinkles him. There are hoof-cups (of gravy) for on hoofs cattle support themselves: he
thus causes him to obtain such a support…”3
While this excerpt raises the question of how the fat was extracted, it doesn’t prove that the
priests and the sacrificer actually ate the remains of the sacrificial animal. For this we turn to
animal sacrifice in the Soma ceremony. We join the sacrificer’s wife and the adhvaryu priest
after the animal has been"quietened" : “They turn the victim over so it lies on its back … the
animal is then cut and when the omentum is pulled out it is heated on the cooking fire …
then after the basting of the heart of the animal with clotted ghee … then portions are made
from various parts of the body …” (?B 3.8.2-4)4. ?B 3.8.3.11 specifies that some portions of
the sacrificial animal must not be eaten e.g.the head, but there is no objection to eating
other parts of the animal.
Post Vedic Period
Let us now turn to the Dharma-sutr?s which were normative texts whose core audience was
the Brahmin male. There are a lot of them, so rather than bore you, I'll quote briefly from
the best known of them all – Manu. Ch 5 of his law code deals with rules for food.6 "To
perform sacrifices Brahmins may kill sanctioned animals and birds, as also to feed their
dependants … for at the ancient sacrifices of seers and the Soma offerings … the sacrificial
cakes were prepared with the meat of permitted animals and birds." (5.22-23) “He may eat
meat when it is sacrificially consecrated, at the behest of Brahmins, when he is ritually
commissioned according to rule…” (5.27). And “There is no fault in eating meat … that is the
natural activity of creatures.” (5.56). Undoubtedly the same chapter also argues for not
eating meat and the rewards thereof, but I focus on the portion which continues the
Br?hma?ical tradition in order to prove that beef/meat eating was extant in the post Vedic
period.
Finally…
Evidently at some stage, the practices mentioned fell into disuse, and Hindus came to
abstain from meat, from beef in particular. How that came about is another blog post
altogether… To reiterate the purpose of this article however, – if you’re a Hindu and you
don’t eat meat, particularly beef, because of a religious sentiment, I respect that completely.
But to those who say they are doing it because the Hindu scriptures censure it, I urge you to
read the aforementioned texts and decide for yourself.
Notes:
*The Myth of the Holy Cow, D.N Jha, Navayana Publication, 2009. I have depended heavily
on this book for references. I have not footnoted them in the interest of flow. If you want
specifics, write in and I’ll email you.
1
RV X.86.14, XX.28.3, X.27.2, and VI.17.11
2
Dr. Ted Proferes, SOAS lecture, October 2011
3
?B 12.8.3.12-13 The ?atapatha Br?hma?a, tr. ulius Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East, Vol
4, ed., Max Mueller4
72
4
“Animal Sacrifice in the Br?hma?atexts”, Ganesh Umakant Thite, Numen Vol 17 (Aug 1970)
pgs 143-158
5
The Law Code of Manu, tr. Patrick Olivelle, Oxford World Classics, 2004
6.1.7
Ram Puniyani’s compilation on the subject
I’ve re-compiled Ram Puniyani’s ‘e-book’ here. It complies many documents or relevance to
this topic.
6.2
FALSE. Claims about beef in the Vedas are based on mistranslation
6.2.1
Harsh Vora’s rebuttal
Harsh Vora has tried to rebut claims that the Vedas refer extensively to beef eating.
Can you explain me why the verse 10-87-16 (in the Rig Veda) prescribes severe punishment
for the person who kills a cow? And why the Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-16)
for such a crime. In addition, the Rig Veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-10115). If Vedas were not against killing cows, they wouldn't have opposed it to the extent of
justifying severe punishment.
Earlier I shared with you a scholarly and academic article (based on extensive research!) by
Sandhya Jain. It strongly dismisses (based on evidence!) many false arguments posed by Jha.
For example, Swami Prakashanand Saraswati focuses on two words – goghn and
ashvamedh. "Goghn" means a guest who receives a cow as gift. Panini (the father of Sanskrit
grammar) created a special sutra to establish the rule that goghn will only mean the receiver
of a cow (and will not be used in any other sense). But Taranath ignored Panini's injunction
and wrote that "goghn" means "the killer of a cow." He similarly converted the ashvamedh
yagna from 'ritual worship of the horse' to the "killing of the horse."
If Mr. Jha chooses to select only the misinterpreted version, then I have nothing more to say
for him. But if you call yourself a real critical thinker, then I would expect you to view this
matter WITHOUT ANY BIAS, and research both ends of it so as to reach a fair conclusion.
Without researching extensively, it is not proper to make statements which are directed
(even though unintentionally!) to distort a particular source of knowledge (Veda, as you may
know, means 'knowledge').
The mud I throw at Western indologists (and people who fall in their sphere of influence) is
not at the least unwarranted. I bring proofs and facts. Please look at these carefully. Since
you didn't follow my links earlier, I post the entire article here. It is borrowed from
http://www.agniveer.com. I use this as a reference to further my own research. In the
meantime, I have ordered Jha's book and will be reading it soon. After fully reading it, I will
commence on my research to debunk each of his claims separately.
———————————————————————————————–
This slanderous campaign has been unleashed by different vested interests to embarrass
Hindus around the world citing specific references from the Vedas.
This also comes handy in convincing poor and illiterate Indians to give up their faith on the
grounds that their fundamental holy books – the Vedas – contain all the inhuman elements
like denigration of women, meat-eating, polygamy, casteism and above all – beef eating.
Draft 3 April 2014
73
The Vedas are also accused of animal sacrifice in sacrificial ceremonies popularly known as
the YAJNA. Interestingly a section of home-bred intellectuals claiming to have deep study of
ancient India has also come up, who cite references from works of western indologists to
prove such unholy content in the Vedas.
Saying that the Vedas permit beef-eating and cow-slaughter amounts to striking a lethal
blow to a Hindu’s soul. Respect for cow forms a core tenet of Hinduism. Once you are able
to convince him of flaws in the foundation of this core tenet and make him feel guilty, he
becomes an easy prey for the predator faiths. There are millions of ill-informed Hindus who
are not empowered to counter argue and hence quietly surrender.
The vested interests that malign the Vedas are not confined to foreign and home-bred
indologists alone. A certain class among Hindus exploited the rest of the population
including the socially and economically weaker sections by forcing them to believe and
follow what they said in the name of Vedas or else face the wrath.
All the slanders heaped upon the Vedas can be attributed mainly to the interpretations of
commentaries written by Mahidhar, Uvat and Saayan in the medieval times; and to what
Vam-margis or the Tantra cult propagated in their books in the name of the Vedas.
In due course the falsehood spread far and wide and they became even more deep rooted
when western scholars with their half baked knowledge of Sanskrit transliterated these
interpretations of commentaries of Sayan and Mahidhar, in the name of translating the
Vedas.
However, they lacked the pre-requisite understanding of Shiksha (Phonetics), Vyakarana
(Grammar), Nirukta (Philology), Nighantu (Vocabulary), Chhanda (Prosody), Jyotish
(Astronomy), Kalpa and so on that are critical for correct interpretation of the Vedas.
The purpose behind this series of videos is to objectively evaluate all such misconceptions
about the Vedas – the foundation of human knowledge and establish their piety, sanctity,
great ideals and philosophy that cater not only to Hindus but to every human being without
bars, bias or discrimination of any kind.
Section 1: No violence against animals
——————————————
Yasmintsarvaani bhutaanyaatmaivaabhuudvijaanatah
Tatra ko mohah kah shokah ekatvamanupasyatah
Yajurveda 40.7
“Those who see all beings as souls do not feel infatuation or anguish at their sight, for they
experience oneness with them”.
How could people who believed in the doctrines of indestructibility, transmigration dare to
kill living animals in yajnas? They might be seeing the souls of their own near and dear ones
of bygone days residing in those living beings.
———————————————
Anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayee
Samskartaa chopahartaa cha khadakashcheti ghaatakaah
Manusmrithi 5.51
74
Those who permit slaying of animals; those who bring animals for slaughter; those who
slaughter; those who sell meat; those who purchase meat; those who prepare dish out of it;
those who serve that
meat and those who eat are all murderers.
———————————————
Breehimattam yavamattamatho maashamatho tilam
Esha vaam bhaago nihito ratnadheyaaya dantau maa hinsishtam pitaram maataram cha
Atharvaveda 6.140.2
O teeth! You eat rice, you eat barley, you gram and you eat sesame. These cereals are
specifically meant for you. Do not kill those who are capable of being fathers and mothers.
——————————————–
Ya aamam maansamadanti paurusheyam cha ye kravih
Garbhaan khaadanti keshavaastaanito naashayaamasi
Atharvaveda 8.6.23
We ought to destroy those who eat cooked as well as uncooked meat, meat involving
destruction of males and females, foetus and eggs.
——————————————Anago hatya vai bheema kritye
Maa no gaamashvam purusham vadheeh
Atharvaveda 10.1.29
It is definitely a great sin to kill innocents. Do not kill our cows, horses and people.
How could there be justification of cow and other animals being killed when killing is so
clearly prohibited in the Vedas?
———————————————
Aghnyaa yajamaanasya pashoonpahi
Yajurveda 1.1
“O human! animals are Aghnya – not to be killed. Protect the animals”
———————————————
Pashunstraayethaam
Yajurveda 6.11
Protect the animals.
———————————————
Dwipaadava Chatushpaatpaahi
Yajurveda 14.8
Protect the bipeds and quadrupeds!
———————————————Kravy da –kravya[ meat obtained from slaughter] + Ada [ the eater]—the meat eater.
Pisacha — pisita [meat] +asa [eater]—the meat eater.
Asutrpa — Asu [breath of life] + trpa [one who satisfies himself on]—one who takes others
life for his meals.
Garba da and Anda da – the foetus and egg eaters.
Draft 3 April 2014
75
Mans da – the meat eaters
Meat eaters have always been looked down in Vedic literature. They have been known as
Rakshasas, Pisacha and so on….All these words are synonyms of demons or devils that have
been out-cast from the civilized human society.
——————————————–
Urjam no dhehi dwipade chatushpade
Yajurveda 11.83
“May all bipeds and quadrupeds gain strength and nourishment”
This mantra is recited by Hindus before every meal. How could the same philosophy which
prays for well-being of every soul in every moment of life, approve of killing animals?
———————————————–
Section 1: No violence in Yajna
Yajna never meant animal sacrifice in the sense popularly understood. Yajna in the Vedas
meant a noble deed or the highest purifying action.
—————————————–
Adhvara iti Yajnanaama – Dhvaratihimsaakarmaa tatpratishedhah
Nirukta 2.7
According to Yaaska Acharya, one of the synonyms of Yajna in Nirukta or the Vedic philology
is Adhvara.
Dhvara means an act with himsa or violence. And therefore a-dhvara means an act involving
no himsa or no violence. There are a large number of such usage of Adhvara in the Vedas.
———————————————
In the post-Mahabharata period, misinterpretation of the Vedas and interpolations in other
scriptures took place at various points intime. Acharya Shankar reestablished the Vedic
values to an extent.
In the more recent times, Swami Dayanand Saraswati – known as the grandfather of modern
India – interpreted the Vedas as per thecorrect rules of the language and authentic
evidences. His literature, which includes commentary on the Vedas, Satyarth Prakash loosely
translated as Light of Truth, An Introduction to the Vedas and other texts led to widespread
social reformation based on Vedic philosophy and dispelling of myths surrounding the
Vedas.
Let us discover what the Vedas have to say on Yajna.
————————————–
Agne yam yagnamadhvaram vishwatah pari bhuurasi
Sa id deveshu gacchati
Rigveda 1.1.4
O lord of effulgence! The non-violent Yajna, you prescribe from all sides, is beneficial for all,
touches divine proportions and is accepted by noble souls.
—————————————-
76
The Rigveda describes Yajna as Adhvara or non violent throughout. Same is the case with all
the other Vedas. How can it be then concluded that the Vedas permit violence or slaughter
of animals?
The biggest accusation of cattle and cow slaughter comes in the context of the Yajnas that
derived their names from different cattle like the Ashwamedh Yajna, the Gomedha Yajna
and the Nar-medh Yajna. Even by the wildest stretch of the imagination the word Medha
would not mean slaughter in this context.
It’s interesting to note what Yajurveda says about a horse
——————————————————–
Imam ma himsirekashafam pashum kanikradam vaajinam vaajineshu
Yajurveda 13.48
Do not slaughter this one hoofed animal that neighs and who goes with a speed faster than
most of the animals.
———————————————————Aswamedha does not mean horse sacrifice at Yajna. Instead the Yajurveda clearly mentions
that a horse ought not to be slaughtered.
In Shathapatha, Ashwa is a word for the nation or empire
The word medha does not mean slaughter. It denotes an act done in accordance to the
intellect Alternatively it could mean consolidation, as evident from the root meaning of
medha i.e. medhru san-ga-me
Raashtram vaa ashwamedhah
Annam hi gau
Agnirvaa ashwah
Aajyam medhah
(Shatpath 13.1.6.3)
Swami Dayananda Saraswati wrote in his Light of Truth:
A Yajna dedicated to the glory, wellbeing and prosperity of the Rashtra the nation or empire
is known as the Ashwamedh yajna.
“To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control, or to make the food pure or to
make a good use of the rays of Sun or keep the earth free from impurities[clean] is called
Gomedha Yajna”.
“The word Gau also means the Earth and the yajna dedicated to keep the Earth the
environment clean is called Gomedha Yajna”
“The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in
the Vedas is called Naramedha Yajna”.
———————————————–
Section 3: No beef in Vedas
Not only the Vedas are against animal slaughter but also vehemently oppose and prohibit
cow slaughter.Yajurveda forbids killing of cows, for they provide energizing food for human
beings
Draft 3 April 2014
77
———————————
Ghrtam duhaanaamaditim janaayaagne maa himsiheeh
Yajurveda 13.49
Do not kill cows and bulls who always deserve to be protected.
—————————————Aare gohaa nrhaa vadho vo astu
Rigveda 7.56.17
In Rigveda cow slaughter has been declared a heinous crime equivalent to human murder
and it has been said that those who commits this crime should be punished.
—————————————–
Sooyavasaad bhagavatee hi bhooyaa atho vayam bhagvantah syaama
Addhi trnamaghnye vishwadaaneem piba shuddhamudakamaacharantee
Rigveda 1.164.40 or Atharv 7.73.11 or Atharv 9.10.20
The Aghnya cows – which are not to be killed under any circumstances– may keep
themselves healthy by use of pure water and green grass, so that we may be endowed with
virtues, knowledge and wealth.
—————————————
The Vedic Lexicon, Nighantu, gives amongst other synonyms of Gau[ or cow] the words
Aghnya. Ahi, and Aditi. Yaska the commentator on Nighantu, defines these asAghnya the one that ought not to be killed
Ahi the one that must not be slaughtered.
Aditi the one that ought not to be cut into pieces.
These three names of cow signify that the animal ought not to be put to tortures. These
words appear frequently throughout the Vedas in context of the cow.
——————————————–
Aghnyeyam saa vardhataam mahate soubhagaaya
Rigveda 1.164.27
Cow – The aghnya – brings us health and prosperity
Suprapaanam Bhavatvaghnyaayaah
Rigveda 5.83.8
There should be excellent facility for pure water for Aghnya Cow
Yah paurusheyena kravishaa samankte yo ashwena pashunaa yaatudhaanah
Yo aghnyaayaa bharati ksheeramagne teshaam sheershaani harasaapi vrishcha
Rigveda 10.87.16
Those who feed on human, horse or animal flesh and those who destroy milk-giving Aghnya
cows should be severely punished.
Vimucchyadhvamaghnyaa devayaanaa aganma
Yajurveda 12.73
The Aghnya cows and bulls bring you prosperity
Maa gaamanaagaamaditim vadhishta
78
Rigveda 8.101.15
Do not kill the cow. Cow is innocent and aditi – that ought not to be cut into pieces
Antakaaya goghaatam
Yajurveda 30.18
Destroy those who kill cows
Yadi no gaam hansi yadyashwam yadi poorusham
Tam tvaa seesena vidhyaamo yatha no so aveeraha
Atharvaveda 1.16.4
If someone destroys our cows, horses or people, kill him with a bullet of lead.
Vatsam jaatamivaaghnyaa
Atharvaveda 3.30.1
Love each other as the Aghnya – non-killable cow – loves its calf
Dhenu sadanam rayeenaam
Atharvaveda 11.1.34
Cow is fountainhead of all bounties
The entire 28th Sukta or Hymn of 6th Mandal of Rigveda sings the glory of cow.
Aa gaavo agnamannuta bhadramakrantseedantu
Bhooyobhooyo rayimidasya vardhayannabhinne
Na taa nashanti na dabhaati taskaro naasaamamitro vyathiraa dadharshati
Na taa arvaa renukakaato ashnute na samskritramupa yanti taa abhi
Gaavo bhago gaava indro me achhaan
Yooyam gaavo medayathaa
Maa vah stena eeshata maaghanshasah
1. Everyone should ensure that cows are free from miseries and kept healthy.
2. God blesses those who take care of cows.
3. Even the enemies should not use any weapon on cows
4. No one should slaughter the cow
5. Cow brings prosperity and strength
6. If cows keep healthy and happy, men and women shall also keep disease free and
prosperous
7. May the cow eat green grass and pure water. May they not be killed and bring prosperity
to us.
———————————————What more proofs does one need to understand the high esteem in whichnot only the cow
but each living being is held in the Vedas.
The learned audience can decide for themselves from these evidences that the Vedas are
completely against any inhuman practice… to top it all the Beef and Cow slaughter.
There is no Beef in Vedas.
Bibliography:
1. Rigveda Bhashya – Commentary on Rigveda by Swami Dayanand Saraswati
2. Yajurveda Bhashya – Commentary on Yajurveda by Swami Dayanand Saraswati
3. No Beef in Vedas by BD Ukhul
4. Vedon ka Yatharth Swaroop (True nature of Vedas) by Pt Dharmadeva Vidyavachaspati
Draft 3 April 2014
79
5. All 4 Veda Samhita by Pt Damodar Satvalekar
6. Pracheen Bharat me Gomamsa – Ek Sameeksha (Beef in Ancient India – an analysis) by
Geeta Press, Gorakhpur
7. The Myth of Holy Cow – by DN Jha
8. Hymns of Atharvaveda – Griffith
9. Scared Books of the east – Max Muller
10. Rigveda translations by Williams/Jones
11. Sanskrit English Dictionary – Monier Williams
12. Commentary on Vedas by Dayanand Sansthan
13. Western Indologists – a study of motives by Pt Bhagvadutt
14. Satyarth Prakash by Swami Dayanand Saraswati
15. Introduction to Vedas by Swami Dayanand Saraswati
16. Cloud over understanding of Vedas by BD Ukhul
17. Shathpath Brahman
18. Nirukta – Yaska Acharya
19. Dhatupath – Panini
————————————————————
Addendum on 14 April 2010:
After this article, there was severe reaction from various sources who cannot live with the
fact that Vedas and ancient culture of our nation could have been more ideal than their
current communistic ideals. I received several mails that tried to refute the articles by citing
additional references that support beef-eating. These include 2 mantras from Rigveda, and
some Shlokas from Manu Smriti and a few other texts. An example is the comment from
Avtar Gill on this page itself. On these, I have to say the following:
a. The article has given evidence from Manu Smriti itself which states that even one who
permits killing is a murderer. Thus all these additional shlokas are either from adulterated
Manu Smriti or misinterpreted by twisting of words. I recommend them to read Manu Smriti
by Dr Surendra Kumar which is available from http://vedicbooks.com
b. A typical example of foul play by those hell-bent on justifying their obsession with beef in
ancient texts, is to translate Mansa as ‘meat’. In reality, ‘Mansa’ is a generic word used to
denote pulp. Meat is called ‘Mansa’ because it is pulpy. So mere presence of ‘Mansa’ does
not mean it refers to meat.
c. The other texts referred by them are among dubious ones not considered authoritative
evidence. Their modus operandi is simple – state anything written in Sanskrit as Dharma and
translate the way they want to prove whatever they want. This is how they have been
fooling us all by filling our textbooks with all unverified demeaning claims.
d. With regards to Vedas, they could come up with two mantras that supposedly justify beef
eating. Let us evaluate them:
Claim: Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are
slaughtered.”
Fact: The mantra states that in winter, the rays of sun get weakened and then get strong
again in spring. The word used for sun-rays in ‘Go’ which also means cow and hence the
mantra can also be translated by making ‘cow’ and not ‘sun-rays’ as the subject. The word
used for ‘weakened’ is ‘Hanyate’ which can also mean killing. But if that be so, why would
the mantra go further and state in next line (which is deliberately not translated) that in
spring, they start regaining their original form.
80
How can a cow killed in winter regain its health in spring? This amply proves how ignorant
and biased communists malign Vedas.
Claim: Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and
buffalo.”
Fact: The mantra states that brilliant scholars enlighten the world in the manner that wood
enhances the fire of Yajna. I fail to understand from where did Avtar Gill and his friends
discover Indra, cow, calf, horse and buffalo in this mantra!
In summary, I continue the challenge to everyone – cite one single mantra from Vedas that
justify beef-eating and I shall be eager to embrace any faith that he or she may decide for
me. If not, they should agree to revert back to the Vedas.
6.2.2
Comment by Krishna Mohan on Facebook (here)
Sanjeev Ji, I know quite a bit of Sanskrit and I have myself noticed so many mistranslations
not only of the Vedas but also of Gita. The reason being that Sanskrit and modern languages
have a huge difference in their semantic structure.
For example, 'go' in Sanskrit means "anything that moves about freely"
Depending on context it can refer to different things. 'go' when used in context of
agriculture means 'cow', when used in context of controlling oneself it means 'sense organs',
when used in context of vision it means 'light' and in different contexts 'go' means different
objects.
This is a property of every Sanskrit word.
Another example, 'Yog' means "combination". In chemistry it would mean 'a compound', in
spirituality it would mean 'experiencing or combining in God', in the context of health it
means 'yoga' where in-going and out-going breaths combine.
This property of Sanskrit in which a word represents "an idea" and not "an object" makes
translating Sanskrit accurately very difficult for a person who did not study Sanskrit
Vyakaran and Nirukti.
Hence we see in British translations of Vedas that "the so-called Aryans used to kill Cows".
Max muller and other Indologists assumed that 'go' means "cow" even if it was used in the
context of 'sense organs'. The actual context in Vedas probably was "Control your Sense
organs" which was mistranslated to "Kill Cows". This is just one example. I have found so
many English mistranslations in Bhagawad Gita itself, let alone Vedas which have more
complex Sanskrit.
Comments by “Carl”
Dear Sanjeev ji,
The purported evidence given above is based on rather amateurish "translations" of Sanskrit
sources. As Krishna Mohan ji's comment above indicates, there is latitude for interpretation,
and in any context, the analytically optimal candidate should be taken. The Vedic evidence
for beef eating provided above is pretty bogus.
For instance, when the words "get 'saindhava'" are used during meals, it means "get 'salt'".
However, when the same words are uttered when one is going to one's village, it means
"get a horse"! There are rules to the interpretation of Vedic sentences. The rules
Draft 3 April 2014
81
enumerated by the analytical sciences explain the meaning of the Vedic mantras in the most
appropriate manner.
Bad and even socially and psychologically harmful translations are possible due to either
ignorance, or malicious intent. There is nothing benign or even honest about slaughtering a
helpless animal, supposedly to please some sort of god (demon?). Rather, the main Vedic
context for sacrifice of animals is in the forest atmosphere. It is only in the forest, after
hunting or while living at risk of attack from wild animals in the lap of mother nature, that
the sacrifice of a hunted animal or even a domesticated animal may be permitted.
Remember, what is appropriate for the forest is not appropriate in a village, and may even
be perverse in a city, and vice versa. Therefore, one needs to be careful while taking up
political cudgels against "Hindutva" or whatever, and misusing tendentious "translations" of
Hindu philosophical and gnostic texts. God bless.
Comments by “Amrit”
I absolutely agree with Mr.Krishna.
There is deliberate attempt from external sources to drag vedas down and make it
comparable against other scripts of smiliar nature.
This kind of sad justification of cruelty has become the new tool of the non believers to wipe
their souls of any sins and encourage others to indulge as well as confuse those with feeble
faith.
One must at all point be in connection with his own conscience before being knowledgeable
in vedas. The murder of an animal the size of a human is equivalent to a human murder.
6.2.3
Other writers who oppose
There is no Beef in Vedas by Agniveer, blogger, December 4, 2008.
http://vishalagarwal.voiceofdharma.com/articles/indhistory/misrep.htm
European Conspiracy Against Vedic Culture
Apparently this article shows that many Vedic translations could be
wrong: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suhag-a-shukla-esq/vedic-content-intonation_b_877606.html
6.3
So what’s the truth?
I don’t think I’m ever going to be able to decide on way or other. It is a shame that different
Sanskrit scholars interpret Sanskrit texts in different ways. However, it is not within my
capacity to draw any conclusion. I must therefore rely upon archaeological and nonscriptural evidence.
Based on that, I’m 100 per cent certain that there the diet in ancient India included
considerable quantities of meat, including beef.
Some other articles on the topic:
The Veneration of the Cow in India, W. Crooke, Folklore, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Sep., 1912), pp.
275-306, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1255152
Present-Day Worship of the Cow in India, Tadeusz Margul, Numen, Vol. 15, Fasc. 1 (Feb.,
1968), pp. 63-80, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3269619
A general debate on the role of religion in history
82
Food Fights: Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain Dietary Polemics in South India, Katherine E. Ulrich,
History of Religions, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Feb., 2007), pp. 228-261,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4134923
Draft 3 April 2014
83
7.
Beef eating in India today: the FACTS
A very large number of Indians abroad eat beef. I have personally experienced this.
However, even in India, beef is eaten in at least a few places, including Kerala and Mizoram.
7.1
Kerala
Kappa beef recipe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo4m-RzO6KI
Ritual slaughter: a photo from Facebook:
84
Draft 3 April 2014
85
86
7.2
Meghalaya
Shillong beef and meat seller. You will often find the head of beheaded cows being sold
separately, as well.
Draft 3 April 2014
87
8.
Role of Buddhism in making India vegetarian
8.1
Ashoka’s edicts
Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, speaks thus: Twenty-six years after my coronation
various animals were declared to be protected -- parrots, mainas, //aruna//, ruddy geese,
wild ducks, //nandimukhas, gelatas//, bats, queen ants, terrapins, boneless fish,
//vedareyaka//, //gangapuputaka//, //sankiya// fish, tortoises, porcupines, squirrels, deer,
bulls, //okapinda//, wild asses, wild pigeons, domestic pigeons and all four-footed creatures
that are neither useful nor edible.[42] Those nanny goats, ewes and sows which are with
young or giving milk to their young are protected, and so are young ones less than six
months old. Cocks are not to be caponized, husks hiding living beings are not to be burnt
and forests are not to be burnt either without reason or to kill creatures. One animal is not
to be fed to another. On the three Caturmasis, the three days of Tisa and during the
fourteenth and fifteenth of the Uposatha, fish are protected and not to be sold. During
these days animals are not to be killed in the elephant reserves or the fish reserves either.
On the eighth of every fortnight, on the fourteenth and fifteenth, on Tisa, Punarvasu, the
three Caturmasis and other auspicious days, bulls are not to be castrated, billy goats, rams,
boars and other animals that are usually castrated are not to be. On Tisa, Punarvasu,
Caturmasis and the fortnight of Caturmasis, horses and bullocks are not be branded.
In the past kings used to go out on pleasure tours during which there was hunting and other
entertainment.[15] But ten years after Beloved-of-the-Gods had been coronated, he went
on a tour to Sambodhi and thus instituted Dhamma tours.[16] During these tours, the
following things took place: visits and gifts to Brahmans and ascetics, visits and gifts of gold
to the aged, visits to people in the countryside, instructing them in Dhamma, and discussing
Dhamma with them as is suitable.
[Source]
88
9.
Let’s have Scientific Hinduism
9.1
My call for a Hinduism to get a genuine scientific basis
There are numerous claims that the Vedas promote the scientific temper. For instance, my
father has suggested that:

physical sciences are part of Vedic metaphysics… the greater emphasis is on the
development of scientific temper amongst the members of Society with a view to
curb spread of blind faith, hypocrisy, miracle and ostentatious worship of God.

At each stage of education the aim is to create scientific outlook amongst the
students so that all superstitions, blind faith and conviction could disappear in
society.

It is only such scientists who can do their research based on self-control, scientific
out look, truthfulness and can be destroyers of human miseries as mentioned in
Rig Veda (1-3-4). … In the absence of this knowledge and outlook, individuals
continue to move towards smaller and self-centered circles.

Human beings should accept only truth and give up untruth (R.V 1-139-2).

Scientific knowledge is needed for enlightened life and good enjoyment (R.V 1-857).

But more than science Vedas give greater emphasis to the development of
scientific temper, which all members of society should acquire. In the Vedic
metaphysics there is no love for magic, miracles, curses of the agitated and angry
rsis, saints and sages, inauspicious or auspicious day, month, year or time for laying
foundation stone of a project, its inauguration, or specific auspicious time for
taking any oath required under the Constitution of any state by the President,
Prime Minister or other public servant and any other social or family functions like
marriage etc.

Spreading blind faith and hypocrisy is now becoming a major money earning
profession through television, cinema and commercial exploitation of religious
beliefs. The more miracles, magic, mythology and blind faith are shown in the
Indian movies or television about Hindu gods / goddesses and their cosmic powers,
the more popular these serials, soap operas and movies become and fetch
enormous money to their producers and financiers. [Source: my father's book]
But does Hinduism actually follow the scientific method? I believe among all religions,
Hinduism has the greatest potential to be firmly grounded in the scientific approach. And so
I would like to see Scientific Hinduism.
Time to re-boot Hinduism
From my blog post here.
The caste system was perhaps an efficient solution to the agricultural age in India.
It helped create an environment for hundreds of millions of people to live
harmoniously in villages, and it helped produced sufficient surplus to feed
hundreds of prosperous towns and cities. Not for nothing was India the world's
Draft 3 April 2014
89
wealthiest nation for thousands of years.
With the caste system even the smallest village could guarantee itself a blacksmith,
traders, cleaners, and priests to conduct marriage and death ceremonies. That
meant that just because the local blacksmith died the village did not have to go
miles away to get its ploughs and carts fixed. The caste system also produced
soldiers when needed.
It was a self-perpetuating solution or equilibrium to a difficult problem of living in
remote corners of India without the support network of roads, rail-line, electricity
and telephones. Not a paradise, by any means – particularly for the 'lower' castes.
But it worked.
This model was not uncommon during the agricultural era. European feudalism
comes to mind but I'm sure broadly similar social structures must have been
created in China. I know that Japan definitely had its own "caste system" of sorts.
It also made sense (perhaps!) in the agricultural age to deify the cow and make it a
sacred animal, so as to have sufficient proteins available in the village, given that
most people could not afford meat and had to eat just rice and coarse lentils. This
clearly did not occur all at once. It took time for the culture to stop eating cows and
other animals (indeed, in the hunter-gathering era, till about 10,000 years ago, no
one could have survived without eating meat).
That is why Hinduism took the shape it did in the last 2000 years – basically a way
of life to support an agrarian society.
The context has changed
Between 1400-1750 AD the rules of the game changed. To the agrarian settlement
in Europe was added the manufacturing or industrial revolution, and the scientific
method.
That meant that agriculture became mechanised – and far more productive than
before – and people began to move to cities in a big way to produce things for the
villages. They no longer needed their local blacksmith. A factory in the city could
produce things 10 times cheaper and supply it to every corner of the world.
Knowledge became specialised. The division of labour became acute and allpervasive.
In this changed context, Hinduism as it evolved over the past 2000 years is no
longer relevant. For instance, the caste system has became a HUGE BLOCKER on
India's progress. And outdated beliefs about cows and such things create further
complications and block India's forward move.
No wonder India has slipped into deep poverty as the rest of the world has
progressed rapidly ahead. India's per capita GDP is 15 times less than that of USA
today.
This is because Hinduism has not kept pace with the times.
Time to re-invent Hinduism from scratch
I'm actually a "kind of" Hindu – since ancient Hindus included atheists, agnostics
and skeptics. Indeed "Hindu" only meant someone who lived on the other side of
90
the Sindhu (Indus) river. I'm one of them, for sure.
I'm also broadly comfortable with Advaita philosophy and Buddhism. But I'm far
more comfortable with Charvaka's school of thought, noting that there has been no
greater and more revolutionary thinker than him in India so far (assuming he
existed!). I also believe in the validity of many Indian things like zero, the number
system, yoga, and much of ayurveda.
So I'm at least some form of "Hindu". But I'm not a caste-loving, cow-worshipping
Hindu. I am a SCIENTIFIC Hindu. I'm a Charvaka, a Buddha, a Vivekananda, an
independent human being. I see myself as an Indian, and human - the highest
category of all.
So I'm happy to participate in the re-invention of Hinduism, and help re-write its
scriptures from scratch. I'm sure we can create a new Hinduism best tailored to the
needs of India in the modern, scientific world. In this Hinduism we'd have all our
myths and mythologies but consider them to be nice stories, not something to be
taken as gospel. In this Hinduism we'd have all the temples and the lot, but have
them as quiet places for contemplation and self-reflection, or for a lecture or two
on the Vedanta, Buddhism, Charvaka's ideas, or Hayek's liberalism. We'd all be
called Brahmins since this is the knowledge age. Even a plumber has to be highly
qualified and experienced. And so on… We can take the best from all of mankind's
thinking and create a NEW WAY OF LIFE.
Do you want to participate in a project to re-boot Hinduism?
I believe that a "new -look" Hinduism is crucial for India to be able to lead the
world once again.
Happy to discuss further.
9.2
I am an equal co-owner of India’s culture and heritage
The following is from my blog post here.
A young friend on Facebook wrote this: "India is NOT just another western country. Our
culture, our heritage, is far different than theirs, and we cannot afford to compromise on it,
just for the alleged "freedom" of a few criminals."
This claim was made in the context of my questioning Baba Ramdev's intent to kill up to 5
billion people, labelling them as criminals, just because they eat beef.
Let me assert vigorously and forcefully that I object to anyone claiming sole ownership of
India's heritage and culture.
I am EQUALLY an owner of India's heritage and culture. I know what it stood for in the
past and what it stands for today. And one thing India's heritage does NOT stand for is
killing up to 5 billion people labelling them criminals just because they eat a particular
meat. It also does NOT stand for killing crores of MPs, MLAs, and government servants for
their corruption. Regarding corruption that is a disease that NEHRU brought to India. It has
NOTHING to do with India. It is western disease (socialism) that has failed everywhere in the
West but ONLY WE THE INDIANS, allegedly with our great heritage, have not only adopted it
BLINDLY, BUT WON'T LET GO!
Draft 3 April 2014
91
It is objectionable in the extreme for ANYONE in India to take over sole ownership of India's
great and diverse heritage on their shoulders. India belongs to ALL Indians, regardless of
what they eat or wear or say. I therefore request my young friend and everyone who lives in
India or cares for India to NEVER try to take over sole ownership of India's culture and
heritage on your shoulders.
India's heritage and culture is represented by great stalwarts including Raja Ram Mohun
Roy, Vivekananda, Rajaji, Gandhi, Sardar Patel and many, many others. These people have
taught us NON-VIOLENCE, and NON-AGGRESSION. Killing 5 billion people is not their
approach to society. Particularly on an issue where there is 100% evidence that Hindus ATE
COWS in the past. But whether they did or not is not the issue. There is no basis to kill
people for the food they eat. To link this kind of terrorist language with Indian culture is
reprehensible.
Our great stalwarts have taught us to think for ourselves. They taught us to be FREE. These
people not only kept their own eyes and ears open, they taught us to LEARN. They didn't ask
us to shut our minds.
This openness and tolerance, my dear Facebook friend, is India's culture. NOT the culture
represented by Baba Ramdev's "solution" for corruption (kill 10 crore people) about the
cause of which he doesn't have the SLIGHTEST CLUE, or his fanatic outbursts about capital
punishment for cow slaughter (and God knows what else! For everything he seems to have
the most simplistic and ill-conceived "solutions").
That is NOT Indian culture. Let this be clear. VERY CLEAR! India has not come so far, and
been a world leader in freedom and tolerance, by labelling 80% of the world's population as
criminals, and then starting a pogrom (as Baba Ramdev seems to want) to kill them all.
9.3
How did the ‘taboo’ against cow slaughter arise?
I’m not sure when and how this taboo arose but I suspect it has much to do with the
revivalism of the Vedas and later extraplations by some ‘Hindu’ organisations.
9.3.1
DN Jha’s analysis of the origin of the taboo against cow slaughter
The idea of ahimsa seems to have made its first appearance in the Upanisadic thought and
literature. There is no doubt that Gautama Buddha and Mahavira vehemently challenged the
efficacy of the Vedic animal sacrifice, although a general aversion to beef and other kinds of
animal flesh is not borne out by Buddhist and Jaina texts. Despite the fact that the Buddha
espoused the cause of ahimsa, he is said to have died after eating a meal of pork
(sukaramaddava). Asoka’s compassion for animals is undeniable, though cattle were killed
for food during the Mauryan period as is evident from the Arthasastra of Kautilya and
Asoka’s own list of animals exempt from slaughter, which, significantly, does not include the
cow. The Buddhists in India and outside continued to eat various types of meat including
beef even in later times, often inviting unsavoury criticism from the Jainas. In Lahul, for
example, Buddhists eat beef, albeit secretly, and in Tibet they eat cows, sheep, pigs and yak.
Like Buddhism, Jainism also questioned the efficacy of animal sacrifice and enthusiastically
took up the cause of 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 poultry. Perhaps the
early Jainas were no strict vegetarians. A great Jaina logician of the eighth century tells us
that monks did not have objection to eating flesh or fish given to them by the laity. In spite of
all this, there is no doubt that meat became a strong taboo among the followers of Jainism.
Its canonical and non-canonical literature provides overwhelming evidence on the subject.
The inflexibility of the Jaina attitude is deeply rooted in the basic tenets of Jaina philosophy,
92
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.
Despite the Upanisadic, Buddhist and Jaina advocacy of ahimsa, the practice of ritual and
random killing of animals including cattle continued in the post-Mauryan centuries. Although
Manu (200 BC-AD 200) extols the virtue ofahimsa, he provides a list of creatures whose flesh
was edible. He exempts the camel from being killed for food, but does not grant this privilege
to the cow. On the contrary, he opines that animal slaughter in accordance with Vedic
practice does not amount to killing, thus giving sanction to the ritual slaughter off cattle. He
further recommends meat eating on occasions like madhuparka and sraddha. One may not
be far from the truth if one interprets Manu’s injunctions as a justification for ritual cattle
slaughter and beef eating, as indeed a later commentator does. [Source]
9.4
How deep morality of the hunter gatherer
Here’s an extract from my blog post here.
I was reading an article about duck hunters in The Age today. Some of the comments there
are truly worth noting.
Consider how badly most of us are disconnected from Nature:
The message he gives politicians is simply a passing-on of what his grandfather,
Albert, used to say: a society disconnected from the land would go insane.
''And that's what we're seeing. The urban society has sort of disconnected from the
reality that something has to die so it can eat meat,'' Wood says.
The cost, he says, is a distortion of moral perspective. ''Because animals are farmed
and slaughtered on a mass basis, somehow this makes it more moral in people's
eyes. In my view, it's less moral. If you have the wherewithal, the ability and the
moral fortitude to go out and take your own animal, good luck to you.
''But there is an awful lot of people who say they can't hunt but they're eating a
steak or a chicken and not thinking about where it comes from.'' The other central
argument here is that farmed animals are marked for slaughter from the moment
they are born, whereas animals in the wild are rarely easy to track and kill, and at
least have a chance to dodge the hunter. Guns may not make it a level playing field,
but the outcome is never assured.
I would agree fully with this view. It is crucial that we never see ourselves as being distinct
from Nature and its laws. That means that anyone who is non-vegetarian MUST have the
mental capacity to kill the animal he or she eats, ELSE PLEASE DON'T EAT ANIMALS.
Also, following is a good description of the range of emotions a hunter may feel:
But ask these men about the emotions tied to shooting and killing, and the response
is nuanced. Hodder, the shooter with the masters in creative writing, says: ''At first
there is a feeling of elation that you have done what you set out to do. And then
when you go and pick the animal up, it's inevitably very beautiful and there is a
feeling of awe and sadness. It's still warm, even cute. And they just look like they're
asleep and I think all the feelings of life and death wash over you … Very primal
feelings, hard to articulate. The last stage is you feel really satisfied and looking
forward to taking the kill home. Something wonderful to eat, something to share.
Draft 3 April 2014
93
Even six months later you feel wonderful.''
Let's NEVER forget that for over a hundred thousand years we were hunters-gatherers. By
settling down to agriculture, many of us disconnected from our animal roots. Today, with
packaged meat in the supermarkets, we seem to have also become hypocritical.
Let me repeat the key message: If you don't have it in you to kill an animal, then DON'T eat
meat, for you are essentially disrespecting the animal that feeds you.
Learn to connect with Nature; learn to kill an animal for food; feel the emotions involved.
THEN eat.
Life is a gift but life is also a cycle of Nature. We will survive only if we understand our
animal roots and remain true to our nature. Should we reject our roots and pretend we are
gods, we will inevitably lose our reason.
94
10. Policy implications
10.1 Banning cow slaughter is a really bad policy
10.1.1 Such policy violates liberty and freedom of choice
The following is an extract from my blog post here.
Dear Harsh
My view is very simple. The cow is food in all parts of the world (except for a few Hindus and
Jains in India), and Hindus ate the cow for thousands of years till the influence of the Jains
made them change their mind.
Regardless of that, I don't expect the state to dictate what food a person may or may not
eat. I don't expect it to create a law that you SHOULD eat beef, for instance.
The ONLY reason the state can impose its views on such matters is if you harm others in this
process, or if doing so will harm the environment.
The cow is not a scarce animal. Plenty of cows exist and plenty more can be produced as
needed. The tiger is a genuine scarce animal and being at the top of the ecological food
chain of the jungle, the dying out of tigers can severely damage the natural environment.
For instance if tigers die then all forests will be ravaged and destroyed by plant eating
animals. Hence for tigers a different policy applies.
But the policy on tigers (see my article on the environment) does not ask that you don't kill
tigers. It asks for tigers (indeed jungles) to be privatised and reared just like any other
animal. Wherever wildlife has been privatised (Coase theorem will show you how it works),
it has flourished.
There are innumerable instances of the truth of this theorem. There is, for instance, no
threat of extinction of crocodiles in Australia since crocodile farms are licensed to grow
them and sell their meat and skin. It is a highly profitable business. Eg. see this.
I respect yours or Baba Ramdev's right NOT to eat beef IF you so feel (on any ground, call it
moral if you wish), but I REFUSE to have you impose your will through the state on this
matter. That involves the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of freedom.
You will first have to prove to me that eating beef is harmful. The entire world except a few
Hindus in India eats beef, and they haven't died. Note that Indians ate beef for thousands of
years till the Jain influence grew strong. They didn't die. And I know of MANY MANY Indians
who eat beef outside India. They aren't dying. So what's the problem? Food is supposed to
nourish. What you or I or anyone else puts into our own mouths is none of the business of
others.
If eating beef is not lethal and it doesn't kill others, then there is no cause to interfere in the
freedoms of others to eat beef. I think Baba Ramdev is trying to impose HIS version of
morality on the rest of the world. That amounts to dictatorship. Let him learn to respect
others.
He is welcome not to kill cows for food. But let him please learn the basics of freedom.
Regards
Sanjeev
Draft 3 April 2014
95
10.1.2 Indian tribals and other older residents have full rights to eat beef
In the following box, I question why only certain “Hindus” have the right to impose their
views on other, much older residents of India. Wherefrom do such rights come?
Vivek, I do hope that beef- and dog-eating tribals have the right to eat what they
want?
Now to an even more interesting point raised by Vivek (on FB):
Agar Vedic period mein kisi Cave mein kuch North East ke tribals or
Gypsies ..Ayodhya , Varanasi , Haridwar , Rishikesh mein ghum bhi rahe the
aur unhone Cow-and beef Industry bana rakhi toh uske pramaan tho
Valimiki -Ramayan mein bhi milte hain …
Jab Mere Forefather Shri Ram ji Rishi Vishwamitra Maithili ki taraf ja rahe
the ,tab kuch Rishiyo ki raksha Kuch Raakshas (-termed used for Illiterate
and uneducated Tribals) se karne liye order diya tha .
Yeh so called Demon -depicted Tribals ,Beef khaate the aur unki bones
Arya Rishis ke Yagya mein phekte hain …
Unka Difference kuch bhi ho sakta hain …I m into details ki kiski kya galti thi
…
Aapne jo study ki reports batayi hain usme yeh kahi nahi likha ki Voh
Humare Arya Kings khate the …
Is Ecavation se toh se sabit hota hain ..Jo 7000 years old jo Ramayan mein
likha hain voh sach hain aur Shri Ram ke sabhand ki chizo ki puri
Pradamikta hain ….
MY RESPONSE:
Vivek, you've raised some really interesting points.
Who were the Rakshasas (demons)?
You are right. It is quite possible that rakshasas mentioned in the Ramayana were
tribals (see this summary of Sankalia's book, Ramayana: Myth or Reality? (1973):
extract below). Tribals in India may not like being so depicted (as demons) but
that's probably what the writer of the Ramayana thought about them:
His Ramayana: Myth or Reality? (1973), the text of the Chanana Memorial
Lectures, quotes Sanskrit passages and translations, refers to previous
interpretations of the epic, and explores the archaeological angle, all in a
lively style. One can almost hear the ripples that went through the hall at
some of his radical, spirited, and acutely perceptive statements.
How could an archaeologist enlighten us on the Ramayana? Sankalia
stresses that this epic is classed as adikavya, even though the content
draws on a loose body of floating oral narrative. A poem as expertly crafted
as this would invariably reflect the oral traditions and also contain the
poet's fancies (and, I would add, the potent symbols of the age, symbols
that we need to decode).
With time, new narrative material inflated the epic. The critical edition of
the Ramayana was compiled by scholars after many years of sifting and
96
comparison of available manuscript versions of the epic (beginning with
the earliest, dated AD 1020), but this edition cannot present the literal
truth about what happened.
Sankalia comments on fanciful and "artificial" passages such as those
depicting Rama's defeat of 14,000 rakshasas in one battle, his piercing of
seven sal trees with one arrow, the golden gates of Lanka, and the building
of the setu to Lanka.
To build the causeway, the narrative says, the water was first displaced
with sal and other trees (which do not grow in south India, as Sankalia
points out) and then Nala, son of Viswakarma, built a stone bridge 100
yojanas long and 10 yojanas wide, to Lanka. "On the face of it, the whole
thing is unbelievable", says Sankalia—misconceptions have arisen because
of early misunderstandings of certain words (pp. 7 – 8) in the text.
He then asks how Vali could have been given an elaborate cremation.
Valmiki must not have known about the south — for there is abundant
archaeological evidence across peninsular India for the disposal of the
dead by burial, for a long period up to the late first millennium BC. In
keeping with an existing scholarly tradition, Sankalia pointed out that
before about AD 1000, the island of Ceylon was known as Simhala-dvipa;
that in the Ramayana narrative the Narmada river is never crossed and the
"Godavari" is not the present-day large river rising near Nasik, but the
name of a minor stream flowing near Chitrakuta (p. 48); that large rocks
cannot be quarried near Rameswaram; that in Gondi dialects, the suffix —
lakka often occurs in place-names; and that the sal tree is mentioned
repeatedly.
Thus "Lanka" was most probably located in the forested hills of central
India — in a lake — and Ravana may have been none other than a tribal
chief, he said.
Yet Sankalia did not dismiss the epic as fiction or "myth" (a term often
incorrectly used by historians to mean fiction). Arguing that the poet would
have let slip, here and there, the material reality of his own time and
culture, Sankalia the archaeologist actively sought out such clues.
He considers available archaeological data on Ayodhya, and suggests that
the descriptions of it point to a city of the Kushana period or later. Rama
dusting down his mother after she had fallen in a faint, indicates that the
royal residence had mud floors. The habitat of the sal trees (Shorea
robusta) that the Vanaras would uproot to use as weapons is mainly the
Chhotanagpur plateau.
More fascinating is the episode in which Hanuman carries to Sita her
husband's ring inscribed with his name: looking into the archaeological
record, Sankalia finds that in India the signet ring was introduced by the
Indo-Greeks late in the first millennium BC. And then there is Sita's vastra,
of silk when all others were dressed in linen, yellow in colour and glinting in
the sunlight as she was whisked away. Sankalia goes into the history of silk,
including references in Sanskrit literature to Chinese silk imports.
Draft 3 April 2014
97
Sankalia was an institution builder. His student, Gouri Lad, followed in his
footsteps to research the archaeological angle of the Mahabharata in a
decade when scholars such as Uma Chakravarti were researching various
sources of the Sita narratives. One may disagree with all or some of
Sankalia's arguments, but the point remains that he took an openly radical
position and did not cower before popular belief in the literal truth of the
epic.
The Ramayana is, he said, at one level the simple story of a family feud over
succession, but at another level symbolic of early interaction between
"adivasis and the aryas who had penetrated [their] forest reserve" (p. 62)
Tribal people who inhabited India for tens of thousands of years did eat beef. In
fact most of them eat beef today, particularly in the North East. Beef is the part of
the STAPLE diet of many tribal people in North East India (e.g. Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Arunachal). Along with (in some cases) dogs: Nagaland is an example.
Tribals are the original Indians. Their food and other habits form part of our GREAT
INDIAN TRADITION. And EVERYONE in India was once a tribal. Our ancestors ALL
ate meat/beef. Even rats and reptiles.
We can't pick and choose what we call 'Hinduism'. Either 'Hinduism' includes ALL
beliefs and faiths and pratices of this great land, or it is a divisive concept. I can see
no reason to give prominence to a particular Indian belief over another.
And so just because you don't eat cows and dogs that is no reason to impose your
beliefs on others. You have as little right to impose your food habits on others as
they have to force you to eat beef or dog. What if the tribals FORCED you to eat
beef? What if tribals were in majority in India and (using your argument) made it
mandatory on every Indian – including you – to eat beef? Surely force is bad, either
while giving or receiving. The majority is not right. That's the basic principle of
liberalism. Let people be free to choose so long as they are not harming anyone
directly.
Let all Indians choose the kind/s of food they eat. Indians who have lived here for
50,000 years have earned the right to choose their own beliefs.
Meat eating by key people in the Ramayana
But it is not just the tribals who ate meat during the Vedic/Ramayana period. It was
the main players in the Ramayana who ate meat too. (Also see this. And this.)
Lord Ram ate at least the following meats: varāha, ṛṣ ā, pṛṣat and mahāruru (wild
boar, antelope, spotted antelope, black-deer ). Also, stags and mongooses, furu (a
kind of deer), and godha (iguana). And fish. It is possible he did not eat beef, if he
ate some meats, then on what ground could he argue against other forms of food?
That's precisely the problem with Abrahamic religions which selectively prohibit
one or two foods (generally meats). I disagree with an approach that says this and
that is fine but other things are prohibited. What's the basis for such ideas? Who is
to decide? And why? If 80 per cent of the human race can eat beef and not die
(most have longer lifespan than vegetarian Indians) then what's the scientific basis
to favour particular meats?
98
In any event, it is difficult to know what people actually ate in a particular period
only by reading the scriptures. The only real proof we have today is archaeological
excavations, and these do confirm that in Basti, not too far from Ayodhya, beef was
eaten. Who ate it: whether king or tribal, is not possible to say.
In the main, I do suggest that regardless of your enthusiasm for your beliefs, we are
obliged to recognise that India is a GREAT land with a history of well over 50,000
years of human habitation. After that greatest of lands of the world – Africa – India
comes next as the centre of human civilisation.
Given our great ancestory and history of living with all kinds of differences, we can't
impose our personal beliefs on others. We can teach, persuade, but leave it at that.
Let Indians be FREE IN THE OWN MOTHERLAND.
10.1.3 Such policy will add to the low IQ problem of Indian children
This I’ve already outlined above. There are extensive studies that show that should Indians
start eating cattle, almost all malnourishment will disappear.
10.1.4 Economic ruin of farmers from prohibiting cow slaughter
The following is an extract from my blog post here.
It is a huge disincentive for farmers to raising cows in India (and hence most are KILLED
UPON BIRTH) because they can't sell them freely in the market, except for milk, which they
hardly produce any. What the Baba Ramdev policy will do is to ensure that MORE COWS ARE
KILLED AT BIRTH. Is that what he wants? And why does he want to harm the Indian farmer
who may well earn a decent livelihood by selling cows for meat?
10.1.5 Prohibiging cow slaughter leads to great disrespect for cows
The following is an extract from my blog post here.
4) Do you want to see how a cow should be treated and respected? Then visit Australian
farms. You'll find cows allowed to roam freely and widely over a vast expanse of grass; their
needs catered to carefully; their health monitored by veterinarians (who are paid MORE
than doctors). And when they are taken to abbatoirs, the regulations require a very specific
and humane way of killing them for meat. Compare with the way cows are often treated in
India – with the GREATEST DISRESPECT, driven from one garbage heap to another, forced to
live a sad and tragic life before finally being sold in underhand ways to people who will kill
them without the slightest mercy and without access to modern machines. Want to show
respect for something? Then privatise it. The owner will show it respect if it becomes an
economic good.
SEE ALSO:
Meat Potential of India, Ashok V. Desai, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 6, No. 17 (Apr.
24, 1971), pp. 874-876, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4381915
10.1.6 Sacred cow, sacred dog, sacred cat: either ALL animal meat must be banned,
or none
This is from my blog post here.
Draft 3 April 2014
99
I'm going to look at the POLICY aspects of a very difficult subject, so please bear with me as I
think through this issue.
At the outset let me note that this topic makes me a bit queasy. It is a difficult topic because
it touches many different emotional chords. I can well understand, at the rational level, that
man has the biological capacity to eat virtually anything, and has done so ever since his
evolution from (possibly) a vegetarian ape. Also, therefore, that eating a particular animal
meat is ultimately a matter of historical accident.
And yet, the thought of eating an unfamiliar animal (which one has not eaten since
childhood, say) can create quite seriously queasy sensations in any person (I'm excluding
vegetarians from this group who probably feel queasy even at the thought of eating an
egg).
This is all so inconvenient, so steeped in irrationality. And these queasy feelings are not to
be treated lightly. These can give rise to a strong sense of taboo and revulsion, which can
create great differences among people, differences that are impossible to bridge through
rational discourse, differences that can potentially lead to great violence among men. Just
because they eat different foods.
Food is that important. That emotive.
What does all this imply for public policy? Well, that's the question before us.
Everyone knows that in India (among Hindus), cow meat is anathema. The cow is held to be
sacred (despite the many debates/ disputes about this claim). And yet in parts of India
(e.g. Meghalaya, where I worked for about a year and half; and in Mizoram) beef is widely
eaten and commonly sold in small butcher shops (e.g. along the main road in Shillong).
And all over the world, cow meat is treated as a prime delicacy. The Japanese even eat raw
cow meat (prime kobe beef can cost up to $700 per kilo).
On the other hand, dog meat (which creates great revulsion in the West) is also eaten in
parts of India, in particular in Nagaland but also in some other NE states. I have mentioned
before on this blog (in some other context) how a Minister from Nagaland was grateful to be
"allowed" to collect stray dogs from the Guwahati Circuilt House in 1984 (a place for which I
had responsibility for the allocation of rooms and maintenance). I recall the Minister's jeep
going off blaring its siren, with a few barking dogs stowed away in at the back of the jeep, on
the way to Dimapur. I learnt later that Naga tribals eat virtually anything that moves,
including all kinds of birds. Among various meats, dog meat is a delicacy.
This culture of eating dogs probably comes from Eastern Asia where dog meat is largely
considered to be a delicacy (see this Wikipedia entry).
And yet, while most people in the West think it to be odd that (most) Hindus don't eat beef,
they immediately forget that they have similar (or stronger) queasy feelings when
considering the thought of someone eating dog meat.
One man's meat is ACTUALLY another man's poison.
In Australia you can eat and sell kangaroo, deer and rabbit meat but you'd be imprisoned if
you offer dog meat for sale:
In most states and territories [in Australia] it is not an offence to eat cats and dogs.
South Australia is the only state which definitively prohibits the consumption of
meat derived from a cat or dog, including the killing of a cat or dog for such
purpose (see below table).
The sale of cat and dog meat however, is prohibited in all states and territories
under the various statutes which govern the production of meat. While these laws
100
do not expressly state that selling cat and dog meat is an offence, the effect of the
regulatory regimes they create serves to achieve this end. A person or business that
processes meat intended for sale and human consumption must be registered or
licensed under the relevant state or territory meat production legislation. A
condition of this registration or licence is that the particular meat processing
complies with a Regulation or an adopted Standard or Code.
In the face of all this confusion, here's a thoughtful editorial from China Daily:
People in China have been eating dog meat for a long time, even though it's a
relatively expensive affair. During the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 BC), King
Goujian of the Yue Kingdom, before going to war against the Wu Kingdom,
awarded dogs to women who gave birth to boys and pigs to those who gave birth
to girls. Dog meat cost more than pork even then.
Many consider dog meat not only a delicacy, but also to have medicinal properties.
Bencao Gangmu (or Compendium of Materia Medica), the seminal work of medical
and pharmaceutical expert Li Shizhen of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), describes
dog meat as warm, yang-nourishing and especially beneficial for the kidneys and
stomach.
Instead of finger-pointing at each, people grown up in different cultures should be
more open-minded.
Dietary habits differ from country to country and region to region, and there
cannot be a rule of thumb for all. Some dog lovers distinguish dogs from other
animals because of their intelligence and special relationship with humans.
But there are similar many stories about cows, horses, sheep and pigs, too.
How can it be morally and culturally acceptable to eat pork, chicken, mutton, beef,
fish and other animals but not dog meat?
No matter how one thinks about it, there is no ONE correct rule on this matter, no logical
method by which to pick certain animals for our food, and other animals for our
worship. Regretfully I must agree that the Chinese Daily is correct.
The only sensible course, therefore, for governments is to regulate ONLY for health
outcomes, not for the kind of (animal) meat eaten. All that a government can do is to
regulate for prevention of cruelty to animals, including at the time of slaughter (if
applicable), failing which appropriate punishment could be imposed. But the people of the
"secular" West want more:
RSPCA Australia believes the consumption of cat and dog meat should be expressly
prohibited in statute. Cats and dogs hold a specific place in Australian society as companion
animals. Eating cats and dogs is therefore offensive to mainstream Australian cultural
values. [Source]
I'm afraid I'm unable to distinguish this argument from the argument made by Baba Ramdev
to ban cow slaughter in India, or the arguments made by any typical Hindu fanatic. I would
argue that if RSPCA wants to prohibit cat and dog meat (not that I wish to eat these!), then it
must FIRST demand the prohibition of beef, kangaroo meat, goat and sheep meat, chicken
and rabbit meat. And fish.
Let this be known clearly: there is NO coherent logical argument to pick between animals.
Either ALL animal meat must be prohibited, or NONE.
Draft 3 April 2014
101
10.2 Meat animals must be killed without cruelty
I firmly believe animals must be treated respectfully and have clarified this in detail in
Chapter 4 of DOF. That does not mean that we elevate them to a pedestal equal to us.
===
Following is an extract from my blog post here:
Left to its own devices, the market will often take short-cuts in its reckless pursuit of wealth.
These short-cuts can cause people to die (that's why we need regulation of workplace health
and safety), and animals to be brutally treated.
While we need the broad principle of laissez faire to start all discussion of policy, we do
need good regulation to underpin the market. The classical liberal insists on good
regulation: which is neither excessive nor too little.
A case in point is the recent discovery by Australia of the brutal way cows are slaughtered in
some of Indonesia's abattoirs. The full documentary (45 minutes) is found here (click on the
left). I first thought that this might be a halal method, but it is not, as an Indonesian cleric
has since confirmed (here).
In other words, the concerned abattoirs are not compliant either with world-best practice
on animal welfare, or even the Islamic tradition of halal.
This confirms clearly that a civilised society MUST have in place a good regulatory
framework that ensures that world-best practice is enforced. As I note in the draft
manuscript, The Discovery of Freedom:
"animal and plant life is our food (and in many cases, our medicine). The use of
other life forms as sources of our life energy is based on basic biological reality –
provided we don’t eat an entire species into extinction (which can’t happen with
privatised ownership of such life forms).38 But note that no justification exists for
inflicting undue pain on any creature. Animals that are consumed should not be
treated with unnecessary cruelty."
I also know for certain that similar things occur in India, where animals are treated and
slaughtered in a barbaric manner. That's unacceptable.
I have called for the proper regulation of India's abattoirs earlier, and I think this is a
wake-up call for India as well. Such brutality can give rise to great abhorrence for meat
eating. The adverse health consequences of that can include an increase in anaemia. Lean
red meat (in moderation, of course) also reduces the risk of heart disease.
सत्यमेव जयते
38
Morell, Virginia, ‘Island Ark: A Threatened Treasure’, National Geographic, August 2008,
p.82. This article discusses how drills (a rare monkey) are potentially being eaten to
extinction in Boko Island, Equatorial Guinea.
102