Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: December 18, 2001
An inscrutable destiny, Mahakaal,
has presented modern India with a strange paradox. Punjab, land of the
Vedas, and Uttar Pradesh, quintessential Aryavarta where Vedic civilization
reached its pinnacle, are caught in a peculiar face-off between History
and Dharma, even as both states prepare for assembly elections in the forthcoming
year. The issue of the revision and replacement of NCERT textbooks has
been so sharply politicized by Leftist academics and Left-leaning politicians
that it is virtually impossible to join the debate on purely scholarly
grounds.
Prima facie, the controversy is
over the historical projection of the Jats and Sikhs, and the dietary practices
of ancient Hindus. Attempts to redress the bruised sentiments of various
communities have resulted in a volley of abuse (saffronization, talibanisation,
myth-as-history, et al). While the veracity of historical presentation
should not be sacrificed to political convenience, it is worth investigating
if the critics have a credible case. Several writers have refuted the projection
of Jat kings and Sikh Gurus as plunderers on the basis of historical records,
but the dietary habits of ancient Hindus are still to be examined.
Food preferences ascribed to primitive
ancestors should normally not invite much notice; what is objectionable
is the attempt to present the veneration of the cow as a late development
in Hindu society which bigots are insisting upon to maintain an anti-Muslim
identity. Former Union minister P. Chidambaram has said as much: "look
at the portions expunged from history textbooks. Beef is believed to be
the favourite meat of Muslims and is believed to be abhorred by Hindus.
The subliminal connection is made, and out goes the reference to beef.
No one cares to answer the question whether in modern India many Hindus,
especially the very poor, consume beef (usually meat of the buffalo)" (India
Today, 17 December 2001).
I leave it to Chidambaram to explain
how very poor Hindus can afford buffalo meat - as if it is cheaper than
vegetables - and if buffalo-meat is the same as cow-meat. To return to
the leftist claim, however, its sum and substance is that vague references
in scriptures are supported by archaeological evidence, and hence amount
to historical fact. The truth is that the Vedic era is shrouded in mystery.
The mantras are not the product of a single revelation to a solitary rishi,
but span a period of at least a thousand years. And their historical dating
remains problematical, to say the least.
Ironically, Leftists cannot honestly
state that archaeological findings corroborate their claims about Vedic
society. Leftists maintain that the Indus Valley civilization was pre-Aryan,
and was destroyed by Vedic-Aryan invaders. But archaeological excavations
do not confirm either the 'Aryan Invasion' or the separate existence of
Vedic-Aryans. What they do reveal is a continuity of theme and motif, which
has prompted Pakistani archaeologists to re-name 'pre-Harappan' sites as
'early Harappan'.
Presently, the period from 1400-1000
BC is accepted as early Vedic, and 1000-600 BC as later Vedic. But the
astronomical dating of hymns gives us 7000 BC and 3700 BC as probable dates
for some hymns. Understandably, there is no consensus on the subject. Some
modern archaeologists feel Harappa may well represent Vedic culture as,
according to Carbon-14 dating, it falls between 3000-1500 BC. Later mature
Harappa is put at 2000-1700 BC, when the Sarasvati dried up.
There is another difficulty with
archaeology, which concerns the excavation of cattle bones. "Cattle" is
a collective noun, which includes cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all bovine
animals. Contrary to the Marxist contention, cattle bone does not automatically
mean cow bone, as nowhere in the world have experts been able to differentiate
the bones so clearly. This is because the bones found are mainly large
pieces of limbs. The cattle could have died naturally or been killed by
wild animals, and later skinned for their hide and bones (to make bone
tools). Then, the term 'gau' (cow) is itself a collective noun used to
denote cattle. It also has other diverse meanings and, depending upon the
context, could mean cow, waters, sunrays, learned persons, Vedic verses,
Prithvi, or innocent.
Some general assumptions about Vedic
society are, however, possible. It was principally agrarian, with grains
forming the staple diet. It was heterogeneous and pluralistic, and admittedly
non-vegetarian at the time when the cow was being singled out as an object
of veneration. Even in this early age, debates were already raging in support
of and in opposition to meat-eating, and for and against animal sacrifice;
there were rishis who were clothed and those without dress; and munis who
'ate air' (went without food). It is obvious that Vedic society was actively
engaged in evolving its dharma (way of life), and the development of these
strands of thought can be clearly discerned in later developments in society.
That the trend was in favour of
vegetarianism can be seen from the Rig Veda Samhita itself. In as many
as twenty-seven places, the cow is referred to as aghnya, (repeat aghnya)
not to be hurt or killed, and also called Aditi, Divine Mother. The Rig
and Sama Veda extensively extol the virtues of the cow, cow's milk and
ghee. The Rig Veda (10-87-16) prescribes severe punishment for one who
kills the cow, even expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15); the Atharva
Veda recommends beheading (8-3-16), while the Yajur Veda (30-18) says the
killer of the cow deserves to be hanged.
The end of the Upanishadic period
(Vedanta) coincides with the emergence of Buddhism and Jainism, both of
which intensify the move towards vegetarianism as a higher form of culture.
Gautam Buddha discouraged monks from initiating the slaughter of animals,
but permitted them to accept cooked flesh as alms. Mahavira took the doctrine
of ahimsa (non-violence) to unprecedented heights, which set vegetarianism
and asceticism as the desirable social and moral codes for all dharmic
people. The subsequent asceticism of Brahmins and the Vaishnava code of
conduct are enormously indebted to Jainism.
Historically, it is undeniable that
the Hindu tradition has favoured vegetarianism as a way of life for at
least two-and-a-half-thousand years, during which cow-meat has been taboo.
The Ashokan edicts help trace some of this development, with Ashoka delineating
the reduction in the killing of animals in the royal kitchen; the non-killing
of certain animals on certain days; and so on. Foreign travellers like
Hueng Tsang and Fa Hien have testified that beef-eating was taboo in ancient
India. This is also codified in the Charak Samhita, dated around the first
century BC, and the Parashar Smriti, dated around the first century AD.
We may also note that traditionally
every community was governed by desh-jati-kul dharma (rules of region,
caste, family), under which members were mostly prohibited from slaughtering
and consuming the animals raised by them, such as cattle, goats, sheep;
a practice which continues to this day. To conclude, reverence for the
cow has been etched so deeply in Hindu consciousness that the use of beef
tallow to grease bullet cartridges drove Mangal Pandey to trigger off the
1857 revolt against the British. This is a proud chapter in Indian history,
even though it failed, and the political compulsions of present-day Marxists
and secularists cannot de-legitimize it.
I am amazed that instead of narrating
the perpetual universalization of socio-cultural practices valued for enhancing
public morality and consciousness, Leftist historians are attempting to
denigrate the whole society with cheap jibes about cow-meat in an historically
undefined past.
