|
February 24, 2003
To, The Editor, The Milli
Gazette,
Sir,
I am aghast and appalled at
the utterly ignorant and presumptuous statement by Mr.Danish A. Khan in
his article Nationwide ban on cow-slaughter mooted in The Milli Gazette
issue dt.Feb.22, 2003 that : “Followers of Jain religion and a sect
of Buddhists are known to propagate the teachings of non-violence and
strictly avoid eating meat. But, the fact is that even their founders
could not exempt themselves from devouring meat. Gautama Buddha, founder
of Buddhist religion, is known to have eaten beef and pork. Vardhmana
Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, is said to have consumed the meat of a
cockerel.” (Italics supplied)
As the co-author of a
standard introduction to Jainism with Dr.Colette Caillat, ex-Rector,
Sorbonne University, Paris and a renowned international scholar of
Prakrits and Sanskrit and Dr.A.N. Upadhye, a former President of the
All-India Oriental Conference, and an eminent scholar of Jainism published
by Macmillan Co. in 1974 which consists mainly of my translation of the
French monograph Le Jinisme by Dr.Caillat, I strongly protest at
the tendentious, off the cuff remarks made by Khan deeply injurious to the
basic religious faith of the Jain community as per the universally
propagated principle by Jainism : ahimsa paramo dharmah, that
non-violence is the greatest religion, that “Vardhamana Mahavira, the
founder of Jainism, is said to have consumed the meat of a cockerel.”
(Emphasis supplied)
I may mention that I happen
to be a Member of the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission representing
the Jain minority community in Maharashtra State . I am also for the last
ten years pursuing the question of inclusion of the Jain community as a
minority community in the Central Government Notification issued under the
National Minorities Commission Act, 1992 in the Supreme Court of India
where my Special Leave Petition is pending hearing. Already the National
Minorities commission has twice recommended that the Jains should be
recognized as a minority and despite the Bombay High court Order in my
petition in 1997 that the Central govt. should take an expeditious
decision as recommended by the National Minorities Commission which it has
failed to do.
Mr. Khan’s assertion is so
irresponsible, absurd and ridiculous causing a very grave hurt to the
basic religious faith held sacred by the Jain community that it needs a
thorough and categorical repudiation. Let me begin my rejoinder by stating
categorically that Mahavira was not a founder of Jaina religion. As
Dr.Radhakrishnan affirmed: “The Bhagawata Purana endorses the
view that rishabha was the founder of Jainism. There is evidence to show
that so far back as the first century B.C. there were people who were
worshipping Rishabhadeva, the first Tirthankara. There is no doubt that
Jainism prevailed even before Vardhamana Mahavira or Parshvanatha . The Yajurveda
mentions the names of three Tirthankaras, Rishabha, Ajitnatha and
Arishtanemi.” (Indian Philosophy p.287) Tirthankara in Jain
terminology means a Ford-maker, a prophet who creates a spiritual bridge
for the humanity to show the path to liberation.
So seminal has been the
influence of Jainism and its teachings as propounded by the 24 Jain
Tirthankaras-Ford-makers- right from the first Tirthankara, Rishabhanatha
to the 24th Tirthankara, Mahavira, on ancient Indian thought
that it would be proper to pose the question: What would have been the
state of Indian culture and religious evolution had there not been Jainism
and the uniquely ethical impact brought to bear upon by its religious
teachings.
The Jaina contribution in the
field of Ahimsa has been admitted by Lokmanya Tilak: “In ancient times
innumerable animals were butchered in sacrifice. Evidence in support of
this is found in various poetic compositions such as Meghaduta but the
credit for the disappearance of this terrible massacre from the
brahmanical religion goes to the share of Jainism.” (Bombay Samachar
, 10-12-1904)
The principle of ahimsa
(non-violence) and the prescription of strict vegetarianism are the prime
and unique characteristics of Jain religion and ethics. They could not
have developed in Vedic-Brahmanic so-called Aryan culture. There is ample
evidence to show that meat eating was not a taboo to immigrant Aryans. But
abstention from meat came naturally to the native inhabitants of India
because of the climate. That the concept of ahimsa was foreign to
Vedic culture is shown by the eminent Indologist Prof.W.Norman Brown in
his Tagore Memorial Lectures, 1964-65, Man in the Universe. Prof
Brown states:
“Though the Upanishadas
contain the first literary reference to the idea of rebirth and to the
notion that one’s action- karma determines the conditions of
one’s future exitences, and though they arrive at the point of
recognising that rebirth may occur not only in animal form but also in
animal bodies, they tell us nothing about the precept of ahimsa.
Yet that precept is later associated with the belief that a soul in its
wandering may inhabit both kinds of forms. Ancient Brahmanical literature
is conspicuously silent about ahimsa. The early Vedic texts no not
even record the noun ahimsa nor know the ethical meaning which the
noun later designated…Nor is an explanation of ahimsa deducible
from other parts of Vedic literature. The ethical concept which it
embodies was entirely foreign to the thinking of the early Vedic Aryans,
who recognized no kinship between human and animal reation, but rather ate
meat and offered animals in the sacrifice to the gods.” (pp.53-54)
Therefore, Prof.Brown
concludes: “the double doctrine of ahimsa and vegetarianism has
never had full and unchallenged acceptance and practice among the Hindus,
and should not be considered to have arisen in Brahmanical circles. It
seems more probable that it originated in a non-Brahmanical environment,
and was promoted in historical Indiaby the Jains and was adopted by
Brahmanic Hinduism.”
In the above context one can
appreciate the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Hermann Jacobi, the eminent
German Indologist. When comparing Jainism with Buddhism and Brahmanism
Dr.Jacobi observed in Jain Sutras Part I (Intoduction) that there
are four elements common to all the three religions and these are
according to him, (i) faith in rebirth of spirit, (ii) karma
theory, (iii) salvation from rebirth, and (iv) belief in periodic
manifestation s of prophets to resurrect religious spirit on earth.
Prof.Jacobi concedes that the first three are a logical outcome of a faith
in non-violence and hence they could not arise in the Aryan culture
consistent with its sacirificial cult and that is why they are apparently
borrowed from non-Aryan faith , that is, Jainism. Therefore, Prof.Jacobi
concludes:’ In conclusion, let me assert my conviction that Jainism is
an original system, quite distinct and independent from all others, and
that, therefore, it is of great importance for the study of philosophical
thought and religious life in ancient India.”
As Dr. Albert Schweitzer, the
German Nobel prize winner, a philosopher and a humanist medical missionary
notes in his Indian Thought and Its Development: “The laying down
of the commandment not to kill and not to damage is one of the greatest
events in the spiritual history of mankind. Starting from its principle,
founded on world and life-denial, of abstention from action, ancient
Indian thought – and this in a period when in other respects ethics have
not progressed very far- reaches the tremendous discovery that ethics know
no bounds! So far as we know, this is for the first time clearly expressed
by Jainism.”
Dispelling the common
misconception that Buddha propagated ahimsa DrSchweitzer says:
“Because the Buddha preaches that all life is sorrowful he has been
held- before there was any accurate knowledge of Jainism- to be the
creator of the ethic of compassion, and it has been believed that the
commandments not to kill and not to damage originated from him. This is
not true. He found the ahimsa commandment. In Jainism and adopted
it from that source.” (Pp.100-101) Further Dr.Schweitzer states:”The ahimsa
commandment does not appear to be so strictly observed in the more ancient
Buddhism as it is in Jainism. The eating of meat was not completely
prohibited. Otherwise it would have been impossible to relate in the
sacred writing of Buddhism that the Buddha died after eating a dish of
wild boar’s flesh served to him by the smith Cunda.
As related by Dr.Schweitzer:
“But we know from a saying of the Buddha, or a saying ascribed to him as
far back as the most ancient period, that in certain cases he regarded the
eating of flesh as permissible. A court surgeon named Jivaka, so we
are told in Buddha’s discourses, has heard that the Master on occasions
even eats meat and therefore questions him about it. Thereupon the Buddha
explains to him that he refuses meat when he knows that the animal was
slaughtered on purpose for him, but that he allows himself the enjoyment
of that placed before him when he happens to arrive just at the time of a
meal, or what is put in his alms. For the animal was not killed on his
account. Therefore he may regard such meat as ‘blameless
nourishment’.”
As explained by Dr.Schweitzer:
“The fact that sophisticated discrimination between slaughter of which
one is guilty and slaughter of which one innocent is made by the Buddha,
or can be attributed to him, shows that the older Buddhism was not yet
quite strict about the prohibition of meat eating. The Buddhist monks in
Ceylon still keep to this tradition. It meat is placed in their
alms-bowls, they eat it.
The principle of strict
vegetarianism and ahimsa is so meticulously observed in Jainism
that eating of certain vegetables like brinjal and garlic and onion is
taboo. It is in this context of irrefutable historic evolution of Jainism
and ahimsa which are almost treated synonymously it is scandalous
that Mr.Danish Khan should have indulged in such comments attributing
meat-eating to Vardhamana Mahavira. Yet in all serious academic and
scholarly interest I am very much concerned to know wherefrom he gathered
this information and what are his sources.
In conclusion I would like to
touch briefly on the historical and anthropological evolution of the
religious taboo on cow killing and idea of cow worship. I have translated
from German a monograph History of Vegetarianism and Cow Worship in
India (unpublished) by the renowned German Indologist the late
Dr.Ludwig Alsdorf (Beitraege zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und
Rinderverehrung in Indien, 1961) which gives the most exhaustive
scriptural evidence from Hindu, Buddhist and Jain sources.
Prof. Alsdorf has
hypothesized that there are two main currents in India prevalent from
pre-Aryan times: one, ahimsa and vegetarianism and two, the bloody
Kali sacrifice directly opposite to the former and also belonging to the
pre-Aryan times. Therefore, he observes: “In fact, the hypothesis that
both manifestations have their roots in pre-Aryan sources is in no manner
strange as their juxtaposition in modern Hinduism defying every
consistency and logic.”
Prof. Alsdorf has , of course
referred to Mahatma Gandhi’s classic statement about the protection of
cows but notes that “Gandhi’s explanation of the unique place of cow
in Hinduism remains absolutely inadequate.” Thus he concurs with
Dr.V.Glasenapp’s view that “It admits of no doubt that the cow worship
in India can be traced back to primitive perceptions but it is difficult
to establish its starting point; in the older Vedic times it does not
appear to have had durability in any case.”
Prof. Alsdorf notes examples
of cow-sacrifice and consumption of cow-flesh even in late and post-Vedic
period. This is proved by the fact that there used to be a Court position
of govikarta during the Brahmana period meaning ‘cow-carver’
showing that his position was not a disreputable one in ancient times, and
that cow-flesh held good as a prized means of nourishment during Brahmana
period.
Similarly A.B. Keith says in
his Cambridge History I, p.137:
“But it was still the
custom to slay a great ox or goat for the entertainment of a guest, and
the great sage Yajnavalkya ate meat of milch cows and oxen, provided that
the flesh was amsala, a word of doubtful import, rendered either
‘firm’ or tender’ by various authorities.”
Therefore Prof. Alsdorf
concludes: “Cow-flesh originally belongs to the most favoured kinds of
flesh prescribed for the sraddha-meal and thus consumed by the
Brahmanas invited to this meal.” Cow was a most important possession of
the Aryans. It became a mark of money-gavista, “cow-quest,
cow-requirement” is the familiar Rigvedic term for the military
expedition or predatory incursion. Thus one can understand how the whole
Rigveda is full of heavenly bulls and cow and milk symbolism iin poetic
metaphors and mythological speculation.
Prof.Norman Brown has noted
in his article “The Sanctity of the Cow in Hinduism” published
in the Journal of the Madras University, Section A, Humanities, dt
28-02-1957, pp.29-49: “Yet in all these richness of references to cattle
(in Vedas) there is never, I believe, a hint that the animal as a species
or the cow for its own sake was held sacred and inviolable…It should
be noted that though the Brahman’s cow is sacred, it is not sacred
because it is a cow. It is sacred because it is a Brahman’s. All his
property is equally inviolable. The wicked king’s sin lay in robbing the
priesthood, not in taking animal or specifically bovine.” (Empasis
supplied.)
That the cow-flesh
consumption was an exclusive Brahmanic privilege is also proved by the
fact that “Like their counterparts all over the old world, the early
Brahmans enjoyed a monopoly over the performance of of those rituals
without which animal flesh could not be eaten. Brahmans, according to the
sutras were the only people who could sacrifice animals” says A.N. Bose
in his authoritative study Social
and Rural Economy of Northern India 6oo B.C. – 200 A.D., 1961
There is also testimony of
cow-flesh consumption in the well-known medical text-book Susruta-Samhita.
In an important chapter on the articles of food and their medical
qualities and therapeutic worth flesh plays a very big role. The cow comes
after horse and mule, before ass, camel, goat, sheep,. Stotra 89 enjoins:
“cow-flesh is good for asthma, cough, catarrh, chronic fever, exhaustion
and for quick digestion; it is holy (pavitra) and alleviates the
wind.”
Dealing with
pregnancy-longings and the avoidance of fulfillment of certain foods
susruta mentions that cow-flesh pregnancy-longings must be fulfilled. From
this it is clear that according to susruta (which it its original form
belonged to “latest to the first century A.d. but the text under
discussion completed and revised esp. either in 6th or 10th
century”) cow-flesh was considered to be an esteemed article of food
even for the satisfaction of pregnancy-longings and that it was considered
to be so by an important medical text of 10th century which did
not see any occasion to suppress such passages.
How then did the taboo on
cow-flesh evolve despite the high-caste monopoly of ritual sacrifice and
eating of animal flesh? There were several factors responsible for it. By
600 B.C. sacrificial public feasting had become more and more difficult
because the high rate of animal slaughter for religious sacirificial
feeding could not be maintained without seriously affecting supply of
animals for plowing and manuring needs.
Common peasants were thus
compelled to preserve their livestock for traction, milk and manure and
meat-eating became a privilege of the high-caste Aryans. As Marvin
Harris,. Professor of Anthropology of Columbia University notes in his
book Cannibals and Kings (1978): “Long after ordinary people in northern
India had become functional vegetarians Hindu upper castes- later the most
ardent advocates of meatless diets- continued to dine lustily on beef and
other kinds of meat.”
As Prof. Harris says
:”Cattle thus became the central focus of the religious taboos on
meat-eating. As the sole remaining farm animals they were potentially the
only remaining source of meat. To slaughter them for meat, constituted a
threat to the whole mode of food production. And so beer was tabooed for
the same reason that pork was tabooed in the Middle East: to remove
temptation..”
This is precisely the point
of constitutional irrelevance of ban on cow slaughter. The
self-contradiction of the directive Principle has been aggravated
erroneously by its judicial interpretation for a total and discriminatory
ban in favour of cows only. A perspective view of the evidence presented
above leads one inevitably to the conclusion that the constitutional aim
of scientific husbandry can be best served only by being courageous enough
to dissociate cow from the ritualistic and religious sentiments and
overtones. And this cannot be done unless the constitution steers clear of
such overtly religious sanctions.
As a Jain I am committed to
the its basic principle ahimsa which enjoins uncompromising
vegetarianism. At the same time I cannot shut my eyes that a large section
of the mankind is non-vegetarian. It would be wrong to forcibly convert
them to my way of life. Hence I am concerned to present a rational
perspective on cow-slaughter ban issue. At the same time I emphatically
repudiate any scandalous statement as in Mr.Danish Khan’s article that
Mahavira ate meat which for a Jain is a contradiction in terms.
I think it would be relevant
to quote the view of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer who says in his book Social
Mission of Law ( 1975) giving a balanced interpretation of secularism
under the Constitution:
“The cow has come up in the
Courts in this connection because the Muslims on Bakr Id day kill a bull
and the Hindu of the chauvinist orthodox brand imagines that he has a
religious duty to preserve the life even of famished and sick cattle. The
constitution has yielded to non-secular pressure giving it a rationalized
veneer when it has declared in Article 48 that the ‘State shall take
steps for prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and
draught cattle.’”
Regretting that the Supreme
Court has “succumbed to sacred sentiments when it upheld the total ban
on the killing of cows but not of bulls and buffaloes” Justice Iyer goes
on to say: “Meat-eating being a matter of diet and beef being a staple
food, the killing of cows subject to regulations of public health and
order should have been considered constitutional in a secular State. The
especial solicitude for cows and particular fancy for killing bulls in
public on Bakr Id have both religious overtones and are inconsistent with
secularism.”
As Justice Iyer exasperately
puts it: “Why the slaughter of cows should have been prohibited in the
name of organizing agriculture and animal husbandry, puzzles the
secularist.” It is precisely in this context one must note that the
Article enjoins the State to organize animal husbandry on modern and
scientific lines. But how to reconcile total ban on cow slaughter with
scientific and rational animal husbandry?
A perspective view of the
evidence presented above leads one inevitably to the conclusion that the
constitutional aim of scientific husbandry can be best achieved only by
being courageous enough to dissociate cow from the ritualistic and
religious sentiments and overtones. And this cannot be done unless the
constitution steers clear of such overtly religious sanctions.
Even the Mahatma was secular
enough to realize that “Just as the Shariyat cannot be imposed on
non-Muslims, Hindu law cannot be imposed on non-Hindus…I hold that it is
no part of Hinduism to defend the cow against the whole world. If the
Hindu attempted any such thing he would be guilty of forcible
conversion.”
It is pertinent to remember
in this context that Gandhiji did not hesitate to castigate the Hindus for
their ill-treatment of the cow. He said: “In no part of the world
perhaps are cattle worse treated than in India. I have wept to see Hindu
drivers goading their jaded oxen with iron points of their cruel sticks.
The half-starved condition of the majority of our cattle is a disgrace to
us. The cows find their necks under the butcher’s knife because Hindus
sell them.” Nor did he hesitate to condemn the cow protection societies
as “destroyers of the cow and not her protectors.”
Jawaharlal Nehru too
preferred to look at the cow slaughter ban issue from an economic, secular
and social rather than the religious angle. He said:” India is a secular
State” and that the food habits of a particular community “should not
be imposed on other communities. It is a sensitive issue and will create
problems.”
I have attempted to give my
reasoned rejoinder and a rational perspective on the cow slaughter ban
issue which the VHP and the Sangh Parivar is raising with devastating
consequences for the secular fabric, or whatever remains of it , of the
nation. At the same time I reiterate my unqualified condemnation of
Mr.Danish Khan’s irresponsible and totally unfounded statement regarding
Mahavira’s meat-eating. I do hope you will publish my letter.
Yours sincerely
Bal Patil
----------------------------
Member, Maharashtra State
Minorities Commission, Government of Maharashtra,
Convenor, Jain Minority Status Committee, Dakshin Bharat Jain Sabha,
INDIA,
Co-Author: JAINISM (Macmillan Co). with Colette Caillat, (ex-Rector,
Sorbonne University, Paris,)
& A.N. Upadhye, (ex-President, All-India Oriental Conference,)
54, Patil Estate, 278, Javji Dadaji Road, Mumbai-400007. INDIA
Tele: 91 022 3861068
Fax: 91 022 3893030
EMail: president@globaljains.com;
balpatil@vsnl.com
.
(1-15 May 2003)
See also:
Nationwide ban on cow slaughter mooted
Lord Mahavira was not a meat-eater
Jains and meat-eating — apology and clarification
|
