Document Title - Sanjeev Sabhlok
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. |
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 Evolutionary adaptation: Eating of cooked meat has increased brain size 3
1.1.5.1 Increased protein intake contributed to increased human brain size 3
1.1.5.2 Our intestines shrank (a meat eating adaptation) as brain size increased 4
1.1.5.3 But cooking in general was more important in increasing brain size, not meat eating 4
1.1.5.4 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
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 DN Jha’s conclusion re: beef eating in non-Vedic texts 41
5.2 Beef and meat as medicine 43
5.3 Beef as remedy (in PV Sharma’s translation of Charaka Samhita) 44
5.4 Sale of beef was fully authorised in the Athashastra 44
5.5 Myth: meat eating in ancient India wsa reserved for ceremonial occasions 46
5.6 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
6. 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
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
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 beef, and have a healthy lifestyle. |
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 Timeline of food
This Wikipedia entry is a good starting point for the subject.
[pic]
We evolved primarily as meat eaters [Source].
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:
[pic]
[pic]
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.
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 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.
4 After cooking was discovered, meat became even more important
1 Meat was a major part of hunting gathering Homo’s diet
Meat was a large component of Homo‘s diet. [Source]
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]
5 Evolutionary adaptation: Eating of cooked meat has increased brain size
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 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 semi-dependent 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] |
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]
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 home-range expansion. How these early hominids had access to the necessary resources to 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] |
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).
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]
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.
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.
[pic]
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]
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]
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]
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.
[pic]
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 . 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.
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. 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]
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!
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 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]
“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]
3 Adverse effects of not eating meat
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]
[pic]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
6 Alleged benefits of vegan diet
Sahana Singh Have a look at this video about the benefits of a plant-based diet
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 peer-reviewed article
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. |
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.
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." .
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]
Also: Lynn R., Jindal S. Positive correlations between brain size and intelligence: Further evidence from India. Mankind Quarterly. 1993;34:109–123.
2 Severe malnourishment in Indian children
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.)
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 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 Low Indian IQ – an explanation
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.
2 Social oppression and vegetarianism are a lethal combination
The following simple model perhaps explains a significant extent of the variation:
[pic]
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 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).
4 Objections to the hypothesis that vegetarianismis linked to low IQ
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:
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.
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 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.
Archaeological evidence of meat and beef eating in India
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 pre-Harappan 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 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 |
|south-eastern 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 |
|south-eastern 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 house-complex (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, ghata-shaped 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 |
|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). |
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 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, toy-carts, 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 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. |
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 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 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 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 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 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 flat-bottomed 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. |
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. |
|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 north-western 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, two-armed 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 mould-made 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 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 door-frame 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, 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. |
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’ |
| |
|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 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: |
|[pic] |
|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 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. |
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 non-vegetarian 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 (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: |
|Beef is nutritious, cheaper, easily available, and digestible – cow-protection can thus be controlled effectively. Cows are |
|bred and protected for their value. |
|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 beef-eating in such an advanced, civilized and refined state would not deprive|
|their status. |
|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 ahimsa-preaching 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, 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 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 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. |
|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 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 Puram.14.13; 96.6; 381:1-3; 382:8 |
|Thu 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, 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. |
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 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 flesh-bearing 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 1983-84 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 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 1975-76 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. |
Evidence of beef eating in non-Vedic literature of ancient India
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 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] |
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 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. |
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 ()
Beef, in particular is prescribed for absolute V, chronic rhinitis, intermittent fevers, dry cough, fatigue, excess agni and wasting of muscles.
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} |
|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 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 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 meat-eating 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
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]
6 Indian beef eating recorded in Buddhist documents
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 two minds about vegetarianism. It was only after the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries that vegetarianism |
|started to become widespread in India. |
True of false: Cow slaughter in the Vedas
1 TRUE. The Vedas have extensive records of cow slaughter
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. |
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]
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 RgVeda[3] 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 aghnya[8] (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 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 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 Brahmana[22] and the Aitareya Brahmana[23] 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 Manu-Smrti, 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 Mahabharata[33] 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 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 slaughter-house, 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] |
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. |
|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]|
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 beef-eating 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 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 beef-eating? Were the Hindus always opposed to beef-eating? If not, why |
|did they develop such a nausea against it? Were the Untouchables given to beef-eating from the very start? Why did they not |
|give up beef-eating when it was abandoned by the Hindus? Were the Untouchables always Untouchables? If there was a time when |
|the Untouchables were not Untouchables even though they ate beef why should beef-eating give rise to Untouchability at a |
|later-stage? If the Hindus were eating beef, when did they give it up? If Untouchability is a reflex of the nausea of the |
|Hindus against beef-eating, how long after the Hindus had given up beef-eating did Untouchability come into being?…. |
|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 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 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 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 non-Brahmins 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 Non-Brahmins. 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 Non-Brahmin 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 four-footed beings, on birds and the |
|denizens of the waters, I have conferred various favours-even 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 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 slaughter-house 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 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 non-Brahmins 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 non-Brahmins 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? |
|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 beef-steak 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 |
|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 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. |
|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 non-Brahmins 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 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 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 cow-killing 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. 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 cow-killing, 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 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 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. Beef-eating 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 beef-eating 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 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 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 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 |
|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 |
|4“Animal Sacrifice in the Br?hma?atexts”, Ganesh Umakant Thite, Numen Vol 17 (Aug 1970) pgs 143-158 |
|5The Law Code of Manu, tr. Patrick Olivelle, Oxford World Classics, 2004 |
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.
2 FALSE. Claims about beef in the Vedas are based on mistranslation
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 (8-101-15). 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 . 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. |
| |
|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 |
| |
|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. |
| |
|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. |
|—————————————- |
| |
|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 |
|——————————— |
|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 as- |
|Aghnya 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 |
|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 |
|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 |
| |
|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. |
| |
|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. |
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 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. |
3 Other writers who oppose
There is no Beef in Vedas by Agniveer, blogger, December 4, 2008.
European Conspiracy Against Vedic Culture
Apparently this article shows that many Vedic translations could be wrong:
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 non-scriptural 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,
Present-Day Worship of the Cow in India, Tadeusz Margul, Numen, Vol. 15, Fasc. 1 (Feb., 1968), pp. 63-80,
A general debate on the role of religion in history
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,
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.
1 Kerala
Kappa beef recipe
Ritual slaughter: a photo from Facebook:
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
2 Meghalaya
[pic]Shillong beef and meat seller. You will often find the head of beheaded cows being sold separately, as well.
Role of Buddhism in making India vegetarian
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] |
Let’s have Scientific Hinduism
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 1-85-7). |
|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 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 all-pervasive. |
|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 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. |
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!
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.
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.
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, 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] |
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. 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. |
Policy implications
1 Banning cow slaughter is a really bad policy
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 |
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 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. |
|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? |
|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. |
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.
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? |
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,
6 Sacred cow, sacred dog, sacred cat: either ALL animal meat must be banned, or none
This is from my blog post here.
|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 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. |
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
-----------------------
[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 etȍ䄠䄠䴠捡潤敮汬嘠摥捩䴠瑹c.
[8] A A Macdonell Vedic Mythology, Delhi, 1974, p 151.
[9] D R Bhandarkar Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture, Madras.
[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
[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.
[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.
[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.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- title for literacy narrative
- title ix of the education amendments act of 1972
- double sided document in word
- free online word document writer
- how to title an essay
- title ix of education act
- title ix of the education amendments
- loan forgiveness for title 1 teachers
- document management system small bus
- title 9 of education amendments of 1972
- car title loans guaranteed approval
- free document writer like word