'Beef' cut from India's history textbooks

[Guest guest]

'Beef' cut from India's history textbooks

Victory for Hindu fundamentalists

 

Education council unhappy with move

Jun. 20, 2006. 01:00 AM

SHAIKH AZIZUR RAHMAN

SPECIAL TO THE STAR

 

 

Calcutta—References to the beef-eating past of ancient Hindus have been deleted from Indian school textbooks following a three-year campaign by Hindu hardliners.

 

For almost a century, history books for primary and middle schools told how in ancient India, beef was considered a great delicacy among Hindus — especially among the highest caste — and how veal was offered to Hindu deities during special rituals.

 

"Our past" chapters in the texts also detailed how cows used to be slaughtered by the Brahmins, or upper caste Hindus, during festivals and while welcoming guests to the home.

 

The passages that offended the Hindus, who now shun beef, have been deleted from new versions of the books delivered to schoolchildren last week.

 

However, the National Council of Educational Research and Training, which is responsible for the texts, now seems unhappy with the changes that were agreed to by a former council director.

 

Council lawyer Prashant Bhushan said ancient Hindus were indeed beef-eaters, and the council should not have distorted historical facts by deleting the chapters.

 

Noted Calcutta historian Ashish Bose added: "NCERT has committed a mistake by dropping those facts from the textbooks. It is a victory for Hindu fundamentalists who have lodged a misinformation campaign. Historians should unite against this cowardly move by the council."

 

Hardline Hindu activists, who consider cattle holy and have been seeking a ban on slaughter by Muslims and Christians, said the beef-eating references were meant to insult Hindus.

 

In 2003, when the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party held federal power, the educational council decided to delete the references. Congress and leftist opposition parties protested, but the move was approved by Jagmohan Singh Rajput, then council director.

 

The process took longer than expected, however, and Hindu fundamentalists alleged last year that the council was dragging its feet.

 

Two activists asked the Delhi High Court to order the immediate deletion of the chapters from new textbooks, but the court has not ruled on the suit.

 

When the litigation was filed, firebrand Hindu leader Praveen Togadia, general secretary of the World Hindu Council, declared: "Most of the facts in the chapters are not true. Some low-caste dalit (untouchable) Hindus used to eat beef. Brahmins never ate it."

 

Accusing textbook author Ram Sharan Sharma of shoddy research, Togadia said: "The chapter is poisoning the minds of little children. They will not respect their own religion in future. They will not turn out to be good Hindus and it will cause harm to the nation."

 

Dwijendra Narayan Jha, a history professor at Delhi University, says there is plenty of evidence showing ancient Hindus, including the Brahmins, slaughtered cows and ate beef.

 

"There are clear evidences in the Rig Veda, the most sacred Hindu scripture (from the second millennium BC), that the cow used to be sacrificed by Hindus during religious rituals. Ancient Hindu text Manusmriti lists the cow as one of several animals whose meat can be eaten by Hindus. The great epic, the Mahabharata, too speaks of beef being a delicacy served to esteemed guests," he said.

 

Jha's 2002 book, The Myth of the Holy Cow, presented historical evidence that Hindus ate beef long before the Muslim invasions in the 10th century, and provoked such a furor it was banned. The professor, himself a Hindu, feared attacks by fundamentalists and was given police protection.

 

The slaughter of cattle is banned in most Indian states, but not in Kerala, West Bengal and seven northeastern states. However, Muslims — the largest minority in the country — sometimes ignore state bans and slaughter cattle, which can spark communal tension.

 

 

--

Shaikh Azizur Rahman is a freelance journalist based in India.

[Guest guest]

define "ancient". are we talking within Kali Yuga still? the question is did the ancient vedic culture, pre-Kali Yuga, eat beef?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

They are misrepresenting the go-medha yajna, and saying it refers to consuming beef as a regular food.

[Guest guest]

 

They are misrepresenting the go-medha yajna, and saying it refers to consuming beef as a regular food.

 

ahh. Well then they should teach the children about the go-medha yajna, so they are properly educated. This censorship will not enlighten them, when they are confronted later in life (or outside school textbooks) with this information. They will not know how to respond, if they do not know about the go-medha yajna . If they are taught about the go-medha yajna now, then there will be no confusion about beef-eating being an acceptable diet.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

But that is only possible if Vedic scholars, who actually believe in the Puranas as histories, are allowed to write these text books, but they want indologists to write them, people who think it is all mythology.

[Guest guest]

 

But that is only possible if Vedic scholars, who actually believe in the Puranas as histories, are allowed to write these text books, but they want indologists to write them, people who think it is all mythology.

 

And how do you prove that the mythological view is superior to the Indological? Because someone said so? And who is that someone? Have you personally made an unbiased study of all the available data?

 

All history is turned into mythology, but the most persuasive mythologies are the ones that ring true. Students who are taught old mythologies will reject them with even greater disgust than those who see how the story of a people, or a religion, or of humankind, is truly unfolding.

 

Hinduism will lose its strength by insisting on turning a blind eye to its own history and replacing it with a selection of its favorite myths. Why not accept the evolution of Hindu society through history and look for the eternal truths it espouses? There is nothing wrong with mythology, it is also a kind of truth, but it should not be confused with historical truth.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The problem is what you consider to be "truth" (i.e. that Hindus previously ate beef and later "evolved" into nonviolent people) has no basis in historical documents. The vedas and Puranas unequivocably describe the cow as unkillable. The very word for cow in the Vedas is aghnya - "that which is not to be killed". But you imagine that you have something that is "truth" and all the Swami's and sadhus in India are fools for not knowing their religion properly like you do.

[Guest guest]

What is harmful about accepting that man's perception of truth evolves over time? Surely you do not believe the same things that you believed as a child, and with age and experience your perception of the same facts matures. We would hope that this happens with an individual, why not with a people, or with the whole human race?

 

Surely you do not believe that the religion you follow today, which I assume is some variety of 16th century Vaishnavism, is the same as the religion followed in Vedic times. Would it even be recognizable to the Vedic seers?

 

So why pick on beef eating as the essential, permanent and unchanging fundamental principle of Hinduism?

 

I am not advising that you take up beef-eating or any kind of non-vegetarian diet now. There are surely good reasons for doing so--both scientific and sentimental. However, does this mean you have to believe that

 

If you do not accept a historiography based on critical methodology (which though it may have originated in Europe is universal in application, and has been adopted by scholars in all parts of the world), then you are not left with much to go on in constructing an Indian history of any kind.

[Guest guest]

 

So why pick on beef eating as the essential, permanent and unchanging fundamental principle of Hinduism?

 

However, does this mean you have to believe that I am not advising that you take up beef-eating or any kind of non-vegetarian diet now. There are surely good reasons for doing so--both scientific and sentimental.

 

If you do not accept a historiography based on critical methodology (which though it may have originated in Europe is universal in application, and has been adopted by scholars in all parts of the world), then you are not left with much to go on in constructing an Indian history of any kind.

 

"So why pick on beef eating as the essential, permanent and unchanging fundamental principle of Hinduism?"

 

OBVIOUSLY, because Hinduism does not support beef eating at all.

 

"I am not advising that you take up beef-eating or any kind of non-vegetarian diet now. There are surely good reasons for doing so--both scientific and sentimental."

 

There are good scientific reasons for taking up beef eating? Surely, this is bad science because clearly statistics show that beef eating leads to disease (something you can reasearch on the Internet very easily).

 

"If you do not accept a historiography based on critical methodology (which though it may have originated in Europe is universal in application, and has been adopted by scholars in all parts of the world), then you are not left with much to go on in constructing an Indian history of any kind."

 

Yes and that European critical methodology has the potential to produce errors.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

So why pick on beef eating as the essential, permanent and unchanging fundamental principle of Hinduism?

Please see my previous post. It is an indisputable fact that the cow has been described in the Vedas by the word "aghnya", which literally means "that which can never be killed". You have not studied the Vedas, nor do you have any concept of Hindu religion, otherwise you couldn't make absurd claims that beef eating was allowed in ancient India. It is this half-backed neo-indology that needs to be thrown out of India. It is nothing but Christian influence to subvert our religion for the purpose of converting Hindus to Christianity. Don't hide behind the veil of academics, openly admit your agenda.

 

The historical and factual information that really needs to be added to the text books is that the most ancient word to describe cows in Indian culture is aghnya, "that which may never be killed", and this is found throughout the Vedas. Your Christian propaganda for converting Hindus has no place in our history textbooks.

[Guest guest]

 

So why pick on beef eating as the essential, permanent and unchanging fundamental principle of Hinduism?

 

Ahimsa is a fundamental principle of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism). If you practice Ahimsa, it is not possible to go about slaughtering cows to satisfy your taste buds. This is not ahimsa; this is adharmic behavior.

 

The Cow is called one of the 7 mothers of man by the ancient sages. How can you believe that these same sages, who called the cow their Mother, went and slaughtered the mother cow so they could enjoy a steak?

[Guest guest]

Why do all these reviews and such keep proclaiming about the nomadic Aryans as the foundation of Hinduism? That theory alone is heavily disputed.

[Guest guest]

"Ahimsa represents the most noble ideal of humanity. So if human beings did not always accept this principle in practice, does that mean that it is less noble? "

 

The practice is no less noble, but the people who've claimed to practice it, the so-called founders of the philosophy suffer ignominy. They obviously lose the moral ground from which they stand on. Not to mention, the religion that they belong to and adore no longer looks as appealing in the light of this "evolutionary" principle. It no longer looks as magical, or spiritual, and more of a product of worldly affairs rather than something inborn, innate within oneself and as a result of a covenant with God.

 

In any case, if the basis of cow-eating is the Aryan invasion theory or migration theory, I don't think it should be accepted, because that is a theory still heavily debated.

 

However, if it truly is based on Vedic texts, there's no way we can ignore this, it has to be accepted as fact. That doesn't mean we have to revert to those age-old traditions, but at the same time, it does mean that we may have to re-evaluate what the Vedic texts say, why they say it, and the significance of what they say. The idea that everything in the Vedic texts is a product of worldly affairs and can be understood on the material plane is what I have the most problems with, because it pretty much invalidates any spiritual component to the texts as mere wishful thinking or hyperbole in my opinion.

 

In any case, the idea that Buddha died from eating pork is news to me. How can he die from eating pork in the first place?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The five christian propaganda posts have been removed.

[Guest guest]

 

Hinduism is associated with the cow as a sacred animal and to be a Hindu is synonymous with not eating meat. But like all religious doctrine there is plenty of mythmaking and mysticism that goes with this. This excellent new book by D N Jha challenges the sanctity of the holy cow and exposes the mumbo jumbo surrounding this.

 

Who is this person? sounds like his thinking has been polluted by Christian/Muslim Indologists and their "mumbo-jumbo" theories (actually agendas).

 

 

Jha robustly challenges the belief that Hinduism has always practised abstention from beef eating. He shows that from the earliest period of Hindu history, ritual horse and cow sacrifice was a common practice.

 

These practices are forbidden in the Kali Yuga.

 

 

Vedic law texts list all sorts of animals that cannot be eaten--the cow is conspicuous by its absence.

 

Please cite these texts.

 

 

Buddhism is also associated with vegetarianism and pacifism. The Buddhist tradition challenged the Vedic dominance of brahmins but Jha argues they still continued the practice of animal sacrifice.

 

Buddhism is irrelavent to a discussion on the Vedas. Buddhists reject the Vedas, and don't even believe we have souls - what to speak of animals having souls.

 

 

The strength of Jha's analysis is in locating the shift from beef eating to a non-meat diet in the changing India of medieval times.

 

Heh, is he suggesting that vegetarianism just became a practice in India within medieval times? if he doesn't believe the ancient Vedic culture practiced such, he certainly can't deny the the Jains and their history! Their entire religion is based on ahimsa, and their tradition is as least as old as Buddhism. So vegetarianism has been a religious practice within India for a long time. No historian can deny this!

 

 

The 'sacred cow' has come to symbolise modern Hindu identity. Yet there is no cow goddess, temple or shrine. But this has not stopped Hindu communalist forces demanding the complete ban of cow slaughter as a means of scapegoating Muslims. This, Jha argues, is the real agenda of the BJP government and its allies. So it is no accident that the book is already banned in one state and the author threatened. This little gem of a book provides a wealth of evidence exposing myth creation and the way symbols are used politically to divide people.

 

yeah, sounds like a real 'little gem of a book' alright, if you are into books that encourage the slaughtering of cows and the belittling of the ancient Vedic culture, to promote an anti-Hindu religious agenda. A great book for those into the rewriting of history, and those who enjoy spreading Christian/Muslim propaganda against Hinduism. I'm sure the Christians and Muslims give this book 5 stars.