Beef and dietary habits of early Hindus

When I was living in the US, I was amazed at the hypocrisy of modern Indian when it came to eating beef / pork. These same people in India went about declaring how pious souls they were but as soon as they got a chance to dig into a Big Mac or pork ribs, they were more than happy to do it.

Nevertheless, the question is, Are they hypocrites or their religion does not bar them from eating? The answer for Muslim friends was very easy. They should not be eating pork. It’s ‘Haraam’. For Hindu’s the answer becomes far more complicated.

I don’t eat beef in India, my principle on this subject has been that I would eat anything that is being bred, farmed or cultured to be eaten. I dislike the idea of killing a poor wild animal for our dietary needs until it becomes necessary for my survival.

The problem compounds when you land up in India. On one side Right wingers try to protect cows as their ‘Mata’ but on the other hand you see these mothers being left to die on the streets. Where these cows eat all kinds of garbage including ‘Polythene bags’ and die because of that. Where do these people go when cows become old and useless to their owners?

I read sometime ago that VHP during the height of mad cow disease in the UK wanted to bring all the cows from there to India as it considered it being slaughtered as immoral. A similar incident happened again the UK where a sacred Bull ‘Shambo’ of a temple was found with fatal bovine TB, all the Hindu’s of that area got together to protect it even at the cost of costing millions in case the disease spread to other cattle.

‘Gau Mata’ save us from such hypocrites and changelings. Fortunately as Salman Rushdie says ‘At the end sense prevails in India’, we survived this idiocy and were saved from contaminating our own pool of cattle.

I remember reading an article by ‘Varsha Bhosle’ on rediff.com a few years back. She made a fantastic point that it’s not that these VHP guys were trying to save all animals. They were just concerned about cows which were just bred to be slaughtered and were suffering from horrible disease.

Why doesn’t VHP do anything to save Indian Cheetah (already extinct now, sadly) or Ganges Dolphins which are dying because of excessive pollution in that river? Actually if you really look at it they don’t even do anything for the poor old cows across India either. But they would be first to stand up against McDonalds, which, according to them is spoiling our dietary habit and making us more non-vegetarian. I am sure when these people are protesting outside; some member of their family is actually eating a Big Mac in the US.

For Hindus there is no restriction on animal slaughter until is done in a hygienic form. We also have historical and textual references to Hindu’s eating all types’ of meat and beef in the Aryan era. There are sumptuous feasts described with Horse, Bull, Ox, Goat, Cow and other forms of meat.

Dr KT Acharya, indicates that Vedic Aryans ate all kinds of meats, including horses, buffaloes, bulls and cows.

The complexity or the duplicity arises from the very fact that we still worship the same Gods that our older religion followed. ‘Ram’ is adored throughout the country these days and in my eyes, he represents a typical Aryan God. He is supposed to be ‘Maryada Purshotam’ (a perfect man), he is fair skinned, young, devout Aryan, kept his words, fought with demons and enemies with utmost integrity. He even respected ‘Ravana’ for his intelligence. All these traits were in a way combination and culmination of all other pervious Aryan Gods. He was a perfect combination of all that Indra, Rudra and Agni had to offer.

Some south Indian theologians even read ‘Ramayan’ as a fight between Aryans and the Dravidians. However, that sounds preposterous, as ‘Ramayan’ is equally popular in south India as in the north.

As far as the religion itself is concerned, we have become idol worshippers. All other kinds of deformities have also crept into it. Now we follow a different kind of religion but we worship the same Gods. However, many people try to impose this religion in the name of same old Gods. So if I find somewhere that ‘Ram’ used to eat meat it becomes very difficult to convince me not to eat and still worship the same God.

Eating meat in general is very common in India and the percentage of meat eater is increasing. With the recent rise in vegetable prices have made poultry and local goat meat far more affordable to people. There are many sects in India, who frown upon eating meat but fortunately, for meat eaters like me, it is inconsistent across India.

I have always wondered on couple of questions, which have remained perplexing in history:
1. Why do some sects and castes do not eat meet in India. When did it stop? Why did it get divided on caste basis?
2. Why Hindu’s do not eat beef?

However, when it comes to beef the issue becomes very sensitive. As Indira Gandhi once said, ‘No Indian politician of this era has the guts to allow beef eating in India’.

Even at the cost of right wing, Indians gunning for my head I decided put my two cents here.

When I returned from the US for the first time, I met a gentleman who asked me if I ate beef. He was a young army officer. When I told him Yes I used to eat beef in the US, he was a little disappointed. His logic was simple. According to him unlike many other religions, Hinduism doesn’t restricts you to do anything, the only thing that was forbidden for him was eating beef and hence he didn’t eat it. Now this logic had influence for the next few months after returning to the US, I did not eat it too.

However, as time went by I started to read a bit and realized that actually religious literature of Hinduism nowhere states that Hindu’s should not eat beef, it just discourages and that also with in last thousand years. Not only that there are many places where there is description of follower of early Hinduism eating beef and sacrificing it for the Gods.

Some historians have also raised this point in the open in last few years. For an eminent professor of History at Delhi University speaking his idea and mind was of the utmost importance. But, when he came up with his book, he annoyed a lot of right-wingers. They took him to court and until recently there was a ban on the publication of the book.

I am against any kind of censorship. We live in a democratic country and we all have a right to say what we believe and to best of our knowledge are true.

Many of his critics have tried to point out that historians who are in the pro beef-eating lobby translate texts like ‘Rig Veda’ literally. They do not look at the context but only the literate meaning of the hymns. On the other hand, I am of the firm belief that we should look at these texts in its true form and then make our own interpretation of the text.

The excerpts that are in this blog are mostly from Dr. Jha’s book and some articles on the web.

In the early migration of Aryans into India was full of cultural turmoil. There was a split between Persian Aryans and Indian Aryans. Early works of both societies has a lot in common. Indian Aryans made their own cultural identity, some of this was taken from local tribes including Mohonjodaro & Harappans but the most outside influence came from Dravidians tribes which were already flourishing in India.

In the beginning, Aryans were nomadic; their traditions included many animal sacrifices. They considered cattle as wealth and hence these sacrifices were made to Gods to please them so that they can provide them with more of this wealth. It's sacrificing something very important to you.

As Aryans became more sedentary, many things changed in their lifestyle. These changes brought about more refinement in culture. People started building on their philosophies. Sages and hermits started to contemplate on existence of God, this world around them and people. These philosophies started to take the shape of religion.

These sages wrote ‘Rig Veda’ around 1700 BC to 1000 BC. No one can be very sure of it but for centuries, oral traditions transmitted it. In fact, all Vedas are composed for a very oratory rendition. The advent of music in India was to recite these hymns in three notes. Here began the Indian music. The supremely complicated and scientific music (which has now divided in two forms ‘Hindustani Classical’ and ‘Carnatic’ music) arose from the rendition of these hymns.

As we have no written records from 3500 years ago, the evidence of its period comes from the geography and social structure that has been defined in these Vedas and other texts. Now geography tells us a lot about where it was written and who wrote it but the social beliefs of people comes from all the rituals these people practiced and all the Gods they worshiped.

As far as the beef eating is concerned, these rituals tell us a lot. Both ‘Ashvamedha’ and ‘Rajasuya’ Yagnya had animal slaughter at its root. These sacrifices were very important as Aryans considered cattle as their main wealth. Hence, parting with your main wealth for Gods was considered good to be in favour of these Gods. In the 'Ashvamedha ' yagnya, the horse at the end of the yagnya was sacrificed. The sacrificing of this horse used to be by strangulation and not by any other means.

According to various sources, the early Aryans offered Vedic Gods food, to please them. Offering made to most Vedic Gods was Milk, Butter, Barley, Honey, Oxen, and Goat etc. But some special Gods had special needs and had there special dietary preference. Now I am still confused on why the people chose these special dietary needs for these Gods. Were these Gods representation of some ancient kings who had these requirements? We don’t have proof but again we can speculate based historical evidences. So, ‘Indra’ was offered bulls, ‘Agni’ wasn’t feeble, he liked the flesh of Horses, Bulls and Cows. ‘Soma’, liked any cattle. ‘Pusan’ the god of roads and safety ate mush (a soggy mass of boiled cornmeal) as its main food. ‘Maruts’ and ‘Ashvins’ were offered Cows.

‘Rig Vedic’ yagnya were full of animal sacrifices. The Vedas mention around 250 different animals out of which 50 are considered fit to be consumed by the divine and humans.

For instance, the ‘Rig Veda’ recounts the rituals in animal sacrifice and the roasting and carving of its meat, with Brahmin priests receiving the choicest cuts as ‘Prasaad’. A black cow was favoured by ‘Pushan’, red by ‘Rudra’, an ox by ‘Vishnu’, and bulls by ‘Agni and Indra’ . The latter urged to slay his foes "just as cows are butchered at the altar of sacrifice."

The ‘Taittiriya Brahmana’ categorically tells that ‘'Verily the cow is food' (atho annam via gauh). ‘Yajnavalkya’ insisted on eating tender (‘amsala’) flesh of cow.

We can find ample evidence of eating flesh including beef in ‘Grhyasutras’ and ‘Dharmasutras’. A lot of domestic rites also included killing of cattle. ‘Madhupurka’ or ‘Arghya’, the ceremonial way of welcoming the guest consisted meal of ‘curd, honey and meat of bull and cows. It was so important that it was turned into a law by early law givers. In the early period, even, the sacred thread ceremony included the ‘Santaka’ to wear an upper garment made of cowhide.

In the Vedic text, corpse was covered by thick cow fat. In some cases even a bull was burnt along the corpse as a sacrifice and helping the deceased in the afterlife. A mandatory meal after the funerary rites included feeding of Brahmans, which included the offering made to the dead with flesh of cow or ox. It was said that a sacrifice of one cow would keep the ancestors’ soul content for one year.

A lot of Vedic and post – Vedic text refer to killing of kine (Bovine) animals in ritual context.

There was always a relationship and balance between sacrifice and sustenance. Killing of cattle wasn’t always for sacrifice. Non-ritual killing or small rituals turning into big feeding orgies based the wealth of the individual existed too. So the beef or other cattle meat was not always consecrated.

The ‘Atharva Veda’ mentions the sacrificial cow as "Destined for the Gods and Brahmins."

‘Ahimsa’ is a later concept. ‘Gautam Buddha’ and ‘Mahavira’ both questioned the usefulness of Vedic animal sacrifice. But the aversion didn’t arise from these religions or their texts. Of course now Jainism as a religion is totally averse to eating meat but also killings of any kind. It is said that Gautam Buddha died after eating his favourite meal (Sukaramaddava) which was pork cooked in milk. Many Buddhists across the world still eat beef, pork, yak and all other kinds of meat.

‘Arthashastra’ by Kautilya has evidence that animal sacrifice was common during Mauryan period. Chandragupta Maurya’s grandson the Great ‘Ashoka’ in his later years had undeniable compassion for cattle. A list of animals that shouldn’t be killed was made on his order. But surprisingly (or by choice, based on its popularity then) cow wasn’t in the list.

There seems to be a great influence on Hindus in not eating beef and some texts converting to vegetarianism because of popularity of Jainism and Buddhism in the later years. Perhaps for a long time even Jains were not strict vegetarians. Some texts show that even until eight century AD, Jain monks weren’t averse to eating fish or fowl. Nonetheless, at least in theory Jainism treats all life equally.

However, the concept of sacred cow doesn’t arise from here.

In the post-Mauryan centuries, random and sacrificial killing continued. Manu (200 BC -200 AD) praised the virtue of ‘ahimsa’ and made a list of animals whose flesh can be eaten. Among the common animals ‘Camel’ was exempt but again no ‘Cow’. Also according to him animal slaughter in accordance of Vedic practice doesn’t amount to killing. He actually recommends sacrificial offering and eating of beef and other cattle during ‘Madhuparka’ and ‘Sraddha’.

Now as we entered the Anno Domini one of the important books of that time is the law book of ‘Yajnavalkya’ (AD 110 -300). He enumerates the Hindu version of kosher animals and fishes. He also goes on to say that a learned Brahmana (‘srotriya’) should be welcomed with delicious big ox or goat food and sweet words. He states in the ‘Shatapath Brahmana’, "But, I shall eat of it nevertheless if the flesh is tender."

During the Gupta period (AD 280 to 550) the flesh eating and killing cattle for food was customary and common. Some texts here give evidence of beef being served to Brahmans after the funeral rites. But some text prohibit killing of cow in honour of guests but allow sacrificing Buffalo for the Goddess ‘Durga’ during ‘Puja’, ‘Navaratri’ or ‘Dasherra’.

A lot of ‘Purans’ and the epics are filled with cattle eating and specially meat eating.

The evidence in ‘Mahabharata’ is quite evident and eloquent. Almost all the characters in it are meat eaters. The ‘Pandavas’ survived on meat during their exile. It also has a reference to king ‘Rantideva’. In his kitchen, two thousand cows were killed and given to Brahmans along with grain. At one point ‘Draupadi’ also promises ‘Jayadratha’ that ‘Yudhishtira’ would provide him with ‘Ghayal, Sambhra and Buffalo’ as game.

In the ‘Mahabharat’ and ‘Ramayan’, sumptuous feasts abound with the meat of pigs, deer, sheep, fowl and "young buffalo calves roasted on spits with ghee dripping on them".

'Valmiki’s Ramayana’ also makes many such references to the killing of animals including cows for sacrifice and food. ‘Ram’ himself was born after the yagnya by his father ‘Dashratha’. In this he sacrificed large number of animals according to ‘Dharmasastra’. When Ram was exiled, Kaushalya weeps for him as one of the conditions for him was that he has to live on fruits and vegetables. In her squall she is worried for Ram and says “how you would live without eating meat as during every meal your plate is filled with four different kinds of meats”. At one point Sita promises Yamuna that she would offer her a thousand cows and one hundred jars of wine. Sita’s fondness of deer meat makes Ram kill Maricha who is disguised as a deer. King Bharadvaja welcomes Ram by slaughtering a fatted calf in his honour.

In the olden medical discourse there is a important place given to non vegetarian diet. Manu & Yajnavalkya, some of the Puranas, Charaka Sushruta and Vagbhata list remedial uses of meat and fish. All of them speak of therapeutic uses of beef.

The continuity of tradition of beef eating is echoed in literature during this time. Kalidas refers to Rantideva. Approximately two centuries after Kalidas, Bhavabhuti refers to killing of Heifer (Young cow) during two major feasts. In tenth century Rajashekhara mentions practice of killing ox in honour of guests. In later years Shriharsha mentions two instances of cow flesh being served in two marriage feasts.

Till around 12^th century we can see evidences the ancient practice of killing kine (bovine animals) for food. These are mostly available from Kavya and Dharamsashtras. Some writers like Candupandita of Gujrat, Narahari from Telengana, Mallinatha of Vijyanagara indicate cow for food during the death rituals.

After ninth century, many religious digests kept alive the memory of this practice. Medhatithi, a Kashmiri Brahman allows bull and ox to be killed for an honorary person. He even allows eating of cow flesh (govyajamamsam) on a ritual occasion.

Some writers said that cow killing existed in the past but it should be avoided in the ‘Kali’ age. But on the other hand some writes like Visvarupa (Malwa, probably a disciple of Sankara), Vijnanesvara (Kalyana, Karnataka), Haradatta, Laksmidhara, a minister of the Gahadwala king Hemadri, Narasimha a minister of Yadavas of Devagiri, and Mitra Misra from Gopacala (Gwalior) have recommended killing of cows on special occasion.

Even in the 18^th century, Ghanshyama, a minister in Tanjore wrote about killing of cow in honour of guests as ancient ritual.

So around the turn of the middle of the first millennium saw the society becoming very feudalised which lead to socio-cultural transformation. Also, after the first half of the first millennium Hinduism was again on the forefront. The decline of Buddhism in India brought a change of religious intolerance and domination of religious bigotry and turned Hindu society into a rigid caste based society dominated by Brahmans.

By the end of the first millennium as Islam was knocking on Indian doors Brahmanical text started to forbid a lot of practices in Kaliyug. i.e. Kalivarjyas. As happens with any religion whose emphasis is on holding on to its identity, Hinduism tried to swell up all these sins. Each learned Brahmin had its own list of sins which later got compiled into a big one. Some of the writings forbid Cow slaughter but most actually called it a minor sin.

Almost all texts refer to cow killing as a minor sin (upapataka) and not a major offence (mahapataka). What is weird is that beef eating is considered a lesser sin then drinking alcohol which was very common. Even so, the prohibition of alcohol is not brandished as a Hindu mainstay, nor is it seriously enforced. Krishna and Arjun were known to go on booze binges.

Smiriti texts though distinguish between intentional and unintentional killings. This could have been done to discourage beef eating but that shows that beef eating was still prevalent in the society.

It is alleged that Swami Vivekananda also ate beef during his stay in the US and vehemently defended his action. A lot of Hindu communities in south especially in Kerela and in the North-East prefer to eat beef over other forms of mutton.

Although it seems that with the advent of ‘panchyaganya’, which is the use of cow products (milk, curds, clarified butter, dung and urine) from a cow tilted the society in favour of stop eating beef. The ‘Panchaganya’ had purificatory role in those times. No one knows for sure but it seems that as a living cow was more useful to the general public than a dead one people became more dependent on it. Even the cows which were non- milk producing were useful for their dung and urine.

This word appears for the first time in ‘Baudhayana Dharmasutra’. A lot of religious digests mention it later on. Manu, Vishnu, Vashishtha, Yajnavalkya, Atri, Devala and Prashara all mentions it for purification use. Charaka and Sushruta also mention it as having medicinal capabilities.

This reasoning has another argument to go with it. There is a new debate to Hindu’s eating beef. This debate in the modern society also seems to emerge from our less and less dependency on cow.

The image of cow in Indian or especially Hindu history is polymorphic. From around 500 AD there seems to be confusion on the right use of beef in dietary habit. Increasingly over time the posture that the society took was towards not eating beef. There has been an inconsistent behaviour towards cows and beef in particular.

Hindu society has never put cow in the temple. Its honour is only till it is alive and useful. Though, modern Hindutva forces who are trying to convert people to a single branded monolithic Hinduism see the veneration of cow as one of their slogans.

After almost thousand years of glorification or subjugation of this idea of ‘Ahimsa’ against animals, even now 75% of Indians eat meat. Vegetarians think that when we moved from nomadic to sedentary life and we started to grow our food we should have stopped eating meat. This idea sounds OK at the first glance but sadly neither it’s practical nor logical. So I ask the vegetarians how you would define poultry farms. Does that come under nomadic lifestyle or sedentary one? Similarly in all modern societies most of the meat is farmed and bred and no one goes hunting for it.

Also in India there are more percentage Jewish people and Christians who eat beef over Muslims. But for right wingers it suits to point beef eating as a sin towards Muslims and then they turn a dietary dialogue into a religious one.

Some time ago in one democratic country, 2% Christians wanted to ban the showing of ‘The Da Vinci Code’ movie. Now I am all for religious tolerance and respecting other religions. I would be the first one to fight for the rights of minority. But, banning something and stopping a work of art to flourish is nonsense. This would have prevented other 98% (+1.99% of Christians who didn’t care about it) from enjoying a movie. But again I am glad the sense prevailed.

This kind of tendency worries me, what if someone wants a ban on my chicken or egg because it’s poultry. What if Muslims want ban on someone’s pork? What if some religious group wants ban on alcohol? What if Jains want a ban on all roots? Where would this end? Probably I would be left with eating my own sweat as some imbecile would find milk white or broccoli green as offensive.

The utilitarian needs might have discouraged slaying of cows in the past but in Hinduism the weight of individual is heavier than a decree by a Prophet or God. So when these needs change so should we with time.

The beauty of Hinduism lies in its individuality and not in a monolithic version. Hence an individual’s idea of Karma and Moksha should be the discretion alone to decide beef eating.

“To eat or not to eat, that is the Question”.