When Hindus ate beef, India was NEVER conquered - Rediff.

com

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/when-hindus-ate-beef-in...

Print this article

When Hindus ate beef, India was NEVER conquered

March 24, 2015 11:06 IST

'There is a remarkable link between the eating of beef (or at the very least, tolerating the eating of beef) and
India being a superpower.'
'In India, whenever an empire was strong, religion took a back seat.'
'Alternatively, whenever religion asserted itself, the main empire of India crumbled...'
'By seeking to ban beef in every state that it rules, the BJP may well be taking India on the route to becoming
a weakling,' warns Amberish K Diwanji.

he Bharatiya Janata Party-led government in Maharashtra has chosen to ban beef derived from oxen.

Many are up in arms against the move, saying it is aimed at harassing the Muslims and Christians, in particular, and
against all non-vegetarians in general (including Hindus) since the cost of other meat will go up with the
non-availability of beef in the market. Similar steps have been taken by BJP governments in other states.
For the BJP, banning the slaughter of bulls and oxen (the killing of cows was banned decades ago by the Congress) is
part of its aim to assert the nation's Hindu identity.
But the BJP also styles itself as a
nationalist government committed to
turning India into a superpower. It often
recalls a glorious Hindu past, harking
back to the likes of Chandragupta
Maurya, Ashoka, Chandragupta and
Samudragupta, and Harshvardhan. This
was in the millennium before Muslims
hordes entered India (though Arabs had
captured Sind in the 8th century).
The problem is that there is a remarkable
link between the eating of beef (or at the
very least, tolerating the eating of beef)
and India being a superpower. Put
another way: In India, whenever an
empire was strong, religion took a back
seat.
Alternatively, whenever religion asserted
itself, the main empire of India crumbled
and was soon destroyed by another
power, either from within India or from
outside India.
Today, by seeking to ban beef in every
state that it rules and across India, the BJP may well be taking India on the route to becoming a weakling.

n ancient India, killing and consuming animals was part and parcel of life of all. Hindus then were overwhelmingly
non-vegetarian. There are historians who have pointed out that back then Hindus ate beef. And back then, India was
never conquered. Never!
Even the mighty Alexander (hailed as 'the Great' by Western historians) merely conquered the Punjab; his troops,
fearful of facing the might of Magadha, preferred to return home. It was a Russian historian or military officer
(regretfully I can't recall his name) who pointed out that rather than mutiny, as claimed by Western historians,
Alexander's troops might have simply refused to fight Magadha after the bruising victory over Porus. The
homesickness myth was merely created to explain away this embarrassing retreat across the Indus.
The Magadha Empire was followed by the Gupta Empire, and later that of Harshvardhan, all before or during the first
millennium of the Common Era (CE), a time when, historians tell us, Hindus ate not just meat but also beef. Meat
eating then was common practice (and caste was based on profession, not birth).

1 of 4

26/03/15 10:50 AM

When Hindus ate beef, India was NEVER conquered - Rediff.com

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/when-hindus-ate-beef-in...

The very fact that Buddhism, which was born and blossomed in north India circa 200-300 BCE (Before CE), places
absolutely no restriction on eating beef shows that back then, there was no restriction on eating beef among the
Hindus, which practice Buddhism followed.
By contrast, Sikhism, born more than 1,500 years later in northwest India, accepted the then prevailing practice of not
consuming beef (even as Sikhs devour other meat).
In contrast, Jainism, born around the same time as Buddhism, banned the killing of all animals, thus forever restricting
itself to a narrow fringe of followers such as traders.

ut do note, when consuming meat and beef was common practice, it was Hindu emperors who ruled over this
huge subcontinent. Similarly, at the cusp of the first and second millennia CE, the Chola Empire, with meat-eating
kings and soldiers, achieved unmatched glory in creating a maritime empire as far as Indonesia.
A later legatee of this empire, a Hindu based in Southeast Asia, would create the world's largest temple in faraway
Angkor Wat of Kampuchea (Cambodia).
Towards the end of the first millennium CE, some changes took place in India. Buddhism waned and Hinduism, with a
system of caste based on birth, reasserted itself. The revival was led by Adi Sankaracharya. Somewhere around this
time, some castes chose to distinguish themselves from the Hindu masses by resorting to vegetarianism.
Brahmins, who had overcome the challenge of Buddhism, increasingly became vegetarian, along with the Banias (who
were strongly influenced by the Jains). Why this happened is not yet very clear.
Simultaneously, there was born the ridiculous myth of vegetarian diet being 'superior' to the non-vegetarian diet, if only
to help the Brahmin assert his own superiority over the other castes.

ow the coincidence: As vegetarianism spread among the influential sections of the Hindus, they suffered repeated
defeats. Through the second millennium CE, Hindus would never rule over the larger part of India (till 1947), and
would be subjugated to empires that were created by Turks, Afghans, Mughals, Portuguese, and lastly the British.
All of them meat eaters, all of them beef eaters. The only Hindus who came close to ruling India were the Marathas
(who love their mutton!).
A professor of comparative religions, Arvind Sharma, has argued that Hindus turning away from beef actually
happened after Hindus lost political power to the Muslims. Not killing the cow became a mark of identity and faith.

2 of 4

26/03/15 10:50 AM

When Hindus ate beef, India was NEVER conquered - Rediff.com

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/when-hindus-ate-beef-in...

The theory is that Hindus stopped eating beef as a cultural assertion and reaction to the presence of Muslims in their
midst, similar to Brahmins turning completely vegetarian to stand out among fellow Hindus.
There is merit in this argument: One tends to assert one's identity when feeling threatened. Just see how Indians
abroad behave!

he rise and fall of empires is much more than just diet. When a Rajput defeated a fellow Rajput, they both shared
similar diets, as did the different Muslims kings who fought each other (Turks, Afghans, Mughals), and later when the
Portuguese and British faced each other.
Many, many factors go into the rise and fall of empires (it is an entire subject by itself). The better known reasons
include politics, population, economic power, and military prowess.
There are also other reasons such as the role of religion (usually negative), social factors, and technological
advancement (which, in itself, is a reflection of society).
But what is undeniable about the history of India is that those who ruled India for most of the first and second
millennia, regardless of religion, ate meat. And beef. Let us ponder that thought as we go about banning various forms
of beef.
Yet, eating or not eating beef is not really the issue. It is merely a reflection of the tolerance that the ruling class shows
for the people and their faiths. What is undeniable in India is the inverse link between a strong State and secularism
(howsoever defined).
In India, whenever religion has asserted itself, the State (empire or kingdom) has crumbled (sooner or later).
Alternatively, whenever a ruler kept religion (and religious practices howsoever important for the followers of that faith)
at bay, that kingdom became an empire, and the empire in turn prospered.

hus, Asoka's turn to Buddhism led to his empire ending within years of his demise. Akbar's secularism saw him
create a strong Mughal empire, one of the mightiest in the world then (exactly what we aspire for India today), but with
a few decades of his death, Aurangzeb's religious policies saw the Mughal empire crumble from within.
Less well known is that the Peshwas's increased religiosity is probably what stopped the Marathas from replacing the
Mughals.
For instance, before the Third Battle of Panipat, the Marathas had in tow some 30,000 pilgrims keen to visit the temple
towns of north India. Pilgrims accompanying an army! Then, when cholera broke out in the enemy camp and the best
strategy would have been to attack (in the December 1760-January 1761 period), religious considerations about an
auspicious time meant the Marathas waited till the day of Makar Sankranti.
How can religion decide battle tactics? A far cry from the time when Shivaji decided his battle plans based on
intelligence, not religion. The Portuguese failed to build an empire because they were too busy converting people to
Christianity, and turning the general public against them.
By contrast, the East India Company kept religion at bay even as its plunder activities turned to empire building.

n that context, the increasing Hinduisation of India, the determination of some politicians to assert the Hindu religion
within India, is the recipe for the weakening of India. If that should happen it is just a matter of time before India
weakens internally.
THE EXAMPLE OF GUJARAT
Gujaratis are perceived as being overwhelmingly vegetarian. They are not; but the dominant castes, such as the Jains,
Banias, Brahmins, and Patidars are vegetarian. When under British rule, as the trading class of Gujaratis (vegetarian)
set up trading post across India and the world, they gave the impression of a vegetarian Gujarat.
M K Gandhi, a Modh Bania, and Vallabhbhai Patel, a Patidar, further cemented the notion of Gujaratis as vegetarian. It
is true that many Gujaratis are vegetarian. But not all! And no one can deny that Gujaratis are one of India's most
successful communities in the commercial world.
While the Gujaratis's commercial success is undeniable, their military history is marked with failure. Gujarat (or what is
now Gujarat) is one of India's most conquered states, having come under the Rajputs, Turks, Afghans, Mughals,
Marathas, and finally the British. Excluding the British, the others over time became a part of the state.
While Gujarati society makes a virtue of being vegetarian, it has not helped fend off invaders.
There is nothing wrong in being vegetarian. It is every person's personal choice. There is, however, everything wrong
in believing, and propagating, howsoever latently, the notion that vegetarian societies or people are superior. Or that a
country is better for it.

3 of 4

26/03/15 10:50 AM

When Hindus ate beef, India was NEVER conquered - Rediff.com

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/when-hindus-ate-beef-in...

The history of India, and Gujarat, shows that those not tolerating beef or meat, sooner or later, come under the rule of
invaders. Let those who seek to ban beef realise that behind great powers have been meat consumers.
ALSO READ
'We are only saying don't eat what we consider sacred'
Images: Top: The Mauryan Empire at its zenith.
Bottom: The Chola Empire at its zenith. Images: Kind courtesy Wikipedia
Amberish K Diwanji

4 of 4

26/03/15 10:50 AM