http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01052003/01052003101.

htm
Mr Bal Patil's rejoinder

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