Why the Hindus revere the cow and try to ban cow slaughter and Beef in India
With Swami Vivekananda saying ancient Hindus ate beef, Hindus relishing it’s taste today – even owning slaughterhouses – rest seeing it as freedom of eating culinary delicacy and the cow seen as just a four legged animal that gives milk and leather, and even causing a nuisance when old, there seems to be no reason why the dumb animal should be regarded as a mother – let alone worship it or make laws against killing it/eating its flesh in a secular India.
Even if the view of the ‘rest’ is left alone, a cursory look by anybody, at the reasoning given, would make him/her concur with the idea.
But then, why is the cow so important for the Hindus?
Status of cow in Hinduism:
Yes ‘it gives milk so Hindus see it as mother’ pontificated the pizza- slice logic using Western India expert during the Raj and Hindus followed it as the gospel truth. But then buffalo isn’t less used and Gandhi was happy just with goat’s milk alone. Furthermore, almost supporting the saying ‘it’s every part is useful’, unlike the medicinal camel’s urine her urine is a spirit and puja purifier too. Yes both can have their skins utilized after death, but when alive, the smell less cow dung alone is used for floor cleaning and fuel at home, and as a prime and innocuous fertilizer in the field outside.
Yes, described as the best of creations, and filled with and worshiped by a complete set of divinities (you may call it 33 groups or millions), these descendants of Kamadhenu are non-aggressive humble beings. Unknown to many, they offer similar emotions to the joys and sorrows of their owners like the man’s best friend – the dog. Also, like a missed Ganesh worship invalidating a puja, a missed cow ghee disqualifies any Vedic sacrifice. Being best of donations in addition, donating 1000 cows was a routine by the ancient ones with blue blood.
With the prized dharma – ahimsa – like martyrdom in Islam – guaranteeing heavenly abode, vegetarianism is seen as a Hindu ideal. While its disregard itself doesn’t bring spiritual laurels, going against aghyna (inviolable) ahi (not to be killed) and aditi (never to be cut into pieces) as is said of the cow brings about severe punishment both here and hereafter. Yes mistranslating and misquoting texts to rule over yet to be civilize Indians while the Western Ideologists did have a field day with ‘ancient Hindus ate beef’ the Hindus became tuned listeners. Thus, in addition, despite the above Vedic injunctions, if Swami Vivekananda indeed say ‘ancient Hindus ate beef’ that knowledge is not from the Vedas or his meditations but from the then Encyclopaedia
Britannica. Funnily enough, almost reminding the aliens and us humans, Hinduism does not seem to be alone. Its rival, the takers of India’s North East also produce Issaih, chapter 66 verse 3 that offers security to the bovine’s life. As if not to be left out, the 14% minorities bring in their Prophet’s uneasiness with beef diet in Tabarani and Mustakrak al-Hakim. However, when atheism promoting sinful secularism is favored as a battle cry by them, divine and prophetic dictations lose their merit. Hindu businessmen don’t seem to be doing any better, either. In fact, with the incoming cash being more luring than the outgoing fear of God, spices making it a delicacy and the rise of the Chinese middle-class guaranteeing global beef boom like for the old whine and the UK’s addictive new chicken tikka masala, Hindus owning slaughter houses don’t surprise. So long as freedom remains part of that dosh traveling to the making of temples, won’t be a surprise either.
Cow slaughter and beef laws:
Although American reporters don’t, secular Indian reporters using free speech feast on ‘What about the minorities?’ Or ‘State intruding into our kitchen tables’, when laws barring beef is being formulated. Hindu intellectuals struggle to remain dry.
Although, the French Revolution’s, ‘Right of man’ glamorized rights as opposed to duties, in terms of a nation duty is still paramount. Also, a nation is formed out of its majority’s choice – who’s ways form the national ethos, not that of the minority. Latter learns to live with the majority. If that is hurtful, in the cherished democracy itself the losers i.e. the 49%, who don’t like the rulers, have to grudgingly accept the majority’s rule. Thus, each country has rules that have to be followed. Reserving that right the Muslim majority countries impose pork ban, and their minorities have to recognize that sensibility of the majority and accept it. Migrant Indians cannot demand pork in Dubai or Syria. Similarly the Judeo-Christian-Protestant ethos tracing US, without objections, says no to dog’s meat. This is, despite it being a delicacy of its minorities from the Far East with huge business potential. Interestingly, when Taiwan saw the light and banned dog’s meat, pets started vanishing!
In India’s case, although ‘secular’ has crash-landed on its constitution out of the blue via Indira Gandhi, its vivisection into Hindu and Muslim countries, writings in its constitution, official modus operandi and its majority makes India a country with Hindu ethos. It, therefore, can follow the nation principle as said above or the US and ME’s practice. In its case, it even has the go ahead from its founding fathers.
Effect on global warming:
It was never an issue in earlier times when there were many cows. But, with the free man inebriated with rights becoming the biggest enemy of the world, now global warming issue is big. Yes, cow’s gut bacteria emit methane that’s 20 times more toxic than co2 but a sea weed feed mitigates it. With grazing alone enhancing carbon trapping and her dung use avoiding fertilizers that emit 300 times more toxic nitric oxide and it even endlessly enhancing production, the bovine species actually very much helps the environment. Thus it’s not milk alone that makes her a mother.
What about the older cows?
When milk alone is given credence, yes older cows are seen as not really useful to those eyes. Even then, while to care for only when any entity is useful airs a selfish trait that is closer to the glamorized rights; but to look after an entity till the very end heralds sacrifice, duty and civilization. Despite the animal/human split arrogance, with us sharing the old age with cows, for that matter any being, it’s very natural that embracing of the former philosophy makes our elderly feel lonely, un-cared and un-respected. And of course for our elderly, alcohol becomes the available friend and death comes closer.
Even if that ontology is stubbornly adhered to, as aired above, unlike us the cows are productive till the end of their lives. That is of course if prudence is used. Thus, even if her spiritual expect is omitted, she probably qualifies as a mother. In addition, if there is such a thing as creation, does she qualify to be the best? let the jury be out!
A womenspowerbook.org article