Banning Cow slaughter is opposed to Hindutva

Visitors can read the older debate here.  

The BJP Government passed the “Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010” on 16th July ’10. This bill was earlier approved by the assembly on 19th March ’10.

The Karnataka Governor has sent this bill to the President of Hindusthan for her approval. A hot potato indeed.

Predictably, there was an uproarious debate in the house with secular-liberals crying blue murder of secularism, democracy, minority rights and what not. On its part the BJP government made a case citing the many uses of cattle and the need for its protection.

I would like to assert that any ban on Cow slaughter is against Hindutva, i.e. Kshatra Dharma.

Since ancient times, Hindus including those of the Brahmana varna have consumed beef amongst other meats. We have sacrificed the Cow and cattle in our Sacred fires. We have treated guests to dinners of beef. We have also and at the same time, held the Cow to be sacred. There is no contradiction here.

It is well attested that the advent of the Ashokan creed of complete and fanatical ahimsa caused many changes in our lives. When this tide was reversed, our learned saw it fit to accept some of the Ashokan fads including abstinence from meat and sacrifice involving animals. Since the Cow was most sacred, any slaughter of the animal proved detrimental to the butcher’s welfare and his customers. A taboo against consuming the meat of this most adored and useful animal rivalled for place in the annals of ahimsaic stupidity. The Cow could be reared and milked but could not be eaten upon its death. Its body was to be taken away by the outcaste who would then skin and make things of its many parts. Since the outcaste lived apart from society, he would also live on all available discarded food including the meat of dead Cows and cattle. This is the only reason why, amongst the Hindus those that consume beef are found, overwhelmingly, amongst “untouchable” Jatis.

It is wrong to taboo beef because we have always consumed its meat. If some of us and even if that “some” is an overwhelming number; have given up eating beef, even then it is wrong to ban its consumption because there are still a number of Hindus that do consume it traditionally.

It is the duty of the Hindu Kshatriya to protect all traditions of Hindus of all Jatis in Hindusthan. These should be protected as long as they do not infringe upon the health of our society. By allowing the consumption of beef Hindutva will not merely be protecting Hindus who consume beef but it will also be saving the rest from the degradation of having to sell cattle they cannot work with, to Muslim butchers.

How defeatist this trend is that encourages us to care for an animal only to sell it off when it is useless – because we cannot afford to any longer!? Is it not better if we regained our actual Hindu tradition of honoring the sacred animal in the manner that recognizes its stature in our lives? Don’t our Vanavasis consume the meat of those animals that they worship?

How much more healthier it would be if Hindu farmers were encouraged to eat beef instead of selling their cattle. If it is runaway slaughter due to commercialisation that we are afraid of and this fear was expressed in the House debates; in that case nothing should prevent the Government from banning export of beef. It can even ensure consumption of beef is localized to the areas that produce the cattle.

This Government’s decision is wrong and goes against the ethic of Hindutva.

– Namaste

Advertisements

13 Responses

  1. Hi
    i cam across your post and then i read the past posts regarding the beef issue. i am also from india.. from hindu background. its suprise that you have taken this position regarding beef and that from somebody who supports hindutva. even the person who coined the term “hindutva” , Veer savarkar shared these views. he was an atheist and thought cow is just a useful animal. but if you tell one of the VHP chaddis these days , they may get heart attack. generally hindus have trouble accepting that in ancient times, even brahmins ate beef. i have never understood this particular reluctance on their part. nothing more is shocking to the modern hindus than the fact that their ancestors ate beef. why is it so shocking ? what is the psychology behind it ? if i curse different hindu gods, people may not find it that shocking. but the moment somebody mentions this beef thing, modern hindus are in arms.. i myself have never understood why they find it so shocking. anyway yours is a good blog. i have used pseudo name here

  2. Dear Issac Newton, thank you for your comment. What you have said is true. Also true is Hindus can be reasoned with.

    They may get very agitated but for all the beef that is consumed, the agitation is not really proportionate 🙂 So, if one approaches the issue with sincerity it is not difficult to change mindsets. Savarkar is still much respected amongst those VHP folks too.

    Thanks again for your kind words.

  3. Hi

    Now you think ancient hindus ate beef, what do you make of Sandeep’s (sandeepweb) thoughts that ancient hindus did not eat beef. do you see any loopholes there ?

    I newton

  4. Can you please share the link where Sandeep says this?

  5. hi

    looking at this post
    http://www.sandeepweb.com/2010/06/18/the-mow-mow-of-the-secular-cows/

    i got that impression. may be he agrees with your position. i have not read most of his posts. but he seems to know lot of things…

    I newton

  6. Yes. Sandeep is widely read and a gentleman. I respect his views immensely. He does not say Hindus did not eat beef. He makes other points though.

    I have just commented on his blog.

  7. >>>”Since ancient times, Hindus including those of the Brahmana varna have consumed beef amongst other meats.

    Shouldn’t you provide references on which you base this conviction ?

    >>>”We have sacrificed the Cow and cattle in our Sacred fires”

    This ‘we’, we must remember, is not one homogenous bunch. For example, Adi Shankaracharya is not known to have sacrificed any cow.

    Have you sacrificed Cow or cattle in any sacred fire ?

    Or are we referring to ‘texts’ like that of Wendy’s manusmriti that may refer to her eating beef with Brahmins of yore.

    >>>”The Cow could be reared and milked but could not be eaten upon its death.”

    You want to eat your cow after its death, nobody stops you.
    If you are so inclined, you may eat other dead bodies too..

    The legislation aims at stopping the killing of cow.

    >>>”This is the only reason why, amongst the Hindus those that consume beef are found, overwhelmingly, amongst “untouchable” Jatis.”

    That beef eaters, Hindu or no, are untouchable is a point.
    Untouchables are those who have no sense of dharma, for e.g., the westerners, who eat beef regularly, and does all adharmik acts.

    >>>”It is wrong to taboo beef because we have always consumed its meat.”

    That is like a muslim saying- It is wrong to taboo jihad because we have always killed kaffirs.

    Nice argument.

    >>>”If some of us and even if that “some” is an overwhelming number; have given up eating beef, even then it is wrong to ban its consumption because there are still a number of Hindus that do consume it traditionally.”

    So if a ‘moderate’ muslim, supposing one such exists, says anything about not killing kaffirs, pat will come the reply- “If some of us and even if that “some” is an overwhelming number; have given up killing kaffirs, even then it is wrong to ban such killings because there are still a number of musalmans that do persecute and kill kaffirs as has been done traditionally.”

    >>>”It is the duty of the Hindu Kshatriya to protect all traditions of Hindus of all Jatis in Hindusthan”

    well, used to be a time when bharatiya did not label himself ‘Hindu Kshatriya’. In those times they considered it the kshatriya dharma to uphold dharma, not the secular rubbish as ‘protect all traditions of all indians in Hindustan’. Which means, if anybody is doing adharma, even if he has been doing it traditionally, that person is prevented from doing so. Those who still do not comply, were outcasted from community.

    >>>” the health of our society.”

    …depends on what we eat. The dead putrefying meat, affects the mental health of the person and that of the the society.

    The killing of an animal for meat, when there are other food available, create serious ramifications. You need to see it beyond just a physical act, its effect on psyche of the society. The condition of meat eating western society is an indicator.

    >>>”By allowing the consumption of beef Hindutva will not merely be protecting Hindus who consume beef but it will also be saving the rest from the degradation of having to sell cattle they cannot work with, to Muslim butchers”

    By ‘By allowing..’ you twist it as if everybody wants to eat beef and are being prevented by a legislation.

    ‘protecting Hindus who consume beef’. Do you realise the incongruence of that statement ?
    it sounds like ‘protecting the muslims that kill kaffirs’.

    ‘degradation of having to sell cattle they cannot work with’. Yes, the degradation is in using an animal its whole life, drinking its milk, using it for work, and then when it is no more able to serve the owner, kill it or sell it. That is the degradation of humane society. Degradation of humane consciousness. When your child grew up drinking that cow’s milk, playing with its calf, if you can plan to kill that animal and eat it, when you have alternatives,… nothing more needs to be said.

    There is a concept of papa. It is there in killing your own fellow being to satisfy taste buds that refuses to be satisfied with the milk that it and its progenies provide, the rice and wheat and vegetables it helps produce. That act kills your conscience. That meat, turns you, transforms you. Into a mleccha, a sub-human. below the level of an animal.
    That is why westerners are like that.

    http://estheppan.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/gau/
    namaste

  8. Incognito,

    My response:

    Firstly, the issue of beef has taken up too much of Hindu time and energy and we have beaten ourselves silly over it. So, I will limit my own comment to this one response.

    1. “Shouldn’t you provide references on which you base this conviction?

    – If you read some posts on this blog, Kedar and I have debated the topic to great lengths (at least where I am concerned).

    2. This ‘we’, we must remember, is not one homogenous bunch. For example, Adi Shankaracharya is not known to have sacrificed any cow.

    Have you sacrificed Cow or cattle in any sacred fire ?

    Or are we referring to ‘texts’ like that of Wendy’s manusmriti that may refer to her eating beef with Brahmins of yore.

    – Yes, Hindus are not a homogenous bunch. That’s my point.

    On sacrifice, if you like, you can take the Paramacharya of Kanchi’s word for it.

    3. You want to eat your cow after its death, nobody stops you.

    If you are so inclined, you may eat other dead bodies too..

    The legislation aims at stopping the killing of cow.

    – You are factually wrong. The legislation aims at consuming Cow products apart from prohibiting slaughter. So consuming even the beef of a dead Cow punishable.

    4. That beef eaters, Hindu or no, are untouchable is a point.

    Untouchables are those who have no sense of dharma, for e.g., the westerners, who eat beef regularly, and does all adharmik acts.

    – You are mixing up cause & effect when it comes to untouchables and the dead Cow.

    5. That is like a muslim saying- It is wrong to taboo jihad because we have always killed kaffirs.

    – No, it is not like that. Jihad is central to Islam. The taboo against beef is not, to Hindu Dharma.

    6. So if a ‘moderate’ muslim, supposing one such exists, says anything about not killing kaffirs, pat will come the reply- “If some of us and even if that “some” is an overwhelming number; have given up killing kaffirs, even then it is wrong to ban such killings because there are still a number of musalmans that do persecute and kill kaffirs as has been done traditionally.”

    – Again, wrong analogy. Jihad is less about killing Kaffirs and more about establishing the rule of Islam. That endevour still goes on even without a shot being fired.

    7. well, used to be a time when bharatiya did not label himself ‘Hindu Kshatriya’. In those times they considered it the kshatriya dharma to uphold dharma, not the secular rubbish as ‘protect all traditions of all indians in Hindustan’. Which means, if anybody is doing adharma, even if he has been doing it traditionally, that person is prevented from doing so. Those who still do not comply, were outcasted from community.

    – I have spoken about protecting all traditions of all Hindus. Where did “Indians” come into the picture?

    8. …depends on what we eat. The dead putrefying meat, affects the mental health of the person and that of the the society.

    The killing of an animal for meat, when there are other food available, create serious ramifications. You need to see it beyond just a physical act, its effect on psyche of the society. The condition of meat eating western society is an indicator.

    – I would prefer not to get into this. Let alone the “meat eating Westerner”, most of Asia consumes meat and that was never taught to them by any Westerner.

    9. By ‘By allowing..’ you twist it as if everybody wants to eat beef and are being prevented by a legislation.

    ‘protecting Hindus who consume beef’. Do you realise the incongruence of that statement ?
    it sounds like ‘protecting the muslims that kill kaffirs’.

    – I don’t know if “everybody” wants to eat beef. Some Hindus certainly do.

    You keep connecting beef eating with Kaffir killing. I don’t.

    10. Are you limiting this to the Cow or to all meat? I think it’s the latter. If so then an overwhelming number of Hindus are “like Westerners”.

    The thing is this – They are Hindus. To a very great extent; they are different from non-Hindus and they are our people. Them and their traditions/cultures/mores and norms need to be protected by Hindu Kshatra. Once done, you are free to debate them and convert their views to yours or be converted by them.

    Namaste

  9. >>>”If you read some posts on this blog…”

    Yes, did. The ‘references’, so called, especially by that fellow Jha, is atrocious!

    >>>”Hindus are not a homogenous bunch. That’s my point”

    Yet you made this statement- ”We have sacrificed the Cow and cattle in our Sacred fires”, when the people who may have done that would constitute what, 0.001% of the population ?

    >>>”Paramacharya of Kanchi’s word for it. ”

    The web article of kanchi peetham refers to some texts, draws some conclusions. But there is no mention that the Kanchi Shankaracharya did animal sacrifice ever. Nor is there any reference that Adi Shankaraharya ever did animal sacrifice or advocated its legitimacy.

    What about thousands of other Swamis- Sant Tulasidas, Swami Ramdas, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa…… did even one of them do animal sacrifice ? did they advocate that ????

    >>>”The legislation aims at consuming Cow products apart from prohibiting slaughter. So consuming even the beef of a dead Cow punishable.”

    “The bill prohibits slaughter of cattle, sale, usage and possession of beef, puts restriction on transport of cattle and also prohibits sale, purchase or disposal of cattle for slaughter.”- http://www.deccanherald.com/content/58978/cow-slaughter-ban-bill-passed.html

    Where does it say that you cannot dispose of your dead cow anyway you like ?

    >>>”You are mixing up cause & effect when it comes to untouchables and the dead Cow.”

    Effect follows the cause, both are interlinked.

    >>>”Jihad is central to Islam. The taboo against beef is not, to Hindu Dharma.”

    The correct comparison is- Jihad is central to Islam just like nurturing cow (as well as Nature) is central to bharatiya samskriti.

    But, the point was not that. The point was that giving reasons to stop the bill citing ‘tradition and practice’ of a few people is akin to sanctioning jihad citing the same reason. The point was to bring out the absurdity of the argument.
    Ummah considers that kaffirs do not have right to live except as dhimmis, similarly, advocates of meat eating consider animals don’t have right to live except as source of food to them.

    >>>”Jihad is less about killing Kaffirs and more about establishing the rule of Islam. That endevour still goes on even without a shot being fired.”

    It is funny when ‘Hindutva’ types start spouting propaganda of musalmans.

    Show me one instance of ‘establishing the rule of Islam’ ‘without a shot being fired’ where they are at majority.

    It is only where they are still a small minority that they spout these Taqiyya tactics. Even where they are a sizeable minority, such as in J&K, they kill and persecute kaffirs. That is jihad. And you very well know that.

    >>>”I have spoken about protecting all traditions of all Hindus. Where did “Indians” come into the picture?”

    The ‘hindus’ were the word coined by western mlechhas to define every person in hindustan. Accurately it refers to indians.

    The western mlecchas even now consider musalmans in india as hindus. Repeat- even the musalmans in india are not considered truely muslim by the hardcore muslims in Pakistan, not to mention Saudis, who probably consider every non-Arab muslim a lesser being.

    The Mohajirs and Ahmadiyyas who went to Pak from India are considered second class people.

    >>>”Let alone the “meat eating Westerner”, most of Asia consumes meat and that was never taught to them by any Westerner.”

    The term ‘westerner’ refers to ‘mleccha‘. One who displays selfish aggrandizing behaviour, which is the characteristic of every western system- christianity, islam, capitalism, communism, nazism, fascism etc. It is not that such people are there only in Europe.
    It is not a geographic definition.

    The mental condition of meat eating society is an indicator of how such habit affects societal psyche.

    >>>”I don’t know if “everybody” wants to eat beef. Some Hindus certainly do. ”

    Yes. Likewise some indians do want to eve-tease and fondle women in buses. And some indians do want to loot public and private money.

    >>>”Are you limiting this to the Cow or to all meat? I think it’s the latter. If so then an overwhelming number of Hindus are “like Westerners”.”

    No. Only so in some metros.

    But the people in power are “like Westerners”. That is why the country is in the state it is today.

    The main problem with meat eating has not been touched upon.

    How many animals will need to be killed to satisfy a meat eating person during his entire life ?

    Thousands of animals. That is, thousands of animals need to be killed to satisy the taste of one person when he could have easily lived that entire life on the milk, curd, ghee, paneer, provided by a couple of dozen cows and on the food grains helped produced by the cows using its dung and urine as fertilizer, pesticide, using it to plough the field and de-husk the grains.

    How many animals are required to be killed to feed a billion people in a day ? Millions of animals!

    These are only to be slaughtered. Those that are required for the next days’ consumption and to procreate equally large numbers for future generations means the numbers of animals required is in thousands of billions!

    If you don’t have enough land to cultivate crops to feed a billion humans, where will you get land to grow grass to feed thousands of billion animals, yet allow for other animals also to live ?

    This is why the rapacious meat eating westerners started invading other lands. This is why wherever westerners went, animals and birds extincted.

    Do you realize at all, the ramifications ???

    >>>”The thing is this – They are Hindus. To a very great extent; they are different from non-Hindus and they are our people.”

    This creation of a specie called ‘hindus’ is a western characteristic that creates such species called christian, muslim, kaffir, heathen etc.
    The fundamental characteristic of a christian, muslim, communist, capitalistic alike is selfish-aggrandizement, the common feature of westerner ‘mleccha’. Even when an indian displays such characteristic, that person is also a ‘mleccha’. Nothing else.

    There is no ‘our people’ where dharma is considered.

    It is the ‘our people’ argument that Indrajit used against Vibhishana, deriding him for joining up with Sri Rama, calling him a deserter. This is the same argument that Islam uses to ‘use’ people, calling them ummah- our people, and kaffir- them, and anybody who deserts the ummah is killed for apostasy, sanctioned by Koran. Communists also do the same. This is the characterstic of asura mentality.

    It comes with eating meat perhaps. Asuras were known to eat meat.

    Sri Krishna explains in bhagavad gita that there is no ‘our people’ where dharma is considered.

    >>>”Them and their traditions/cultures/mores and norms need to be protected by Hindu Kshatra. ”

    kshatriya dharma is to recognize dharma and uphold it. Not to ‘protect’ the adharmik practices of selfish people.

    >>>”Once done, you are free to debate them and convert their views to yours or be converted by them.”

    In the past there never was an instance of adharmi getting converted. If it would be so, Mahabharata would not have happened, Sri Rama- Ravan yuddh would not have been narrated.

    This BS about debating and converting stuff is fabrication of mleccha westerners meant to deceive the gullible.

    In India in the past debates took place between dharmik acharyas on fundamental points of life and its purpose. But never with adharmis.

    Ultimately, the point is this. Why kill an animal or a bird, that feels as much pain as you, just to satisfy your taste buds. Sensory pleasure can be achieved through other food also. Moreover, indulgence in sensory pleasure is not the purpose of life and excessive indulgence is not recommended too.
    A living being feels pain. As much pain as you do.
    Try to understand that. Try to feel its pain when you kill it to satisfy your tongue.
    How more cruel can a person get ?

    In extreme cases, when there is no alternative to sustain life, it may be considered that killing animals is justified.
    Not otherwise.

    dhanyavaad

  10. hi

    interesting arguments here. regarding issue of veg vs non-veg i am reading a book now.
    “secret life of plants” it gives many scientific views that plants also have feelings. so eating veggies is also causing suffering. so as long as animals are killed swiftly, eating meat is not bad including beef.

    newton

  11. News for putrefying-tissue-eaters- http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100914/jsp/sports/story_12934189.jsp

    Older news- http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/wrestler-sushil-kumar-promotes-a-vegetarian-lifestyle_100118517.html

    Newtonian twist is funny.
    Normal humans eat produce of plants, not the whole plant. Those who feed on decaying flesh may not realize that!

    namaste

  12. I’m re-posting this comment here from Incognito who posted it on my old blog.
    *********

    News for putrefying-tissue-eaters- http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100914/jsp/sports/story_12934189.jsp

    Older news- http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/wrestler-sushil-kumar-promotes-a-vegetarian-lifestyle_100118517.html

    Newtonian twist is funny.
    Normal humans eat produce of plants, not the whole plant. Those who feed on decaying flesh may not realize that!

    namaste

  13. Guys, please post comments on my new address.
    http://kone-nakshatra.centreright.in/

    This blog will be closed shortly. Thank you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: