Download Hindu Rashtra, Cow and Muslims - Centre for Study of Society and

Hindu Rashtra, Cow and Muslims
Part (1)
Irfan Engineer
(Secular Perspective March 16-31, 2015)
Upper caste Hindus and Hindu Nationalist Organisations have had ambiguous attitude toward
cow as an animal and as a symbol of Hindu Rashtra oscillating between reverence and
irreverence. It is only lately that Hindu Nationalists have settled for projecting cow as a sacred
symbol – not because cow is considered as sacred in wonderfully diverse and plural religiophilosophical texts of Sanatan Dharma but because it is a good tool to mobilize Hindus around
and to project Muslims as binary opposite – process of “othering” them. For Muslims are not
only not forbidden to eat cow, a section of them are also involved in the slaughtering industry
and cattle trade. Muslim rulers and religious leaders too had ambiguous attitude towards the
animal – at times forbidding slaughtering of cow in spirit of living together with Hindus and at
times asserting their cultural rights and signify their separateness.
Study of D.N.Jha, a professor of history at Delhi University, “The Myth of Holy Cow”, reveals
that beef was not only consumed in the ancient times, it was one of the sacrificial animals and
sacrifice of cow formed part of certain rituals. There are references to Lord Indra savoured beef
of sacrificial cow. As the society was transiting from pastoral to agricultural economy, the cattle
wealth played important role, particularly oxen, bulls and cow. Prohibiting sacrifice of cow and
reverence was later development as mentioned in Brahamanas – commentaries on Vedas written
between 7th and 5th Centuries BC.
Buddhism and Jainism gained salience in the later period and Emperor Ashoka showed concern
for well-being of all animals and their health by arranging for their medical treatment and
prohibiting animal sacrifice, but not cattle. Kautilya’s Arthashastra also refers to slaughter of
cattle as common. The Hindus of Bali islands in Indonesia still eat beef. Among some adivasi
communities, cow continues to be sacrificial animal on certain festive occasions. Some Dalit
communities too continue to consume beef. The practice of beef eating might have stopped
sometime after 8th Century CE as Adi Shankaracharya’s philosophy of Advaita Vedanta gained
salience. Anti-Buddhist propaganda was also reaching its peak during the 8th century when
Shankara modeled his monastic order after the Buddhist Sangha. An upsurge of Hinduism had
taken place in North India by the early 11th century as illustrated by the influential Sanskrit
drama Prabodhacandrodaya in the Chandela court; a devotion to Vishnu and an allegory to the
defeat of Buddhism and Jainism. The population of North India had become predominantly
Shaiva, Vaishnava or Shakta. By the 12th century a lay population of Buddhists hardly existed
outside the monastic institutions and when it did penetrate the Indian peasant population it was
hardly discernible as a distinct community. Vaishnavites eventually frowned upon animal
sacrifices and practised vegetarianism.
Muslim Ambivalence
The attitude of Muslim rulers and religious leaders oscillated from respecting the sentiments of
the dominant upper caste Hindus to asserting their space and cultural rights. The Moghul
Emperor Babar prohibited cow slaughter and directed his son Humayun to follow this example in
his will. Emperors Akbar, Jehangir, and Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter. Nawab
Hyder Ali of Mysore made cow slaughter an offence punishable with the cutting of the hands of
the offenders. During the Non-Cooperation movement and Khilafat agitation, cow slaughter had
stopped considerably as fatwas (religious edicts) were issued and none less than the Ali brothers
campaigned for giving up eating beef. One of the reasons why Mahatma Gandhi asked Hindus to
support the Khilafat agitation (launched by Muslims demanding that Britishers leading the Allied
Forces being victors of First World War should not undermine Islamic Caliphate) was that
Muslim leaders in turn could be persuaded to give up eating beef. Muslim religious leaders
indeed returned the favour campaigning against cow slaughter and there was unprecedented
Hindu-Muslim unity in the country struggling against the British Empire through non-violence.
However, every restriction, regulation and prohibition on cow slaughter legislated by various
states has been resisted by those involved in the industry and avocation of beef trade, which
happens to be dominated by the Quraishi Muslims, but also involves the Hindu khatik castes and
other non-Muslims. Their resistance to regulations and prohibitions is largely motivated by their
occupational interests. If FICCI and CII wants regulation free regime for their industries, so do
these small time professionals involving Hindus and Muslims both. However, media unduly
highlights the resistance of Muslims while under-reporting the resistance of non-Muslims. The
challenge to the regulation and prohibition of cow slaughter legislation is mounted on multiple
grounds, including freedom to pursue any occupation and trade under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution, and for convenience, Art. 25 providing for freedom to profess and practice religion.
These grounds of challenge are promptly rejected by the Supreme Court that regulation or
prohibition that is in public interest (being conservation of milch and draught animals and cattle
wealth) does not amount to unreasonable restriction placed on freedom of occupation. Challenge
on the ground of restriction on freedom to practice religion is rejected on the ground that beef
eating is permissible but not essential and integral part of Islam.
The first generation of anti-cow slaughter legislations was more regulatory in nature and avoided
total prohibition of cow slaughter. Those legislations prohibited slaughter of cows, calves
(whether male or female) and heifer but permitted slaughter of animals after certain age by
competent authority appointed by the state. These legislations were in fact challenged by the
vegetarian spirited citizens on the ground that they did not fulfill the objectives of Article 48 of
the Constitution included in the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, viz. which
provided for “prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”.
Supreme Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar rejected the challenge on the ground
that cow progeny ceased to be useful as a draught cattle after a certain age and they, although
useful otherwise, became a burden on the limited fodder available which, but for the so-called
useless animals, would be available for consumption by milch and draught animals. The
response of the States in setting up Gosadans (protection home for cow and cow progeny) was
very poor. It was on appreciation of the documentary evidence and the deduction drawn
therefrom which led their Lordships to conclude that they were inclined to hold that a total ban
of the nature imposed could not be supported as reasonable in the interests of the general public.
The subsequent generations of anti-cow slaughter legislation veered towards not only prohibiting
slaughter of cow and progeny but also penalizing the consumer of beef. In fact the MP even
equipments storing beef could be seized, which includes refrigerators and utensils in which beef
is likely to be stored or cooked. We now have legislations enabling the state to enter kitchens.
Punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act would be upto 7 years!
Hindu Nationalist Organisations and Cow Slaughter:
If Hindu and Muslim religious and political leaders had ambivalent attitude towards cow, so did
the Hindu Nationalist organizations. Hindutva ideologue V D Savarkar who wrote a treatise on
Hindutva in fact opposed revering cow. For him, cow was a useful animal and we should have a
human approach towards the animal and Hindus should protect it out of trait of compassion.
However, to him, cow was like any other animal, no less, no more. He writes, “Animals such as
the cow and buffalo and trees such as banyan and peepal are useful to man, hence we are fond of
them; to that extent we might even consider them worthy of worship; their protection, sustenance
and well-being is our duty, in that sense alone it is also our dharma! Does it not follow then that
when under certain circumstances, that animal or tree becomes a source of trouble to mankind, it
ceases to be worthy of sustenance or protection and as such its destruction is in humanitarian or
national interests and becomes a human or national dharma?” (Samaj Chitre or portraits of
society, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 2, p.678) Savarkar goes further and states “…A
substance is edible to the extent that it is beneficial to man. Attributing religious qualities to it
gives it a godly status. Such a superstitious mindset destroys the nation’s intellect.
(1935, Savarkaranchya goshti or tales of Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 2,
p.559)”. “…When humanitarian interests are not served and in fact harmed by the cow and when
humanism is shamed, self-defeating extreme cow protection should be rejected…(Samagra
Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.341). “I criticized the false notions involved in cow worship with
the aim of removing the chaff and preserving the essence so that cow protection may be better
achieved. (1938, Swatantryaveer Savarkar: Hindu Mahasabha parva or the phase of the Hindu
Mahasabha, p. 173).
When Muslims had given up eating beef and opposed cow slaughter during Khilafat movement,
for Savarkar and the Hindu Nationalist then, cow ceased to be a emblem that could be profitably
exploited to rally round Hindus and “othering” Muslims. But there is another reason why
Savarkar was not happy with Hindus worshiping cow. He wrote, “The object of worship should
be greater than its worshipper. Likewise, a national emblem should evoke the nation’s exemplary
valour, brilliance, aspirations and make its people superhumans! The cow exploited and eaten at
will, is an appropriate symbol of our present-day weakness. But at least the Hindu nation of
tomorrow should not have such a pitiable symbol. (1936, Ksha kirane or X rays, Samagra
Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.237). “The symbol of Hindutva is not the cow but the man-lion
(*Nrsinha or Narsimha is considered the fourth incarnation of Lord Vishnu. He was half-man,
half-lion). The qualities of god permeate into his worshipper. Whilst considering the cow to be
divine and worshipping her, the entire Hindu nation became docile like the cow. It started eating
grass. If we are to now found our nation on the basis of an animal, let that animal be the lion.
Using its sharp claws in one leap, the lion fatally knocks and wounds the heads of wild
mammoths. We need to worship such a Nrsinha. That and not the cow’s hooves, is the mark of
Hindutva.” (1935, Ksha kirane or X rays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.167). Savarkar
found an overdose of gratitude, compassion, notion of all living beings being one in the cow
worship of Hindus whereas he wanted to Hinduize nationalism and militarize Hindudom.
(To be continued next issue…..)
____________________________________
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai.
E-mail: [email protected]