THE IRONY OF THE HOLY COW:
SITUATING THE PARADOXICAL
MOTHER COW IN HISTORICAL OUTLINE
Since the inception when man began to think of Gods, he
has beleaguered himself with various incipient forms of Gods. He has found the
fear for the Gods as the means for his protection against the various forces
that circumvent his life. Man began to worship the forces which are superior to
him in order to please them. With the procreation at hand societies began to
grow, new ideas and institutions of beliefs began to emerge. When man worshiping
the Gods, chanted hymns and verses, he began to develop the fundamentals of
worship which were later interpreted, re-interpreted and even misinterpreted to
suite the need of various circumstances. It is at this juncture that I shall
start my brief analysis of the Hindu Holy Cow.
What may be known to you or as you may know to be the
truth about the cow can prove deceiving if not in the light of historical
perspective rather than to suit the need of some communal mindset. The true
nature of the holiness of the cow as many will assume to be or know as what
somebody else taught them is not always the truth; but the truth rather lies in
the analysis of the Vedas : the religious texts of the Hindus apart from the
various law givers. The Aryans who came to settle in India brought in various
cultural elements such as nomadism, pastoralism, animal sacrifice etc., till
sedentary agriculture begun to dominate and become the main means of production
at the agro sector. Animal sacrifice was an important part in the religious
practice which includes killing of the cow as for the Agnadheya rite. The Asvamedha mentioned in the Rgveda
talks of sacrifice of more than 600 animals such as wild boars, birds and the
finale marked by the sacrifice of 21 cows, which, according to the dominant
opinion were sterile ones.
The vedic Gods with no specified dietary habits were
being offered milk, butter, barley, oxen, goats and sheep and these were their
usual food. Nonetheless, some of the Gods seemed to have their special liking.
Indra had for bull (Rgveda V.29.7ab; VI.17.11b; VIII.12.8ab; X.27.2c; X.28.3c;
X.86.14ab), Agni was fond of the flesh of horses, bulls and cows (Rgveda VIII.
43.11; X. 91.14ab), Maruts and Asvins were also offered cows. The Vedas also
mentioned about 250 animals out of which around 50 were considered fit for
sacrifice (divine and human consumption). The Taittiriya Brahmana tells us “ verily the cow is food” (atho annam vai gauh) and Yajnavalkya had
special liking for the cow.
The Grhyasutras, Dharmasutras mentioned the killing and
eating of beef was very much de riguer. The guest (arghya in the Rgveda but
generally as madhuparka in subsequent texts) of the house had meal of curds and
honey including the flesh of a cow or bull. Therefore, Panini describes guests
as goghna meaning for whom the cow is slain. With regard to cult, the dead were
covered in the fat of cow (Rgveda X.14-18) and a bull was burnt along for the
depart to ride to the nether world. The funerary rites included feeding of the
Brahmins after the prescribed period and quite often the flesh of cow/ox was
offered to the dead. Archaeological evidence also suggests the non-ritual
killing of cattle which betoken the flesh of cow and other animals being eaten
apart from the ritual killings. Nonetheless several scholars have asserted
the sacredness of the cow basing on the
occurrence of the Sanskrit word aghnya which means not to be killed. But it has
been convincingly proven that if the Vedic cow was at all inviolable, it was so
only when it belonged to a Brahmin who received cows as a sacrificial fee. But
this cannot be taken as the index of the animal’s inherent sanctity and
inviolability in the Vedic period and thereafter.
Coming to the idea of Ahimsa, the very people who
prophesied non-violence towards animals such as Gautama Buddha and Mahavira
including their followers did not avert from eating the flesh of animals albeit
their idea of Ahimsa made its first appearance in the Upanishads. The Anguttara
Nikaya holds Buddha’s acceptance of food cooked by Ugga Setthi of Vaisali, a
meal of rice cakes and pork cooked with jujube juice. Interestingly even Kings
like Ashoka who though prohibited the killing of animals still continued to
kill two peacocks and a deer daily in the royal kitchen as is evident from one
of his edicts. Law givers like Manu clarified several edible meat including
domesticated animals having teeth in one jaw only with the exception made to
the camel. It is significant that the cow is not excluded from the list of
edible animals. Manu asserts that animals were created for the sake of
sacrifice that killing on ritual occasion is non-killing and injury as enjoined
by the Vedas is known to be non-injury. Manu further breaking down the
constraints asserts that animals without fangs are the food of those with
fangs, those without hands of those who possess hands, and the timid of the
bold. Manu further states that the those who eat meat commits no sin for the
creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten. It is
clear that this injunction removes all restrictions on flesh eating and since
Manu did not specify the cow it seems he did not consider the cow sacrosanct.
Yajnavalkya also permits the eating of flesh when life is in danger or when it
is offered in sacrifices and funerary rites. The Epics also talks of the
sacrifices. King Rantideva from the epic of Mahabharata butchered two thousand
cows in his kitchen every day, the flesh along with grains were distributed
among the Brahmins. The Ramayana of Valmiki also made frequent reference to the
killing of animals including the cow for sacrifices as well as for food. The
early medical treatises of ancient India by Caraka (1st – 2nd
cent), Susruta (3rd -4th cent) and Vagbhata (7th
cent) provided a variety of fish and flesh and all three of them speaks of the
therapeutic uses of beef.
Secular literature in which commentators like
Candupandita (late 13th cent) from Gujarat, Narahari (14th
cent) from Telengana and Mallinatha (14th -15th cent) who
is associated with King Devaraya II of Vijayanagar clearly indicated that in
earlier times the cow was done to death for rituals and for food. As late as
the 18th century, Ghanasyama, a minister of Tanjore states that the
killing of cow in honor of guest was the ancient rule.
Although the evidences may point the continuation of the
killing of cow, the law givers had already begun to discourage it around the
first millennium when Indian society began experiencing feudal changes as
described in the Epics and Purana passages as Kaliyuga. Brahmanical religious
texts began to speak of many earlier practices as forbidden in the Kaliyuga –
the practices which came to be known as Kalivarjya (to be avoided in the
present Kali age). According to some Medieval law givers, one who kills cow was
untouchable and one incurs sin even by talking to the person. However, given
the case for the killing of cow and prohibitions against it, what is
interesting to know is that almost all the prescriptive texts enumerates cow
killing as a minor sin (upapataka) and none of them describes it as major sin
(mahapataka). Moreover, the Smrti texts provide an easy escape routes by laying
down expiatory procedures for intentional and inadvertent killing of the cow.
To what extent the Dharmasastric injunctions were effective remains a matter of
speculation for the possibility that some people could have taken beef cannot
be ruled out. Although the cow and its products (milk, butter, curds, dung, urine)
are considered to have purificatory role from the Vedic times, the mouth
however is considered impure. According to Manu, the food smelt by cow has to
be purified. Other law givers like Visnu and Yajnavalkya also expressed similar
views. The law giver Sankha categorically states that all limbs of the cow are
pure except her mouth. If such is the case then, these assertions all countered
the ideas of the purificatory role of the cow.
To what extent the laws and rituals considered the cow as
pure and impure, the Indian tradition only points out that cow has been
projected in polymorphic image over the centuries. Its stories is full of
inconsistencies and has not always been in conformity with dietary practices
prevalent in society. The killing was not considered killing, the Pancagavya is
pure but the mouth however is impure. Ironically, through these incongruous
attitudes the Indian cow has attained holiness though she is never considered a
goddess or even that a temple is ever erected in her honor! To quote D.N. Jha “…the veneration of this animal has come to
be viewed as a characteristic trait of modern day non-existent monolithic
‘Hinduism’ bandied about by the Hindutva forces”.
No comments:
Post a Comment