1.0 Introduction
In Indian society, Cow is not just an animal. It is a symbol of Brahmanical and devotional traditions of Hinduism. ‘Cow’ has a political significance in India. It became the source of numerous riots and bloodsheds. It is also a source of worship and a symbol of Hindu mobilization. It shares some essential relationship with caste and communalism. In this paper, I would like to look into those relationships along with discussing the subsidiary effects like culinary fascism (related to beef) and effeminate nature attached to cow. Firstly, I would like to debug the myth associated with the ‘sacred cow’. Then I would like to go into its relationship with caste and then communalism. But, I would not go into the details of riots happened over Cow protection movement or into the details of legislations which banned cow slaughter, instead look into the theoretical frame, which contains all these composite elements. 2.0 The myth of Holy Cow The Holiness attached to cow was purely constructed. In Indian society, the importance of cow was always recognized as the economy moved from pastoral to agricultural orientation. But in ancient times cow was not regarded as sacred or inviolable (Bandyopadhyay, 2009, p. 240). Norman Brown in his work ‘The Sanctity of the cow in Hinduism’ establishes that, Vedic literature show no knowledge of the doctrine of the sanctity and inviolability of the cow or of cattle. Rather it points to a general practice of offering cattle as sacrificial victims and a widespread custom of eating their meat (Brown , 1964, p. 247). ‘’In a period overridden by ritualism there was hardly a day on which there was no cow to sacrifice to which the Brahmin was not invited by some non-Brahmins. For the Brahmin everyday was a beef-steak day. The Brahmins were therefore the greatest beef-eaters’’ (Ambedkar, 1948). According to B.R Ambedkar, the clue to the worship of cow and the transition to vegetarianism by Brahmans are to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism. The reason why cow worship was adopted and beef eating was given up by Brahmanism, was to establish its supremacy over Buddhism (Ambedkar, 1948). Interestingly, Buddhist Bhikshus were also not vegetarians, they were permitted to eat three kinds of flesh that were deemed to be pure, which latter was extended to five. But the practice of animal sacrifice which was the essence of Brahmanism was deadly opposed by Buddhism. According to Ambedkar, if Brahmins had acted from conviction that animal sacrifice was bad, all that was necessary for them to do was to give up animal sacrifice. It was unnecessary for them to be vegetarians (Ambedkar, 1948). Since, the sacrifice of cow had a great deal of opposition among the masses which was largely agricultural population, for asserting supremacy over Buddhism, Brahmins become vegetarians and started worshiping cow. The skilful manipulation of cultural symbols and constructing new cultural symbols, when became the components of cultural project of nationalism in India, cow became a source of Pan-Hindu mobilization cutting across sectarian and caste divides, during the upper caste led anti-colonial movement. Such manipulations were uncritically absorbed by the masses. Further, in the imaginations of Hindu nationalists, cow protection was an essential element and cow was treated to be ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’. So the myth behind the ‘holy cow’ has two dimensions; Brahmanical and Nationalist. While the Brahmanical dimension has roots into the caste system, the nationalist dimension has its derivative in communalism, which latter was inherited by ‘Hindu Nationalism’. So analysing the relationship of cow with Communalism and Caste becomes quintessential for our understanding. 3.0 Cow and caste Brahmanism’s need for asserting superiority over Buddhism paved the foundation for the ‘Holy’ construction over cow. But why should the non- Brahmins follow it? Answer to this best lays at the explanation of French sociologist Gabriel Tarde, who argued that Culture within a society spreads by imitation of the ways and manners of superior classes by the inferior classes (Ambedkar, 1948). Aspiration for an upgrade in social status actually forced many lower castes to imitate aspects like cow protection, cow worship and vegetarianism of Brahmanism. Some of the lower caste movements surrounding cow protection also explain the same logic. Gyanendra Pandey finds the logic of Prevention of cow slaughter becoming a subject for the Ahirs’ Gwala Movement, as a result of their aspiration for an upgrade in social status (since it found support among more privilege Hindu castes) (Pandey, 2006, p. 165). This aspiration of transformation from marginally ‘clean’ castes to seek full ‘cleanliness’ (Pandey , 1999), was a sound reason for propagating strictness on the issue of cow slaughter by lower castes. Along with cow protection, a subsidiary aspect associated with it, is the culinary aspect. When Brahmins made cow a sacred animal, beef eating became a matter of religion. So the untouchables, who continued eating beef when Brahmanism discontinued it, became inferior in society. Interestingly, Cow was scared regardless of living or dead. And Beef eating was made a sacrilege. According to Ambedkar, the broken men who continued to eat beef became guilty of sacrilege and there was no other fate left for the Broken Men other than becoming untouchables[i] (Ambedkar, 1948). The so called modern day casteist saints like M.K Gandhi, has also helped elevate the issue of cow-protection and vegetarianism. He made statements like: ‘’Cow- protection is the outward form of Hinduism. I refuse to call anyone a Hindu if he is not willing to lay down his life in this cause. It is dearer to me than my very life’’ (Hiro, 2015, p. 32). According to Kancha Ilaiah, It was Gandhi’s campaign that took vegetarianism to non-Brahmin social groups that were meat-arian. The only people who were not really influenced by Gandhi’s cow protection campaign and vegetarianism were Muslims, Christians and Dalits (Ilaiah, 2015). It was Ambedkar’s counter campaign which was trying to impart multicultural dimension to food practices, as against Gandhian vegetarianism which in a way excluded dalits from getting appropriated into vegetarianism. He also considers the recent ban on beef [ii] as a cultural imposition, more particularly on tribals and Dalits. Kancha Ilaiah considers Cow as an Aryan animal [iii] and he considers the modern day RSS approach to protect it as a casteist and racist approach (Ilaiah, 2015). The modern day politics of Hindutva also centres on the ‘sacred Cow’. The process of ‘sanskritization’, which the Sang Parivar has been promoting, has taken different dimensions. The major objective of sanskritization is the construction of ‘monolithic Hinduism’, which is a historic absurdity. This attempts at creating a Brahmanical narrative by transcending culturally variant practices of Hinduism. The broader dream of Sanskritization actually lies at the conception of Hindu Rashtra. The RSS have been fashioning the notion of Hindu Rashtra and the associated ‘samskars’ through the ‘shakhas’ which inhales the idea of vegetarianism and holiness of cow, which is essentially ‘effeminate’. According to Christophe Jaffrelot, the technique of conversion of low caste people to Hindutva relied on the same logic of imitation of Brahmins, which can be analysed as a process of ‘sanskritization’ (Jaffrelot, 2001). There is a notion of ‘Purity’ and ‘Impurity’ associated with the culinary art tangled with the process of ‘sanskritization’. While the ‘Purity’ is recognized with the ‘vegetarian’ diets, ‘Impurity’ is recognized with ‘Non Vegetarian’ diets. This notion of ‘purity’ associated with the culinary diets is a pure Brahmanical construct. The assumption and assertion of a monolithic culinary culture is a fascist dictation. It also put the question of Individual rights into hold. But this Brahmanical culinary culture has been challenged both internally and externally in India. The upper caste Hindus of Kerala, Bengal and Assam are profoundly found to practice non vegetarianism. Also there are reported events like, DYFI (youth wing of CPIM) conducting beef festival for challenging Brahmanical Culinary Fascism[iv]. Dalit and left leaning students of Osmania University, Hyderabad has organized a beef eating festival on the campus (April 2012). Under the banner of New Materialist (NM) students of JNU has also organized a public meeting to debate the issue of (dis)allowing certain kinds of foods like beef and pork in the campus on march 2012 (Nigam , 2002). Such challenges are evident, but still Sangi’s have overcome these issues by means of legislation. Often the Brahmanical congress has also failed to intervene in it as matter of ‘secularism’ or as a matter of individual rights, when in power. The culinary fascism of Sang Parivar is essentially related both to caste and communalism. The culinary politics by Brahmanical Hindutva forces must be seen as an attempt to wipe out the cultural identities of Dalits and minorities. The ban on beef (or the imposition of vegetarianism), essentially discriminates dalits economically too. Since Beef happens to be the cheapest source of protein and the leather work associated with cow skin use to be a traditional occupation for many of the castes in India. So for dalits, culinary fascism or a ban on cow slaughter will directly or indirectly deprive them nutritiously, economically and materially. 4.0 Cow and Communalism The Veneration of cow actually increased during the medieval period when the rate of cow slaughter increased phenomenally. Cow protection movement arose in northern Indian with the efforts of Kuka and Arya Samaj and it was stimulated by the writings of Swami Dayanand Saraswati and acquired organizational form with the establishment of Gaurakshini Sabhas in 1880’s (Pandey, 2006, p. 163). Earlier cow or cow protection movement was not overtly a communal issue, such movements were rationalised by economic and nationalistic arguments. But it was during the late 19th century Hindu mobilization took place around the symbol of cow with communal implications. The communal impetus around the cow protection or the sacred cow was further strengthened by the growth of communal organizations like RSS and VHP in the 20th century. It placed the ‘sacred cow’ at the paramount of Hindu Rashtra conception. The communal organizations like Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) came into being through the movement focusing on a ban on cow-slaughter (Jaffrelot, 2001). Communal forces have realised that riots is the only way to communalise the poor (Panikkar, 1991, p. 18). The riots stimulated by ‘cow protection’ before and after independence are explicit ways of communalising the masses. Some scholars have sought to distinguish two phases in cow protection movement; Urban and Rural, while the former led by a moderate upper class leadership and which was less militant while the latter guided by extremist leaders from less privilege backgrounds and was more militant (Pandey, 2006, p. 175). Cow protection is of special importance for scholars like Gyanendra Pandey, mainly because it bridges the gap between urban and rural Hindus and elite and popular levels of communalism (Pandey , 1999, p. 307). Rafiuddin Ahmed argues that the ritual slaughter of cows came to occupy centre stage in the politics of the late nineteenth century ‘‘not so much because the Muslims loved to sacrifice cows as because the militant Hindus made it an issue’’ (Pandey, 2006, p. 162). Cow protection movement can be seen as a part of attempt to construct the larger ‘Hindu Community’ in northern India (Pandey, 2006). The selective appropriation of the cultural past (or sacred symbols) exclusively from a so-called Hindu era is a communal view to establish nationalism which is Hindu nationalism (Panikkar, 1991, p. 10). The vibrant notion of communalism underlined by the sacredness of cow can be best explained from the issue of lynching a mob, in Haryana (2002). The suspicion of cow slaughter took the life of five Dalit men Dalit men whose traditional occupation was leather work (Nigam & Menon, 2007, p. 43). But interestingly, the clarification given by the Hindu Right wing explains the communal depth in the issue. They explained it as a case of ‘mistaken identity’ in which dalits were mistaken for Muslims!! The cow protection actually constitutes an ideological agenda for organizations like RSS and VHP. The broader idea, in which cow protection is embedded, lies at the heart of establishing cultural hegemony and ‘othering’ of minorities. Building upon Kancha Ilaiah[v], we could argue that, it was for achieving the goal of cultural hegemony the RSS and other members of sang family, turned cow protection, cow slaughter and beef as a Hindu-Muslim issue even after post-independence. My emphasize on post-independence is because, it was after independence, the idea of Hindu nationalism found extensive soil in India and started replacing ‘Congress nationalism’ of pre-independence whose waves lived till the end of late 20th century. And also due to the fact that, pre-independence mobilization on cow protection, cow slaughter etc. was largely appropriated into nationalist mobilization. Even though it was communal, all mobilizations on cow protection or on cow slaughter, didn’t share the hard printed ideology of Hindu Rashtra as propagated by RSS. While considering the discourse of cow slaughter, there are arguments like, Cow slaughter devastated India’s economy and has resulted in the undernourishment of its vegetarian population (Tejani, 2008) and also arguments arising against cow slaughter out of agrarian emotions, without holding the vision of Brahmanical cultural hegemony. For me, subsuming all such arguments under the communal notion would be a reductionist view on this discourse. These sought of arguments should be considered independently. 5.0 Cow as ‘effeminate’ There were three prevalent thoughts in 1880’s and 1890’s regarding the animal ‘cow’. One, Cow as the ‘universal mother’ based on the proposition that all human beings drink the cow’s milk; in consequence of this Killing of cow has been considered as matricide. The second position was that Cow as the dwelling- place of all the major Hindu gods and goddess, so cow slaughter becomes heinous in Hindu eye. And the third was the representation of Muslims, Christians and the Englishman as the killer of cows and hence the enemy of Hinduism. (Pandey, 2006, p. 179). Apart from the third position, first two positions consider cow as ‘effeminate’. It is the conception of cow as the mother, which further releases the paternalistic concerns over the cow. The conception of matricide is considered as a gross violence over the society, which perceives women either as ‘goddess’ or as to be ‘parented’ or ‘protected’. This protectionist notion when violated is considered to be an attack on the ‘masculinity’ (of Hindu society). Even the third position bounded on hatred generated for the killers of cow, indirectly upholds the first two positions. So the sentiments and emotions emerging out of cow protection are essentially ‘effeminate’. The violation of the chastity of women of one’s family is repeatedly invoked as a spiritual punishment in the appeals of the patias circulated in shahbad in 1917, for action to protect ‘mother cow’ (Pandey, 2006, p. 184). The notion of sacred duty of cow protection, the sanctity of family and the inviolability of the community (Hindu community) are thus collapsed together (Pandey, 2006, p. 184). So what lies at the heart of cow protection is a culturally embedded society with patriarchal values. 5.0 Conclusion The ‘sacred cow’ has necessary relations with the caste structure, which has led to the exclusion of broken people. The ‘sacred cow’ or the ‘holy cow’ is a Brahmanical construct, which has no historicity in Vedic literature or in ancient Hindu history. It was a construct for claiming superiority over Buddhism. The process of ‘sanskritization’ includes vegetarianism and Brahmanical Hinduism and its practices at its peak and tries to appropriate non-Brahmanical castes into it. Such attempt to create ‘monolithic’ Hinduism would be a cultural imposition over dalits. ‘Sacred cow’ is also the source of numerous riots that happened in India. It was used to mobilise Hindus cutting across class and caste barrier. During anti-colonial struggle ‘sacred cow’ has proved its mobilizing power, often under communalized umbrellas. Cow protection movement was essentially religious and communal for most part of the history. Identity formation over cow protection movements was also a process of ‘othering’ Muslims and Christians. The modern day Hindu Rashtra conception also uses the same mode of ‘othering’. Also, I would argue that the paternalist concerns over sacred cow have some relation with the ‘effeminate’ conception of cow. Cow has become a ‘contested’ object, and it will continue to be so, since the ghost of Brahmanism follows it. End Note [i] Imitation was too costly for ‘Broken men’, since flesh of dead cow was their principal sustenance. [ii] In 1976 that the Maharashtra Government banned cow slaughter through the ‘State Animal Protection Act’ but when BJP Shiv Sena faction that came to power in 1995 they amended this act by prohibiting the slaughter of oxen and bullocks along with the cow. It was this amendment was sanctioned by President Pranab Mukherjee in 2015. [iii] Cow came to India along with Aryans. [iv] http://peoplesdemocracy.in/2015/0322_pd/dyfi-organises-beef-festival [v]According to Kancha Ilaiah, RSS turned beef into a Muslim-Hindu issue, in order to pursue their goal of Cultural hegemony. Work Cited Ambedkar, D. B. R., 1948. The Untouchables: Who were they and why they became Untouchables?. [Online] Available at: http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/39B.Untouchables%20who%20were%20they_why%20they%20became%20PART%20II.htm#a11 [Accessed 16 March 2015]. Bandyopadhyay, S., 2009. From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India. Noida: Orient Blackswan Private Limited. Brown , W. N., 1964. The Sanctity of the Cow in Hinduism. The Economic Weekly, February, pp. 245-255. Hiro, D., 2015. Gandhi's original sin. In: The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan. s.l.:Nation Books, pp. 27-50. Ilaiah, K., 2015. Beef ban is an attempt to impose uppercaste culture on other Hindus: Kancha Ilaiah [Interview] (19 March 2015). Jaffrelot, C., 2001. The Sangh Parivar Between Sanskritization and Social Engineering. In: The BJP and the Compulsions of Politics in India. second ed. s.l.:Oxford University Press, pp. 22-70. Nigam, A. & Menon, N., 2007. Politics of Hindutva and the minorities. In: Power and Contestation: India Since 1989. Canada: Zed Books, pp. 36-60. Pandey , G., 1999. Communalism as construction. In: Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 305-316. Pandey, G., 2006. The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India. Third ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Panikkar, K., 1991. Communalism in India; A perspective for intervention. New Delhi: Peoples Publishing House. Tejani, S., 2008. Indian Secularism: A Social and Intellectual History, 1890-1950. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
Archives
June 2016
AuthorsAshique Ali T |