What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of the Holy Cow
Hugely controversial upon its publication in India, this book has already been banned by the Hyderabad Civil Court and the author’s life has been threatened. Jha argues against the historical sanctity of the cow in India, in an illuminating response to the prevailing attitudes about beef that have been fiercely supported by the current Hindu right-wing government and the fundamentalist groups backing it.
120 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2002
65 people are currently reading
1047 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
March 19, 2019
Ask anyone about the basic tenets of Hinduism, and the majority of them are likely to quote cow worship as one of them. We have been brought up in the belief that the cow has always been sacred in our culture (though my own state, Kerala, is the exception). The Indian constitution contains a directive principle to end the killing of cows and promote cow welfare: ever since Independence, there have been calls (some peaceful and others violent) to ban cow slaughter. We Indians have even contributed the phrase “the sacred cow” to the English language.
But has the cow always been holy? Well, actually, no, says Professor D. N. Jha. The early Aryans were confirmed meat-eaters, and beef was a particular favourite. The Buddhists, though they disapproved of the Vedic sacrifice, still ate meat; and there was no specific taboo on cow meat. Even Jains, the present-day vegan extremists, have been known on occasion to eat meat.
Professor Jha argues from textual and archaeological evidence. The Vedas and the Brahmanas, and the other shrutis, speak eloquently about meat eating – with a special emphasis on beef. The Vedic gods Indra, Agni et al. were fond of eating cows, oxen, bulls and buffaloes. Sacrifice was the mainstay of the Vedic religion: and kine were the usual victims. But the consumption of bovine meat was not limited to religious occasions: guests were also treated to it, the proverbial “fatted calf” being slaughtered in their honour – so much so that guests came to be known as goghnahs, that is, cow-killers.
Contrary to popular belief, Buddhists were no vegans (in fact, there is strong evidence to suspect that the Buddha died of eating a dish of spoiled pork). Though the idea of ahimsa which appears first in the Upanishads was echoed by the Buddha also, he allowed his disciples to eat meat where the slaughter had been ‘unseen, unheard and unsuspected (to be on one’s account)’ and also where the animal had died a natural death or had been killed by a bird or animal of prey. (I can personally vouch for Buddhists being non-vegetarians after visiting Thailand.) Even the extremely puritanical Jains are known have eaten meat at one point of time, from the textual evidence of their own sacred literature.
As we move ahead on the historical timeline, we begin to see exhortations against cow slaughter and the consumption of beef towards the middle of the first millennium: but these are more in the nature of rants against an existing practice than diktats to be followed. Both Manu and Yajnavalkya, in their smritis, talk about beef consumption, and even the medical texts of Charaka and Susrutha mention it as a matter of course. The epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata also talk about the consumption of meat including beef. But there is a steady movement to sanctify the cow, and the use of panchagavya (a mixture of cow’s milk, cow dung, cow urine, butter and ghee) as a purifying agent and as medicine starts getting extolled.
Why exactly did the slaughter of cows stop? Professor Jha proposes that it might have been due to the fact that the nomadic Aryans settled down to agriculture by the middle of the first millennium. The sacrifices and the indiscriminate use of meat, a remnant of their days of wandering on the plains of Middle Asia, changed with the arrival of feudalism. Apart from Vaishyas, Brahmins also started to do agriculture: and the cows they received as gifts from yagas were too valuable as domestic animals to kill and eat.
Dr. Ambedkar, whose essay on this issue has been attached as appendix, provides a clever yet rather weak theory. He says that Brahmins purposefully adopted vegetarianism to steal a march on the Buddhists, whose religion was gaining ascendancy! In contrast to Buddhists, who argued only against ritual sacrifice, the Brahmins banned meat eating in toto to prove that their faith was much better. The affluent non-Brahmins gave up the eating of beef to move up the social ladder; while those at the bottom, the so-called ‘Broken Men’ who had been relegated to the borders of the society by the proponents of the Vedic religion, could not do so because dead cows were their main source of nourishment. Thus, because they ate this defiled meat, over a period of time they became untouchables.
However, I take this theory with a huge pinch of salt. Because while the origin of untouchability may have roots in the eating of the so-called “forbidden flesh”, the veneration of the cow seems to have more complex root than a social strategy. It is a fact that the cow came to be regarded as sacred over a period of time – as to the exact reason, I feel that the jury is still out on that one.
But the important thing is that, until relatively recently, no one denied the meat-eating past of the Brahmins and neither the fact that beef was consumed by the Vedic people. Even in later literature, beef-eating is considered a kalivarjya – something to be shunned in the modern, “degenerate” age. Even then it is not a major crime (mahapataka) but a minor one (upapataka). Prof. Jha writes:
Professor D. N. Jha has done a commendable job of writing an accessible history book for the layman, with clear indications of sources and flawless logical reasoning. In a society where scholarly discourse is getting increasingly polarised ideologically, such calm voices are a must.
But has the cow always been holy? Well, actually, no, says Professor D. N. Jha. The early Aryans were confirmed meat-eaters, and beef was a particular favourite. The Buddhists, though they disapproved of the Vedic sacrifice, still ate meat; and there was no specific taboo on cow meat. Even Jains, the present-day vegan extremists, have been known on occasion to eat meat.
Professor Jha argues from textual and archaeological evidence. The Vedas and the Brahmanas, and the other shrutis, speak eloquently about meat eating – with a special emphasis on beef. The Vedic gods Indra, Agni et al. were fond of eating cows, oxen, bulls and buffaloes. Sacrifice was the mainstay of the Vedic religion: and kine were the usual victims. But the consumption of bovine meat was not limited to religious occasions: guests were also treated to it, the proverbial “fatted calf” being slaughtered in their honour – so much so that guests came to be known as goghnahs, that is, cow-killers.
Contrary to popular belief, Buddhists were no vegans (in fact, there is strong evidence to suspect that the Buddha died of eating a dish of spoiled pork). Though the idea of ahimsa which appears first in the Upanishads was echoed by the Buddha also, he allowed his disciples to eat meat where the slaughter had been ‘unseen, unheard and unsuspected (to be on one’s account)’ and also where the animal had died a natural death or had been killed by a bird or animal of prey. (I can personally vouch for Buddhists being non-vegetarians after visiting Thailand.) Even the extremely puritanical Jains are known have eaten meat at one point of time, from the textual evidence of their own sacred literature.
As we move ahead on the historical timeline, we begin to see exhortations against cow slaughter and the consumption of beef towards the middle of the first millennium: but these are more in the nature of rants against an existing practice than diktats to be followed. Both Manu and Yajnavalkya, in their smritis, talk about beef consumption, and even the medical texts of Charaka and Susrutha mention it as a matter of course. The epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata also talk about the consumption of meat including beef. But there is a steady movement to sanctify the cow, and the use of panchagavya (a mixture of cow’s milk, cow dung, cow urine, butter and ghee) as a purifying agent and as medicine starts getting extolled.
Why exactly did the slaughter of cows stop? Professor Jha proposes that it might have been due to the fact that the nomadic Aryans settled down to agriculture by the middle of the first millennium. The sacrifices and the indiscriminate use of meat, a remnant of their days of wandering on the plains of Middle Asia, changed with the arrival of feudalism. Apart from Vaishyas, Brahmins also started to do agriculture: and the cows they received as gifts from yagas were too valuable as domestic animals to kill and eat.
Dr. Ambedkar, whose essay on this issue has been attached as appendix, provides a clever yet rather weak theory. He says that Brahmins purposefully adopted vegetarianism to steal a march on the Buddhists, whose religion was gaining ascendancy! In contrast to Buddhists, who argued only against ritual sacrifice, the Brahmins banned meat eating in toto to prove that their faith was much better. The affluent non-Brahmins gave up the eating of beef to move up the social ladder; while those at the bottom, the so-called ‘Broken Men’ who had been relegated to the borders of the society by the proponents of the Vedic religion, could not do so because dead cows were their main source of nourishment. Thus, because they ate this defiled meat, over a period of time they became untouchables.
However, I take this theory with a huge pinch of salt. Because while the origin of untouchability may have roots in the eating of the so-called “forbidden flesh”, the veneration of the cow seems to have more complex root than a social strategy. It is a fact that the cow came to be regarded as sacred over a period of time – as to the exact reason, I feel that the jury is still out on that one.
But the important thing is that, until relatively recently, no one denied the meat-eating past of the Brahmins and neither the fact that beef was consumed by the Vedic people. Even in later literature, beef-eating is considered a kalivarjya – something to be shunned in the modern, “degenerate” age. Even then it is not a major crime (mahapataka) but a minor one (upapataka). Prof. Jha writes:
Needless to say, then, that the image of the cow projected by the Indian textual traditions, especially the Brahmanical-Dharmasastric works, over the centuries is polymorphic. Its story through the millennia is full of inconsistencies and has not always been in conformity with dietary practices current in society. It was killed but the killing was not killing. When it was not slain, mere remembering the old practice of butchery satisfied the brahmanas. Its five products including faeces and urine have been considered pure but not its mouth. Yet through these incongruous attitudes the Indian cow has struggled its way to sanctity.This is a valid point. With the Indian Independence, the holiness of the cow should have been seen for what it was – a temporary viewpoint in shifting cultural landscape – and it should have remained a matter of personal religious belief: instead, it has been enshrined as the basic tenet of a monolithic faith. Prof. Jha enumerates the number of agitations and potentially disastrous political incidents in independent India connected to cow slaughter and the opposition to it; and also the number of threats he and his book had to face. In the face of such frenzy, it is high time we looked this whole issue from a historical and cultural point of view, leaving aside our emotions.
But the holiness of the cow is elusive. For there has never been a cow-goddess, nor any temple in her honour. Nevertheless the veneration of this animal has come to be viewed as a characteristic trait of modern day non-existent monolithic ‘Hinduism’ bandied about by the Hindutva forces.
Professor D. N. Jha has done a commendable job of writing an accessible history book for the layman, with clear indications of sources and flawless logical reasoning. In a society where scholarly discourse is getting increasingly polarised ideologically, such calm voices are a must.
October 12, 2020
Disclaimer: Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am endorsing beef eating, I would like to clarify this much. I have been a vegetarian all my life - not because of my brahmin lineage - but because I don't have the slightest nerve to hurt another living being to satiate my taste buds. However, at the same time, I don't have the slightest interest either in decreeing what others should and shouldn't eat.
----------------------------------------
"You know what truth is? It's some crazy thing my neighbour believes. If I want to make friends with him, I ask him what he believes. He tells me, and I say, 'Yeah, yeah, ain't it the truth?'" - Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions
We are living in the golden age when professional historians like Mr. Jha are lambasted by the hoi polloi of the world. The latter aren't wrong. How couldn't someone with years of studying history and research learn a simple thing: logic and evidence haven't been a favourite of the people in any age and any state?!
This book is as controversial as Galileo's heliocentric theory was in the 17th century. Galileo had the evidence but it was contrary to faith. He paid a hefty price for it but even while bearing it, he murmured his most famous words. Those words were finally acknowledged and are now as normal a knowledge as breathing is to the body.
This book is more of a text book, without any literary ornamentation. So if only you're a curious entity, you would surely find something new and interesting in it. However, if you are prone to getting offended, please ignore it: Mr. Jha has no such intention as you aren't even his target audience.
----------------------------------------
"You know what truth is? It's some crazy thing my neighbour believes. If I want to make friends with him, I ask him what he believes. He tells me, and I say, 'Yeah, yeah, ain't it the truth?'" - Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions
We are living in the golden age when professional historians like Mr. Jha are lambasted by the hoi polloi of the world. The latter aren't wrong. How couldn't someone with years of studying history and research learn a simple thing: logic and evidence haven't been a favourite of the people in any age and any state?!
This book is as controversial as Galileo's heliocentric theory was in the 17th century. Galileo had the evidence but it was contrary to faith. He paid a hefty price for it but even while bearing it, he murmured his most famous words. Those words were finally acknowledged and are now as normal a knowledge as breathing is to the body.
This book is more of a text book, without any literary ornamentation. So if only you're a curious entity, you would surely find something new and interesting in it. However, if you are prone to getting offended, please ignore it: Mr. Jha has no such intention as you aren't even his target audience.
October 18, 2014
Jha has clearly done his homework in writing the book. The extensive footnotes and bibliography are evidence for that. The controversy surrounding the publication is quite unfortunate, because if the people who protested it and threatened the author's life had actually read the book, they'd have had to admit that the claim Jha makes (that the cow has not always had a 'holy' status in Indian religious traditions and was at one point routinely killed and eaten) is neither outlandish nor baseless. The sources cited are impeccable primary and secondary material -- they range from the Vedic sources to the Dharmasastras and commentaries thereof -- and the most credible founts of information on the subject.
The scope of the argument is short, so there's not much speculation in the book on why the cow may have become 'holy' in what became Hinduism. This is a much larger question and deserves a deeper treatment than Jha's perfunctory allusion that changing socio-economic conditions may have led to the re-classification of the cow as an inedible animal, and indeed as an object of veneration if not worship. Hopefully, Jha will take up the question elsewhere if he has not already.
The scope of the argument is short, so there's not much speculation in the book on why the cow may have become 'holy' in what became Hinduism. This is a much larger question and deserves a deeper treatment than Jha's perfunctory allusion that changing socio-economic conditions may have led to the re-classification of the cow as an inedible animal, and indeed as an object of veneration if not worship. Hopefully, Jha will take up the question elsewhere if he has not already.
April 20, 2021
The best thing about D.N. Jha’s “ The Myth of the Holy Cow” is that it is a very good scholarly work. And the worst thing is that it, being a scholarly work, is highly boring. D.N. Jha has taken great pains to show that the cow was not considered sacred during Vedic and Post-Vedic period. Cow was not only a sacrificial animal but also its flesh was relished by Vedic Gods and great Brahmins of that period. To substantiate this, he has quoted extensively from the Vedas, Smritis, Puranas and western Sanskrit scholars. He has also relied on archaeological findings to buttress his arguments. Chapter 6 of the book is in a way a brief summary of the book. Jha goes on to show that beef eating continued amongst a large section of the people in spite of the religious taboo created against eating beef in the second half of the first millennium of the Christian Era. Jha also argues that beef eating was prevalent even amongst Buddhists to a greater extent and Jains to a lesser extent. To a student of history having some knowledge of Indian scriptures, what Jha says may not come as a surprise and the Vedas contain detailed descriptions of the sacrifices. Such a scholarly work questioning ‘Myth of Holy Cow’ falters when examining as to how a community which saw no wrong in animal sacrifice suddenly made the cow a sacred thing. For Jha , change of the nature of the society and advent of the Kali age is the main reason for cow being made sacred and beef eating made a taboo. It is strange that the author who quotes extensively about the prevalence of animal sacrifice during Vedic and Post Vedic period touches only briefly about the causes for this turnaround. Thus, the book becomes more a compendium of the many historical sources about the “Myth of Holy Cow” rather than putting a new light on the subject.
November 2, 2015
Let's give the credit where it deserves. The book is an overwhelming encyclopedic compilation of various cow mentions in the Hindu, Buddhist/Jain texts and scriptures- right from its treatment, usage for sacrificial or other purposes, comparison with other animals, Mahaveera or Gautama's alleged comments or treatment of cow, to its downright butchering technique.
But where the book terribly fails is when it tries to judge dietary preferences of Hindus by only these texts. It runs on the popular eurocentric idea that Hindus started as Aryans invading India on their horses, butchering and sacrificing people and animals at the drop of a hat. It completely ignores the vast spiritual texts in Hinduism and doesn't even attempt to connect its translated version of cow practices to some kind of logic or possible alternate translation.
Continuing with the eurocentric idea, it goes on to prove that only until Buddhism and Jainism came along, did Hindus started treating their cow as holy. It is naive to expect that Hindus loved their cow since eternity or could've never butchered or have eaten it but it is also equally naive to satirize a particular religion considering few of its texts in silos. If that was the case, imagine people of the 30th century having a worldwide view about the present world based on our beef cookbooks. Wow, we would look some nasty beef butchers, wouldn't we?
But where the book terribly fails is when it tries to judge dietary preferences of Hindus by only these texts. It runs on the popular eurocentric idea that Hindus started as Aryans invading India on their horses, butchering and sacrificing people and animals at the drop of a hat. It completely ignores the vast spiritual texts in Hinduism and doesn't even attempt to connect its translated version of cow practices to some kind of logic or possible alternate translation.
Continuing with the eurocentric idea, it goes on to prove that only until Buddhism and Jainism came along, did Hindus started treating their cow as holy. It is naive to expect that Hindus loved their cow since eternity or could've never butchered or have eaten it but it is also equally naive to satirize a particular religion considering few of its texts in silos. If that was the case, imagine people of the 30th century having a worldwide view about the present world based on our beef cookbooks. Wow, we would look some nasty beef butchers, wouldn't we?
August 12, 2020
As is obvious from the name of this book, historian and author DN Jha sets out here to explode the myth of the holy cow. To be more precise, he puts forward arguments to refute the idea that the 'sacred cow', the inviolable, divine gaumata that so many millions (?) of Indians seem to think has been regarded as such since time immemorial - is actually not that. That cattle as divine, or the eating of beef as abhorrent and immoral, illegal, etc is actually a much more recent phenomenon.
To support his argument, Jha quotes extensively from ancient sources, ranging from religious texts (all the Vedas, the Puranas, various shastras, the Mahabharat and Ramayana, etc) to the Manusmriti, poetry and plays, commentaries, historical accounts, and even Buddhist and Jain texts to show what were the prevailing attitudes, across time, towards cows, cattle-slaying, and beef-eating. He also offers some archaeological evidence in support of the argument that beef-eating was widespread.
Where I thought The Myth of the Holy Cow fell short was in its explanation of why attitudes towards cows changed. Jha does (very briefly) mention that this would have happened because of changing economic and social systems, but that assertion raised (at least for me, a layperson) more questions than it answered. Oddly enough, the appendix to this book - an essay on beef-eating in Indian history, by Dr BR Ambedkar - attempts to answer this question, but in a somewhat inept way that comes across more as wishful thinking than hard fact.
If nothing else, I would have liked a comment from Jha on the possible truth of Ambedkar's assertions. If not that, then a more detailed explanation from Jha himself on how a society that obviously seems to have considered beef a very choice meat and had no qualms about killing cattle in their hundreds, ended up worshipping that very cow and regarding its consumption as a crime.
To support his argument, Jha quotes extensively from ancient sources, ranging from religious texts (all the Vedas, the Puranas, various shastras, the Mahabharat and Ramayana, etc) to the Manusmriti, poetry and plays, commentaries, historical accounts, and even Buddhist and Jain texts to show what were the prevailing attitudes, across time, towards cows, cattle-slaying, and beef-eating. He also offers some archaeological evidence in support of the argument that beef-eating was widespread.
Where I thought The Myth of the Holy Cow fell short was in its explanation of why attitudes towards cows changed. Jha does (very briefly) mention that this would have happened because of changing economic and social systems, but that assertion raised (at least for me, a layperson) more questions than it answered. Oddly enough, the appendix to this book - an essay on beef-eating in Indian history, by Dr BR Ambedkar - attempts to answer this question, but in a somewhat inept way that comes across more as wishful thinking than hard fact.
If nothing else, I would have liked a comment from Jha on the possible truth of Ambedkar's assertions. If not that, then a more detailed explanation from Jha himself on how a society that obviously seems to have considered beef a very choice meat and had no qualms about killing cattle in their hundreds, ended up worshipping that very cow and regarding its consumption as a crime.
October 6, 2023
The sociology of food is a domain that has piqued my curiosity for a long time. Whenever I travel across India, I delve into the cultural nuances underlying the respective cuisines. Caste has played and continues to play a crucial role in the dietary preferences of Indians. No matter how hard we try to downplay it, the fact remains that food is intertwined with caste in India. In any multicultural society, dietary practices are always sectarian, region-specific, or community-based. Yet, there is one aspect of Indian food culture that is unique to India and not prevalent around the world: the purity and impurity aspects attached to food. Notably, anthropologist Mary Douglas observed that the concepts of pure and impure in the Indian context extend beyond food, even to drinking water, where one avoids touching the lips to the glass.
This phenomenon of purity and impurity is unique for another reason: the division of meat-eating in India is drawn along a line between those who eat beef and those who consume all other meats except beef. The latter group argues that cows are considered holy in their religion, but it remains a matter of debate as to how and when the cow became a sacred animal. This book answers the above question by drawing on references from the Vedas, Upanishads, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranic verses, the Ayurvedic texts, shastras, and sutras, as well as Buddhist edicts and literature. The fact that ancient North Indians (ANI), belonging to the pastoral group, performed yagnas by sacrificing thousands of cows is acknowledged even by present-day scholars of Sanskrit and Vedas. In this book, Prof. DN Jha presents multiple references from the Ramayana where cow and deer meat was considered a common form of ritual, sacrifice or food.
The Sangam literature concerning the ancient South Indians (ASI) includes words such as 'Un' (meat), 'Thu,' 'Thasai' (flesh), 'Thadi,' 'Ninam' (fat), 'Pulal' (dried meat with smell/dried salt-fish), 'Vidakkudai,' and 'Muri' (removed flesh) to denote the dietary practices in ancient Tamizhakam. In fact, numerous references to meat-eating, even by the priestly classes, were found in the poems written by Kabilar, a prolific poet of the Sangam era.
Though the trend of performing yagnas by sacrificing cows and consuming their meat continued throughout the history of the subcontinent, scholars argue that the cessation of these practices occurred after the arrival of Buddhism and Jainism, which emphasized ahimsa. However, the author points out that even Buddhists consumed three different types of meat on occasions, and King Ashoka, a Buddhist ruler, did not include cows in the list of animals prohibited for slaughtering, as mentioned in one of his edicts. This decision was due to his commitment to the priestly classes of his day.
The dynamics of superiority changed with the arrival of Jainism, which forced the priestly class to give up meat sacrifice to position themselves one step ahead in the hierarchy. This theory is well-accepted and found to be true by many scholars for a simple reason: the Manusmriti, the legal code of, imposes no punishment for killing cows while simultaneously condoning meat eating on occasion. At no point during this time was the cow either defied or considered sacred. Hence, it is crucial to note that the sanctity of the cow was established only during the 4th century AD under the Gupta dynasty.
Shruti Ganapatye, in her book ‘Who Will Bell The Cow?,’ has succinctly documented the ‘cow politics’ in India that emerged during the 1857 revolt when anti-colonial sentiments intensified due to the use of cow fat (and also pork fat) to grease rifles. Today, 'cow politics' remains central to political issues in the Hindi belt. However, the fact remains that India is the largest exporter of beef globally, and the majority of Indians are meat-eaters (beef is especially relished in Goa, the South and North East). A tenet of liberal democracy lies in the commitment to ensuring basic freedoms, and that freedom includes 'food sovereignty.' It is the right of people to choose what type of food they want to eat and how and where they obtain that food. However, the concept of purity and impurity attached to food in India often leads to stigmatization and social exclusion.
If we aim to ensure food sovereignty, where people don’t feel bound by illusory norms, imaginary customs and irrational restrictions of a certain sect while eating, it is crucial to demystify the long-standing lies related to food that have been propagated.
This phenomenon of purity and impurity is unique for another reason: the division of meat-eating in India is drawn along a line between those who eat beef and those who consume all other meats except beef. The latter group argues that cows are considered holy in their religion, but it remains a matter of debate as to how and when the cow became a sacred animal. This book answers the above question by drawing on references from the Vedas, Upanishads, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranic verses, the Ayurvedic texts, shastras, and sutras, as well as Buddhist edicts and literature. The fact that ancient North Indians (ANI), belonging to the pastoral group, performed yagnas by sacrificing thousands of cows is acknowledged even by present-day scholars of Sanskrit and Vedas. In this book, Prof. DN Jha presents multiple references from the Ramayana where cow and deer meat was considered a common form of ritual, sacrifice or food.
The Sangam literature concerning the ancient South Indians (ASI) includes words such as 'Un' (meat), 'Thu,' 'Thasai' (flesh), 'Thadi,' 'Ninam' (fat), 'Pulal' (dried meat with smell/dried salt-fish), 'Vidakkudai,' and 'Muri' (removed flesh) to denote the dietary practices in ancient Tamizhakam. In fact, numerous references to meat-eating, even by the priestly classes, were found in the poems written by Kabilar, a prolific poet of the Sangam era.
Though the trend of performing yagnas by sacrificing cows and consuming their meat continued throughout the history of the subcontinent, scholars argue that the cessation of these practices occurred after the arrival of Buddhism and Jainism, which emphasized ahimsa. However, the author points out that even Buddhists consumed three different types of meat on occasions, and King Ashoka, a Buddhist ruler, did not include cows in the list of animals prohibited for slaughtering, as mentioned in one of his edicts. This decision was due to his commitment to the priestly classes of his day.
The dynamics of superiority changed with the arrival of Jainism, which forced the priestly class to give up meat sacrifice to position themselves one step ahead in the hierarchy. This theory is well-accepted and found to be true by many scholars for a simple reason: the Manusmriti, the legal code of, imposes no punishment for killing cows while simultaneously condoning meat eating on occasion. At no point during this time was the cow either defied or considered sacred. Hence, it is crucial to note that the sanctity of the cow was established only during the 4th century AD under the Gupta dynasty.
Shruti Ganapatye, in her book ‘Who Will Bell The Cow?,’ has succinctly documented the ‘cow politics’ in India that emerged during the 1857 revolt when anti-colonial sentiments intensified due to the use of cow fat (and also pork fat) to grease rifles. Today, 'cow politics' remains central to political issues in the Hindi belt. However, the fact remains that India is the largest exporter of beef globally, and the majority of Indians are meat-eaters (beef is especially relished in Goa, the South and North East). A tenet of liberal democracy lies in the commitment to ensuring basic freedoms, and that freedom includes 'food sovereignty.' It is the right of people to choose what type of food they want to eat and how and where they obtain that food. However, the concept of purity and impurity attached to food in India often leads to stigmatization and social exclusion.
If we aim to ensure food sovereignty, where people don’t feel bound by illusory norms, imaginary customs and irrational restrictions of a certain sect while eating, it is crucial to demystify the long-standing lies related to food that have been propagated.
August 13, 2022
This is a fascinating read. You can see from the extensive citations and references (including archaeological) that careful research has gone into this book to present the case, and that many scholars and academics both within and outside the Indian subcontinent are well aware that cows were sacrificed and eaten since Vedic times.
This book was written by the eminent Indian scholar and academic DN Jha. His first contracted publisher had cold feet and pulled out from publishing this book at the last moment, even as the book was at the printing press. When the book was eventually published in Indian in 2001 by a courageous Indian publisher (Matrix Books), the author received death threats. This current second edition of the book was published in London in 2009, and contains new materials encapsulated by the chapter at the end by BR Ambedkar, the first Minister of Law of post-independent India and who helped draft the Constitution of India.
DN Jha is a courageous man, and his book was written to dispel untruths, shine the light on reality, and promote a less hardline position so as to prevent sectarian strife. For this, I would have given this book and the author more than 5 stars if I could.
The Hindutva/Hindu fundamentalist/Hindu nationalist movement has been gaining momentum for decades, and especially in the recent years. Fundamentalists claim that the sacredness of the cow is a Hindu communal identity, and that this has existed since Vedic times in India. They also claim that Muslims brought cow killing and beef eating habits into India, thus pitting Hindu against Muslims in yet another area of contention.
DN Jha has shown that this is not true - that sacrificial slaughtering of cows and the eating of beef has existed from the Vedic period to las late as the 18th Century in parts of India. This is evident from literature that the Hindus hold as sacred - no less than the Rigveda, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Law of Manu (which talks specifically about what food is permissable or not), as well as ancient medical texts which recommended beef for curative purposes (eg cooking beef with pomegranate to cure fever).
The Rigveda is replete with incidences of animal sacrifices which includes cow. And mentioned how certain Vedic gods such as Indra has a special fondness for beef. In the Mahabharata, 2000 cows were killed a day for King Rantideva, till the blood formed a river called Carmanvati. And in the Ramayana, there were many references to killing animals including the sacrifice of cows.
Archaeological evidence from ancient and medieval sites also show cattle bones that were cut and burned, pointing to how the animals died and how they were treated after - they were slaughtered and also cooked/roasted. Observations from Chinese and Persian travellers namely, Xuanzang and Alberuni were also cited.
I am aware that Vedic literature came from the eastern branch of the Indo-European people, the Aryans, who migrated to north-western India. They came after the Harappan Civilisation had waned, when the the people of the Harappan culture moved east and south of India. The Aryans were semi-nomadic people, with clear social division of 4 castes or "vadas", with the Brahmins at the top of the hierarchy. Sacrificial practises, led by Brahmins, was a key aspect of social and religious life. So when this book mentioned that animal sacrifices (including that of cows), as well as meat eating (including beef), was a feature of their culture - I was not surprised. They were semi-nomadic people after all - a people with a nomadic past and who were just starting to be a bit more agrarian and settled.
This is the same position held by BR Ambedkar, who cited evidences eg from the Rigveda where cow sacrifices and beef eating habits were mentioned many times. He emphasised that this is well-known and well-researched among scholars.
In an interview in 2018, and also mentioned in this book, DH Jha pointed out that for all the sacred status claimed for the cow, there is not a single temple across India which is dedicated to the cow. I never realised that!
I also enjoy reading the short article included at the end of the book by BR Ambedkar. This chapter called "Untouchability and the Sacred Cow" was extracted from his 1948 book "The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why Did They Become Untouchables?" His point was that India is divided broadly into 3 groups according to dietary habits - vegetarians, meat eaters (not beef) and meat eaters who eat beef. This corresponds roughly with the 3 main groups in society- Brahmins, non-Brahmins and the Untouchables (who eat beef). The Dalits, or the Untouchables, are beef eating as they were often given the left-over dead cow which no one wanted (apparently "fresh" cows were needed by the Brahmins). Hence, when cow sacrifices and beef eating became unpopular, apparently the Dalits were first blamed for beef eating and treated as "unclean".
He goes through a process of elimination of various hypothesis, and said that the most plausible reason why Brahmins became vegetarians was the rivalry with Buddhism. That while Buddhists are not strict vegetarians, Brahmins wanted to "one up them". The rivalry between competing religion and religious groups since the time of the Buddha is well known, such as among the Buddhists, the Jains, the Ajivikas and the Brahmins. Buddhism was enjoying popularity, and while Buddhists do eat meat but generally frown on animal sacrifices. During King Asoka's reign, he discouraged animal sacrifices and encouraged kindness to all animals (although he never forbade the slaughter of specific animals aka the cow). I learned by Johannes Bronkhurst's book "Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism" that this adversely impacted the Brahmin's livelihoods and position in society and that they felt compelled to reinvent themselves to regain lost ground. So this position is plausible.
I read some of the readers' reviews before reading this book. And I noticed that some reviewers, while they find the book very interesting, well-researched and convincing, are very cautious in their approach. One even declared upfront at the start of his review that he is a vegetarian, and asked others not to jump at him. Why is that so? It is clear that there are many who would. There is fear.
But I think we need to understand that Hinduism is not Vedic Brahmanism. Hinduism has absorbed and transformed so much over 2000 years over a very large geographical area. Even Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Som and Agni (who apparently have Greek and Roman equivalents) are not as central today as Puranic gods such as Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu -which were absorbed into the Hindu pantheon later. Hinduism is not a monolithic whole. And it is not something that remained static from Vedic times. Same for all cultures and religion.
I am not too clear why the cow in particular became sacred over time. It was not dealt more extensively by both DN Jha or Ambedkar. Apparently one positions is that the age of Kali had something to do with this - as it was later considered not good to kill a cow during the age of Kali. Some say it was because people became more settled and agrarian and there was less need to kill or eat cows. Another reason cited was the the products of the cows has always been seen as purifying and may have thus evolved to something sacred. But it is still not very clear to me.
I feel we should read this with an open mind. If we are seekers of truth then we should be open, and objective, and not cling too much to a position but be open to possibilities. We need also to respect those who feel that the cow is sacred. Which I feel, is good for the cow! Less animal slaughter and more kindness. But can kindness also be extended to other animals? Or to other humans? I am just throwing these questions out. Because I am also "guilty" of contradictions - I will not eat a dog or a cat because I keep them as pets. But why so I eat chicken and fish - why am I being discriminatory?
I remember my Dhamma teacher, a monk, once told me that over time, I may naturally be less inclined to eat meat because as I progress in my spiritual path, I might be naturally more inclined to practise non-harming. But he cautioned with an important point - there is no point being a purist and so strict about being a vegetarian, yet remain an unkind person who treat others poorly and cruelly!
So, I think that whatever position we take, kindness and balance is important. It is our greatest protection for the next life - whether in a heavenly or earthly realm. Even Buddha taught his monks thus - if someone criticises or disparates him, his teachings or the sangha, we are not to become upset. But just point out what is true or untrue/correct or wrong. Same if someone praises the Buddha, Dhamma or the Sangha - do not be elated. Just point out what is true or untrue/correct or wrong.
Peace to all.
This book was written by the eminent Indian scholar and academic DN Jha. His first contracted publisher had cold feet and pulled out from publishing this book at the last moment, even as the book was at the printing press. When the book was eventually published in Indian in 2001 by a courageous Indian publisher (Matrix Books), the author received death threats. This current second edition of the book was published in London in 2009, and contains new materials encapsulated by the chapter at the end by BR Ambedkar, the first Minister of Law of post-independent India and who helped draft the Constitution of India.
DN Jha is a courageous man, and his book was written to dispel untruths, shine the light on reality, and promote a less hardline position so as to prevent sectarian strife. For this, I would have given this book and the author more than 5 stars if I could.
The Hindutva/Hindu fundamentalist/Hindu nationalist movement has been gaining momentum for decades, and especially in the recent years. Fundamentalists claim that the sacredness of the cow is a Hindu communal identity, and that this has existed since Vedic times in India. They also claim that Muslims brought cow killing and beef eating habits into India, thus pitting Hindu against Muslims in yet another area of contention.
DN Jha has shown that this is not true - that sacrificial slaughtering of cows and the eating of beef has existed from the Vedic period to las late as the 18th Century in parts of India. This is evident from literature that the Hindus hold as sacred - no less than the Rigveda, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Law of Manu (which talks specifically about what food is permissable or not), as well as ancient medical texts which recommended beef for curative purposes (eg cooking beef with pomegranate to cure fever).
The Rigveda is replete with incidences of animal sacrifices which includes cow. And mentioned how certain Vedic gods such as Indra has a special fondness for beef. In the Mahabharata, 2000 cows were killed a day for King Rantideva, till the blood formed a river called Carmanvati. And in the Ramayana, there were many references to killing animals including the sacrifice of cows.
Archaeological evidence from ancient and medieval sites also show cattle bones that were cut and burned, pointing to how the animals died and how they were treated after - they were slaughtered and also cooked/roasted. Observations from Chinese and Persian travellers namely, Xuanzang and Alberuni were also cited.
I am aware that Vedic literature came from the eastern branch of the Indo-European people, the Aryans, who migrated to north-western India. They came after the Harappan Civilisation had waned, when the the people of the Harappan culture moved east and south of India. The Aryans were semi-nomadic people, with clear social division of 4 castes or "vadas", with the Brahmins at the top of the hierarchy. Sacrificial practises, led by Brahmins, was a key aspect of social and religious life. So when this book mentioned that animal sacrifices (including that of cows), as well as meat eating (including beef), was a feature of their culture - I was not surprised. They were semi-nomadic people after all - a people with a nomadic past and who were just starting to be a bit more agrarian and settled.
This is the same position held by BR Ambedkar, who cited evidences eg from the Rigveda where cow sacrifices and beef eating habits were mentioned many times. He emphasised that this is well-known and well-researched among scholars.
In an interview in 2018, and also mentioned in this book, DH Jha pointed out that for all the sacred status claimed for the cow, there is not a single temple across India which is dedicated to the cow. I never realised that!
I also enjoy reading the short article included at the end of the book by BR Ambedkar. This chapter called "Untouchability and the Sacred Cow" was extracted from his 1948 book "The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why Did They Become Untouchables?" His point was that India is divided broadly into 3 groups according to dietary habits - vegetarians, meat eaters (not beef) and meat eaters who eat beef. This corresponds roughly with the 3 main groups in society- Brahmins, non-Brahmins and the Untouchables (who eat beef). The Dalits, or the Untouchables, are beef eating as they were often given the left-over dead cow which no one wanted (apparently "fresh" cows were needed by the Brahmins). Hence, when cow sacrifices and beef eating became unpopular, apparently the Dalits were first blamed for beef eating and treated as "unclean".
He goes through a process of elimination of various hypothesis, and said that the most plausible reason why Brahmins became vegetarians was the rivalry with Buddhism. That while Buddhists are not strict vegetarians, Brahmins wanted to "one up them". The rivalry between competing religion and religious groups since the time of the Buddha is well known, such as among the Buddhists, the Jains, the Ajivikas and the Brahmins. Buddhism was enjoying popularity, and while Buddhists do eat meat but generally frown on animal sacrifices. During King Asoka's reign, he discouraged animal sacrifices and encouraged kindness to all animals (although he never forbade the slaughter of specific animals aka the cow). I learned by Johannes Bronkhurst's book "Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism" that this adversely impacted the Brahmin's livelihoods and position in society and that they felt compelled to reinvent themselves to regain lost ground. So this position is plausible.
I read some of the readers' reviews before reading this book. And I noticed that some reviewers, while they find the book very interesting, well-researched and convincing, are very cautious in their approach. One even declared upfront at the start of his review that he is a vegetarian, and asked others not to jump at him. Why is that so? It is clear that there are many who would. There is fear.
But I think we need to understand that Hinduism is not Vedic Brahmanism. Hinduism has absorbed and transformed so much over 2000 years over a very large geographical area. Even Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Som and Agni (who apparently have Greek and Roman equivalents) are not as central today as Puranic gods such as Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu -which were absorbed into the Hindu pantheon later. Hinduism is not a monolithic whole. And it is not something that remained static from Vedic times. Same for all cultures and religion.
I am not too clear why the cow in particular became sacred over time. It was not dealt more extensively by both DN Jha or Ambedkar. Apparently one positions is that the age of Kali had something to do with this - as it was later considered not good to kill a cow during the age of Kali. Some say it was because people became more settled and agrarian and there was less need to kill or eat cows. Another reason cited was the the products of the cows has always been seen as purifying and may have thus evolved to something sacred. But it is still not very clear to me.
I feel we should read this with an open mind. If we are seekers of truth then we should be open, and objective, and not cling too much to a position but be open to possibilities. We need also to respect those who feel that the cow is sacred. Which I feel, is good for the cow! Less animal slaughter and more kindness. But can kindness also be extended to other animals? Or to other humans? I am just throwing these questions out. Because I am also "guilty" of contradictions - I will not eat a dog or a cat because I keep them as pets. But why so I eat chicken and fish - why am I being discriminatory?
I remember my Dhamma teacher, a monk, once told me that over time, I may naturally be less inclined to eat meat because as I progress in my spiritual path, I might be naturally more inclined to practise non-harming. But he cautioned with an important point - there is no point being a purist and so strict about being a vegetarian, yet remain an unkind person who treat others poorly and cruelly!
So, I think that whatever position we take, kindness and balance is important. It is our greatest protection for the next life - whether in a heavenly or earthly realm. Even Buddha taught his monks thus - if someone criticises or disparates him, his teachings or the sangha, we are not to become upset. But just point out what is true or untrue/correct or wrong. Same if someone praises the Buddha, Dhamma or the Sangha - do not be elated. Just point out what is true or untrue/correct or wrong.
Peace to all.
June 19, 2014
It's an important and well-researched book presenting undeniable evidence that beef was a major part of the Indian diet through most of her history. It neglects, however, addressing the factors behind Hinduism's sudden veneration of the cow and gradual transition to complete vegetarianism. I'm giving it three stars only for begging a compelling question and failing to answer.
March 30, 2018
Religious fundamentalism relies on the assumption that the passage of time is incidental and that modern worshippers are no different from their forbears, with an obvious bias to the interpretation of the modern. A brief study of history immediately (ideally) tears up this thesis as the novice historian comes to realize that the past was not like the present and the mindset and foundations with which our ancestors and predecessors built their lives is as incomprehensible to us as those of an undiscovered country.
As someone who was raised as a fundamentalist Christian, this was my path out: a healthy stream of historical research and broad perspectives slowly dismantled the fortress of logical fallacies propped up by cherry-picked Bible verses.
(Wait, wasn't this supposed to be a book review?)
When I first announced my intention to travel to the Himalayas and through India, my grandmother's initial reaction was, "You need to be careful. The Indians, they worship cows. And if you're driving a car and you hit a cow, they will attack the driver." Despite the fact that my trip to India never panned out (as of this writing) this sentiment, tucked away in the back of my head as a kernel of truth in a wider picture I didn't yet understand, stayed with me.
At my university library in Hamburg, this book, with a hot pink spine, back, and cow on the front cover, leapt out at me. Reading the title and the quote from the Observer,
I was sold.
Now, the content of the book is fairly simple. Jha outlines the history of the Indo-Aryan relationship with cattle from the Aryan Migration to the Present Day. He quotes Hindu, Buddhist, and Jaina sources with great skill and writes in a way that is dense with information but compact and light for the uninitiated. I - a non-Indologist - found this book suspiciously easy to read, but when I was able to look at the endnotes of each chapter, felt comforted at the breadth and depth of Jha's research and knowledge.
This passage:
is notable for the amount of time it cites scripture in the space of three sentences (6) but is by no means extraordinary in the terms of the book.
Jha is a particularly gifted historian: he is not only able to readily cite his sources and seemingly at will (the generally easy part) but can deliver them in a cohesive and generally light narrative. On a difficult topic, no less.
To summarize the history of the sacred cow: the Aryan tribes were nomads who measured wealth in cows and other livestock. They brought their mythology and rituals - including animal sacrifice - with them to the Indian subcontinent, where a host of Vedic literature exists full of references not only to ritual animal slaughter but to regular meat consumption. All the characters of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, Jha notes, further explaining the most incriminating parts of the stories, are meat eaters, and do so without shame.
Only with the composition of the Upanishads, and later with the advent of Buddhism and Jainism do we see a shift. The doctrine of ahimsa (nonviolence) is introduced and ritual animal sacrifice is more or less banned by the Buddha and Mahavira. However, strict vegetarianism is still not prescribed at those times. It is recorded that the Buddha died from eating bad pork, while it was not unheard of that Mahavira accepted chicken meat as alms. Neither the Buddhists, Jainas, or Upanishads would sign the death knell for cattle sacrifice and beef-eating in general.
The earliest date that Jha can apparently ascribe to that is 883. Around this time, Dharmashastric authors began writing extensively about the kaliyuga, the era of decline, and within a millenium, would ultimately prescribe fifty new laws of purity for Indians to reduce the age of corruption. One of these, was to ban cow slaughter. The year 883 is the date of the earliest cow sanctuary that has been identified in India, a feature of Hindu temples that would pop up all over the subcontinent in succeeding centuries. From then on, the Brahmanical class, obsessed with ritual purity and preserving the clarity and goodness of the age sought to stamp out as much heterodoxy regarding this issue continuing into the present day.
But... why? Jha doesn't explicitly answer this and seems to go out of his way to not answer the question. Religious fundamentalists view their religion as ideally unchanged (and at most corrupted) but that doesn't mean historians have to then avoid a cause and effect understanding. What Jha did was essentuially lay out a road map of the textual history regarding the relationship between Indians and their cows.
The answer, I suppose, will have to wait until another time. For Jha. The year 883, I think, gives us a good, clear indication for what changed: the Gupta Empire (responsible for India's Golden Age) fell, and the first waves of Muslim Conquerors were threatening the political makeup of the subcontinent. To even the learned, especially to those with a cyclical understanding of time (i.e. the kaliyuga) it certainly seemed like the world was going through a crisis, and emergency ritual measures needed to take place. As the centuries wore on, the Islamic Invaders became more pronounced, and more powerful. Though they never succeeding in their ultimate goal of converting all of India, they certainly established deep roots on the subcontinent, with a dark memory stained on the cultural psyche of the Hindus.
Not once does Jha mention the word "Muslim" or "Islam," and whether it was a strategic or smart decision, remains to be said. Even the way I wrote it above might come over as finger pointing, but is not intended to be. The Islamic conflict with the Indians produced an othering effect. Muslims shied away from pork but indulged in beef, among Hindus, the exact opposite. What was an inoccuous difference borne of the ahimsa doctrine now became a mark of identity, a token to wear around one's neck to identify one's tribe from the other.
Jha doesn't call out the role Islam and hallal played in the sacralizing of the Indian cow. But he does hint at them with his last line, calling out the Hindu identity movement, Hindutva:
As it was pointed out by the novelist Pankaj Mishra in his own review,
Yet, the Hyderabad Civil Court set out to ban it, and a self-described "Defender of the Faith" took a page out of the Muslims' book and declared a fatwa against Jha. Why? Because Jha pointed out what was already apparent and written down in Hinduism's own sacred texts?
No. Because at the core of it, identity built on intentional midunderstanding is fragile, and Jha held up a mirror to a particularly holey theory of belief.
For this review and other articles visit or follow me.
As someone who was raised as a fundamentalist Christian, this was my path out: a healthy stream of historical research and broad perspectives slowly dismantled the fortress of logical fallacies propped up by cherry-picked Bible verses.
(Wait, wasn't this supposed to be a book review?)
When I first announced my intention to travel to the Himalayas and through India, my grandmother's initial reaction was, "You need to be careful. The Indians, they worship cows. And if you're driving a car and you hit a cow, they will attack the driver." Despite the fact that my trip to India never panned out (as of this writing) this sentiment, tucked away in the back of my head as a kernel of truth in a wider picture I didn't yet understand, stayed with me.
At my university library in Hamburg, this book, with a hot pink spine, back, and cow on the front cover, leapt out at me. Reading the title and the quote from the Observer,
Not since Salman Rushdieäs Satanic Verses... has a book caused such a violent reaction.
I was sold.
Now, the content of the book is fairly simple. Jha outlines the history of the Indo-Aryan relationship with cattle from the Aryan Migration to the Present Day. He quotes Hindu, Buddhist, and Jaina sources with great skill and writes in a way that is dense with information but compact and light for the uninitiated. I - a non-Indologist - found this book suspiciously easy to read, but when I was able to look at the endnotes of each chapter, felt comforted at the breadth and depth of Jha's research and knowledge.
This passage:
At one place Indra states, "they cook for me fifteen plus twenty oxen".(14) At other places he is said to have eaten the flesh of bulls,(15) of one (16) or of a hundred buffaloes(17) or 300 buffaloes roasted by Agni (18) or a thousand buffaloes.(19) Second in importance to Indra is Agni to whom there are some 200 hymns in the Rgveda.(20) (29)
is notable for the amount of time it cites scripture in the space of three sentences (6) but is by no means extraordinary in the terms of the book.
Jha is a particularly gifted historian: he is not only able to readily cite his sources and seemingly at will (the generally easy part) but can deliver them in a cohesive and generally light narrative. On a difficult topic, no less.
To summarize the history of the sacred cow: the Aryan tribes were nomads who measured wealth in cows and other livestock. They brought their mythology and rituals - including animal sacrifice - with them to the Indian subcontinent, where a host of Vedic literature exists full of references not only to ritual animal slaughter but to regular meat consumption. All the characters of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, Jha notes, further explaining the most incriminating parts of the stories, are meat eaters, and do so without shame.
Only with the composition of the Upanishads, and later with the advent of Buddhism and Jainism do we see a shift. The doctrine of ahimsa (nonviolence) is introduced and ritual animal sacrifice is more or less banned by the Buddha and Mahavira. However, strict vegetarianism is still not prescribed at those times. It is recorded that the Buddha died from eating bad pork, while it was not unheard of that Mahavira accepted chicken meat as alms. Neither the Buddhists, Jainas, or Upanishads would sign the death knell for cattle sacrifice and beef-eating in general.
The earliest date that Jha can apparently ascribe to that is 883. Around this time, Dharmashastric authors began writing extensively about the kaliyuga, the era of decline, and within a millenium, would ultimately prescribe fifty new laws of purity for Indians to reduce the age of corruption. One of these, was to ban cow slaughter. The year 883 is the date of the earliest cow sanctuary that has been identified in India, a feature of Hindu temples that would pop up all over the subcontinent in succeeding centuries. From then on, the Brahmanical class, obsessed with ritual purity and preserving the clarity and goodness of the age sought to stamp out as much heterodoxy regarding this issue continuing into the present day.
But... why? Jha doesn't explicitly answer this and seems to go out of his way to not answer the question. Religious fundamentalists view their religion as ideally unchanged (and at most corrupted) but that doesn't mean historians have to then avoid a cause and effect understanding. What Jha did was essentuially lay out a road map of the textual history regarding the relationship between Indians and their cows.
The answer, I suppose, will have to wait until another time. For Jha. The year 883, I think, gives us a good, clear indication for what changed: the Gupta Empire (responsible for India's Golden Age) fell, and the first waves of Muslim Conquerors were threatening the political makeup of the subcontinent. To even the learned, especially to those with a cyclical understanding of time (i.e. the kaliyuga) it certainly seemed like the world was going through a crisis, and emergency ritual measures needed to take place. As the centuries wore on, the Islamic Invaders became more pronounced, and more powerful. Though they never succeeding in their ultimate goal of converting all of India, they certainly established deep roots on the subcontinent, with a dark memory stained on the cultural psyche of the Hindus.
Not once does Jha mention the word "Muslim" or "Islam," and whether it was a strategic or smart decision, remains to be said. Even the way I wrote it above might come over as finger pointing, but is not intended to be. The Islamic conflict with the Indians produced an othering effect. Muslims shied away from pork but indulged in beef, among Hindus, the exact opposite. What was an inoccuous difference borne of the ahimsa doctrine now became a mark of identity, a token to wear around one's neck to identify one's tribe from the other.
Jha doesn't call out the role Islam and hallal played in the sacralizing of the Indian cow. But he does hint at them with his last line, calling out the Hindu identity movement, Hindutva:
But the holiness of the cow is elusive. For there has never been a cow-goddess, nor any temple in her honour. Nevertheless the veneration of this animal has come to be viewed as a characteristic trait of modern day non-existent monolithic "Hinduism" bandied about by the Hindutva forces. (146)
As it was pointed out by the novelist Pankaj Mishra in his own review,
Jha did not set out to provoke. His main thesis - that beef-eating was not unknown to Indians of the pre-Muslim period - is neither new nor startling.
Yet, the Hyderabad Civil Court set out to ban it, and a self-described "Defender of the Faith" took a page out of the Muslims' book and declared a fatwa against Jha. Why? Because Jha pointed out what was already apparent and written down in Hinduism's own sacred texts?
No. Because at the core of it, identity built on intentional midunderstanding is fragile, and Jha held up a mirror to a particularly holey theory of belief.
For this review and other articles visit or follow me.
June 7, 2019
Its an eye opener. Lets say the author misinterpreted and misrepresented the words in ancient sacred text books and misread the evidences. Half of the pages of book are references. How can someone be so wrong?
Appreciate the hard work of author over the background study. I would call it as a review paper than a book.
Appreciate the hard work of author over the background study. I would call it as a review paper than a book.
July 5, 2017
3.5
The book does not live up to the potential offered by its captivating title. "The Myth of the Holy Cow" has no dearth of references and examples of animal sacrifice and non-vegetarianism from various holy books and legal scriptures of Hinduism. As I am unfamiliar with most of these referenced texts, I cannot vouch for the objectivity/lack of internal bias.
Where it fails terribly is in its structure. The first few chapters are bound to overwhelm lay readers with its scrambled excess of examples. The main argument this book puts forth is the claim for supremacy by Hindus over Buddhists in the society. Jha proposes that the concept of ahimsa (non-violence) towards all living entities preached by the Buddhists was gaining popularity, and they strongly condemned the pointless sacrifices by the Hindus, even when they allowed consumption of meat in practice. This in turn forced Hindus, especially Brahmins, to give up meat altogether and adopt vegetarianism for Hinduism to regain foothold as a revered religion. This argument, however interesting, is not central to the book as it should have been, and is only dealt with in the last few pages in a cursory fashion. Also, it fails to answer with certainty why and when the cow was anointed holy.
But do read it, for it presents intriguing examples and anecdotes of animal sacrifices and non-vegetarianism prevalent in the Vedic times, the central tenets of Budhhism and Jainism dealing with animals and treatment of animals, and of course, the ever contradictory injunctions in most (or all. Probably all) holy texts.
The book does not live up to the potential offered by its captivating title. "The Myth of the Holy Cow" has no dearth of references and examples of animal sacrifice and non-vegetarianism from various holy books and legal scriptures of Hinduism. As I am unfamiliar with most of these referenced texts, I cannot vouch for the objectivity/lack of internal bias.
Where it fails terribly is in its structure. The first few chapters are bound to overwhelm lay readers with its scrambled excess of examples. The main argument this book puts forth is the claim for supremacy by Hindus over Buddhists in the society. Jha proposes that the concept of ahimsa (non-violence) towards all living entities preached by the Buddhists was gaining popularity, and they strongly condemned the pointless sacrifices by the Hindus, even when they allowed consumption of meat in practice. This in turn forced Hindus, especially Brahmins, to give up meat altogether and adopt vegetarianism for Hinduism to regain foothold as a revered religion. This argument, however interesting, is not central to the book as it should have been, and is only dealt with in the last few pages in a cursory fashion. Also, it fails to answer with certainty why and when the cow was anointed holy.
But do read it, for it presents intriguing examples and anecdotes of animal sacrifices and non-vegetarianism prevalent in the Vedic times, the central tenets of Budhhism and Jainism dealing with animals and treatment of animals, and of course, the ever contradictory injunctions in most (or all. Probably all) holy texts.
February 1, 2024
If you're looking for literature that will entertain you, "The Myth of the Holy Cow" by DN Jha may not be the best choice. It's not a light read, and the pages are loaded with more facts than a cow's stomach. But, if you're looking for a way to prove your annoying friend wrong when they claim that cows are divine, then this book is perfect for you! DN Jha has dug deep into our ancient texts and has revealed the truth about our ancestors' beliefs. So, go ahead and enjoy your beef fry and parotta without any remorse, because now you know that cows are not holy. Well, at least not according to DN Jha.
August 9, 2021
3.5 rounded to 4
Definitely presents a more comprehensive historical perspective on the place of cow in South Asian society. I would have liked it to do a little more synthesis, and explore more modern history of the same. But, the book is a definitive compendium of sources on the matter.
Definitely presents a more comprehensive historical perspective on the place of cow in South Asian society. I would have liked it to do a little more synthesis, and explore more modern history of the same. But, the book is a definitive compendium of sources on the matter.
October 17, 2016
The issue of beef consumption is a pretty inflammatory and divisive topic in India currently. Mohammad Akhlaq, a Muslim, was killed by a mob in September 2015 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Da...) for allegations that he had kept beef in his refrigerator. The repercussions of this case are far-reaching. Laws against eating beef, especially meat from cows, have been included in Directive Principles of State Policy in India. Many states have passed laws prohibiting beef consumption.
India is a Hindu-majority (~80%), but secular country. States which have passed the above laws have done so due to the influence of Hindu organizations, most notablyt RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) and VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad). These organizations revere Cow as a goddess and therefore, advocate for the ban on beef.
So, amidst all these events, the central question is: What is the evidence for the claim that Hindus always revered Cow, and never ate beef? The answer, lucidly provided in this short but powerful book, is in negative. With considerable backing of sources including some of the holiest Hindu scriptures, the author demolishes this claim.
I cannot recommend this book more strongly to any Indian interested in knowing Hindus' "beefy" past :)
India is a Hindu-majority (~80%), but secular country. States which have passed the above laws have done so due to the influence of Hindu organizations, most notablyt RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) and VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad). These organizations revere Cow as a goddess and therefore, advocate for the ban on beef.
So, amidst all these events, the central question is: What is the evidence for the claim that Hindus always revered Cow, and never ate beef? The answer, lucidly provided in this short but powerful book, is in negative. With considerable backing of sources including some of the holiest Hindu scriptures, the author demolishes this claim.
I cannot recommend this book more strongly to any Indian interested in knowing Hindus' "beefy" past :)
April 7, 2018
Interesting historical treatise about the beef and meat eating culture in ancient India right from the Vedic period to the modern Brahmanical period.
Especially relevant with the growth of Hindutva and cow vigilantism. I wish more people would learn to debate sensibly around these topics.
I would have preferred a bit more of analysis on why this society turned towards Ahimsa and started valuing vegetarianism - was it because of a nomadic and pastoral society turning into a feudal society or was it because of the outsized influence of Buddha and Mahavira on the political structure in post Vedic times?
As an aside, I learnt that there were cow slaughter related communal clashes in Azamgarh documented as far back as 1880
Especially relevant with the growth of Hindutva and cow vigilantism. I wish more people would learn to debate sensibly around these topics.
I would have preferred a bit more of analysis on why this society turned towards Ahimsa and started valuing vegetarianism - was it because of a nomadic and pastoral society turning into a feudal society or was it because of the outsized influence of Buddha and Mahavira on the political structure in post Vedic times?
As an aside, I learnt that there were cow slaughter related communal clashes in Azamgarh documented as far back as 1880
October 14, 2016
I don't know whether this was particular to my copy, but the print was not good. In addition to that, this book is not too readable as well. However it is pretty informative and contains solid resources for interested folks to pursue further.
The clincher for me was Ambedkar's essay at the end. However I must find a full version of the essay.
To sum up: You should give this book a try. It contains historical evidence which cogently proves that Hindus and Brahmins indeed consumed beef and cow was not a sacrosanct animal at all.
P.S. I love my beef steaks.
The clincher for me was Ambedkar's essay at the end. However I must find a full version of the essay.
To sum up: You should give this book a try. It contains historical evidence which cogently proves that Hindus and Brahmins indeed consumed beef and cow was not a sacrosanct animal at all.
P.S. I love my beef steaks.
April 7, 2017
The book takes up the question of sanctity of cow and very well provides evidences from different historical periods. From religious texts to secular texts; the book makes a well researched stand. However, it would have been a complete book for me if it discussed not only ' Is cow really the holy cow ?' but also the dvelve deeper in the questions of how exactly it became the holy cow and what factors made it holy for some and not others.
March 13, 2012
insightful and backed by reasons.
on a topic as sensitive as this,every statement is backed by logic.
an academic effort, though against the cult, one may agree to it or not, its a must read!
on a topic as sensitive as this,every statement is backed by logic.
an academic effort, though against the cult, one may agree to it or not, its a must read!
April 20, 2025
The Myth of the Holy Cow, DN Jha
Devout Hindus in India would consider reading this book sacrilege. Yet one must read it – carefully, attentively, for it demystifies some of the basic premises of Hinduism through a contrapuntal reading of sacred scriptures. As the title suggests, in The Myth of the Holy Cow, DN Jha’s central argument revolves around the ‘holiness’ attributed to the animal – cow – to showcase how its flesh was very much a part of early Indian non-vegetarian food regimen and dietary traditions. In the process, he extends the figure of the cow to include other animals and moves beyond the binary of non/vegetarianism to interlace caste and meat consumption in India.
In 1882, Dayanananda Sarasvati laid the foundation of the first Gorakshini Sabha where he professed that the cow symbolises unity among Hindus. Its sacrosanct figure had to be preserved, protected, and perpetuated in order to distance the Hindus from the Muslims. Such an appeal was tailor-made for the Hindutva rhetoric of conjuring up the religious ‘Other’ (more often than not, this is the Muslim) in our vicinity, whose practice of slaughtering the cow painted them as barbaric and profane. On the one hand, Jha challenges the unfounded beliefs of Hinduism and links them to the practice of casteism; he refers to the Vedic texts to explain the changing status of the cow on the other hand. Indo-Aryans/Vedic Aryans were a nomadic, pastoral group, whose incipient agricultural and religious beliefs were rooted in the socio-economic setting of the time. In a dominant pastoral community, cattle rearing played an important part. It also meant pleasing the Gods with ritualistic sacrifices, and in the Vedic centuries, the term ‘aghnya’ (not to be killed) had not been used in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda for the cow. Instead, Jha shows that the scripts were designed in a manner that the cow owned by the Brahmin or given to him as ‘daksina’ (tribute/gift) was considered inviolate. Otherwise, the Brahminical traditions allowed cows to be offered as sacrifices to the Gods. The transition from pastoralism to settled agriculture, however, elevated the status of the cow because it became useful in agricultural operations. The agrarian shift could be traced to the Upanisadic idea that laid stress on the futility of killing animals, which eventually culminated in the doctrine of ‘ahimsa’ (non-violence). The spread of Buddhism and the Jainism philosophy of ‘ahimsa’ had a profound impact on the ritualistic traditions of sacrifices, inasmuch that to contain people within the fold of Hinduism, certain practices had to be erased. Jha highlights that the law book of Manu (200 BC-Ad 200), nonetheless, had much to say about lawful and forbidden food that was common with the Brahminical works of the Vedic period. To quote Jha, “Manu asserts that animals were created for the sake of sacrifice, that killing (vadha) on ritual occasions is non-killing (avadha), and injury (himsa) as enjoined by the Veda is known to be non-injury (ahimsa).”
Gradually, Jha’s arguments veer towards exploring the intricate nature of meat consumption and caste. While cow slaughter and eating beef gradually came to be viewed as sins, cows and their products attained a purificatory role in religious practices. For instance, cow dung and cow urine were profusely used, but a shudra could not use them. Otherwise, s/he would go to hell. In fine, Jha tries to address the question raised by Babasaheb Ambedkar: 'Did Hindus never eat beef?' Many might consider the question itself to be anti-Hindu; precisely for this reason, one must read Jha's book.
Devout Hindus in India would consider reading this book sacrilege. Yet one must read it – carefully, attentively, for it demystifies some of the basic premises of Hinduism through a contrapuntal reading of sacred scriptures. As the title suggests, in The Myth of the Holy Cow, DN Jha’s central argument revolves around the ‘holiness’ attributed to the animal – cow – to showcase how its flesh was very much a part of early Indian non-vegetarian food regimen and dietary traditions. In the process, he extends the figure of the cow to include other animals and moves beyond the binary of non/vegetarianism to interlace caste and meat consumption in India.
In 1882, Dayanananda Sarasvati laid the foundation of the first Gorakshini Sabha where he professed that the cow symbolises unity among Hindus. Its sacrosanct figure had to be preserved, protected, and perpetuated in order to distance the Hindus from the Muslims. Such an appeal was tailor-made for the Hindutva rhetoric of conjuring up the religious ‘Other’ (more often than not, this is the Muslim) in our vicinity, whose practice of slaughtering the cow painted them as barbaric and profane. On the one hand, Jha challenges the unfounded beliefs of Hinduism and links them to the practice of casteism; he refers to the Vedic texts to explain the changing status of the cow on the other hand. Indo-Aryans/Vedic Aryans were a nomadic, pastoral group, whose incipient agricultural and religious beliefs were rooted in the socio-economic setting of the time. In a dominant pastoral community, cattle rearing played an important part. It also meant pleasing the Gods with ritualistic sacrifices, and in the Vedic centuries, the term ‘aghnya’ (not to be killed) had not been used in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda for the cow. Instead, Jha shows that the scripts were designed in a manner that the cow owned by the Brahmin or given to him as ‘daksina’ (tribute/gift) was considered inviolate. Otherwise, the Brahminical traditions allowed cows to be offered as sacrifices to the Gods. The transition from pastoralism to settled agriculture, however, elevated the status of the cow because it became useful in agricultural operations. The agrarian shift could be traced to the Upanisadic idea that laid stress on the futility of killing animals, which eventually culminated in the doctrine of ‘ahimsa’ (non-violence). The spread of Buddhism and the Jainism philosophy of ‘ahimsa’ had a profound impact on the ritualistic traditions of sacrifices, inasmuch that to contain people within the fold of Hinduism, certain practices had to be erased. Jha highlights that the law book of Manu (200 BC-Ad 200), nonetheless, had much to say about lawful and forbidden food that was common with the Brahminical works of the Vedic period. To quote Jha, “Manu asserts that animals were created for the sake of sacrifice, that killing (vadha) on ritual occasions is non-killing (avadha), and injury (himsa) as enjoined by the Veda is known to be non-injury (ahimsa).”
Gradually, Jha’s arguments veer towards exploring the intricate nature of meat consumption and caste. While cow slaughter and eating beef gradually came to be viewed as sins, cows and their products attained a purificatory role in religious practices. For instance, cow dung and cow urine were profusely used, but a shudra could not use them. Otherwise, s/he would go to hell. In fine, Jha tries to address the question raised by Babasaheb Ambedkar: 'Did Hindus never eat beef?' Many might consider the question itself to be anti-Hindu; precisely for this reason, one must read Jha's book.
September 12, 2019
Written in 2002 , this book and the author had to face various hurdles before getting published.From the printers backing out for fear of facing the wrath of Hindu hardliners and months of legal wrangling.The problem - it repeats what scholars have known for a long time - early Hindus (including Brahmins) ate beef.
Thoroughly researched ,this book offers quotes from the Vedic texts to show how cow slaughter and consumption was quite common and how only in recent history has the cow been venerated.
The book goes on to destroy some cherished views of right wing political narratives which is why it irked them about this book in the first place
The sayings and beliefs of religious fundamentalists are often taken at face value. As fervent believers, they seem not to have any truck with rational politics. But it is important to realise how pathetically little they know about the religious and spiritual traditions that supposedly inform their political beliefs.An absolute must read for the times we live in.
Thoroughly researched ,this book offers quotes from the Vedic texts to show how cow slaughter and consumption was quite common and how only in recent history has the cow been venerated.
The book goes on to destroy some cherished views of right wing political narratives which is why it irked them about this book in the first place
The sayings and beliefs of religious fundamentalists are often taken at face value. As fervent believers, they seem not to have any truck with rational politics. But it is important to realise how pathetically little they know about the religious and spiritual traditions that supposedly inform their political beliefs.An absolute must read for the times we live in.
July 27, 2022
Thoroughly busts the myth of Hindus in general being averse to beef from ancient times. Quoting from myriad texts from Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and many other sources, D.N. Jha has done a comprehensive job of it. That it became such that beef eating was shunned in later times is categorically pointed out, with only a few possible reasons for that being offered. A more thorough investigation may be needed to understand why that happened. That is not to say there are no other scholarly works that have looked into it, though.
The added endorsement is lent by Dr B.R. Ambedkar's writing at the end of the book wherein the great scholar has delved into the matter and has presented his theories as to why beef eating went on the wane, and its possible linkages with untouchability.
Strongly recommended for everyone that is interested in this subject. And cares for a scholarly presentation of it.
The added endorsement is lent by Dr B.R. Ambedkar's writing at the end of the book wherein the great scholar has delved into the matter and has presented his theories as to why beef eating went on the wane, and its possible linkages with untouchability.
Strongly recommended for everyone that is interested in this subject. And cares for a scholarly presentation of it.
August 14, 2020
This is a fascinating book, which I recently came across more-or-less by chance. The thesis is that the "sacred cow" of Hinduism is an invented tradition. According to The Myth of the Holy Cow, eating beef in India had through the ages been eaten in certain times and places but discouraged or forbidden in others, but it was generally widely practiced by Hindus. Even when people abstained from beef, cows were not considered holy, and no major Hindu deity was identified with them. This changed in the last decades of the nineteenth century, as Hindu activists endeavored to standardize Hinduism into a homogeneous religion, which could easily be opposed to Islam. I am unable to evaluate these claims, but they do seem plausible. The feelings of disorientation in confrontation with the industrializing world led to the invention of numerous traditions in Britain and the United States as well.
October 16, 2020
"The image of the cow projected by Indian textual traditions, especially the Brahmanical-Dharmasastric works, over the centuries is polymorphic. Its story through the millennia is full of inconsistencies and has not always been in conformity with dietary practices current in society. It was killed but the killing was not killing. When it was not slain, mere remembering the old practice of butchery satisfied the brahmanas. Its five products including faeces and urine have been considered pure but not its mouth. Yet through these incongruous attitudes the Indian cow has struggled its way to sanctity.
But the holiness of the cow is elusive. For there has never been a cow-goddess, nor any temple in her honour. Nevertheless the veneration of this animal has come to be viewed as a characteristic trait of modern day non-existent monolithic ‘Hinduism’ bandied about by the Hindutva forces."
But the holiness of the cow is elusive. For there has never been a cow-goddess, nor any temple in her honour. Nevertheless the veneration of this animal has come to be viewed as a characteristic trait of modern day non-existent monolithic ‘Hinduism’ bandied about by the Hindutva forces."
May 29, 2024
Interesting read. Altho it mostly read like a research document or paper. Not boring but not interesting. Since I was privy to some of the facts before, it was not a big discovery for me.
Yes, there new facts and additional corroboration that helped establish some hearsay as facts. Also the Ambedkar notes at the end this edition was good reading.
I wish Jha had spun a story. A more of why and how would have made it interesting. Also a nice timeline to show the progression of beef eating to holy cow would have been helpful.
Yes, there new facts and additional corroboration that helped establish some hearsay as facts. Also the Ambedkar notes at the end this edition was good reading.
I wish Jha had spun a story. A more of why and how would have made it interesting. Also a nice timeline to show the progression of beef eating to holy cow would have been helpful.
October 16, 2019
Its a good read. With loads of info regarding how the Hindus's as from their Aryan blood were arid meat-eaters. It really takes a huge courage to write a book with so deep research data in a country like India. The author as well as the publisher both received death threats and the book was released in India after 11 years.
It seems humans were more advanced and open in thought process as we are today.
It seems humans were more advanced and open in thought process as we are today.
November 19, 2025
The myth of the holy cow is well-researched but not nearly as well-presented. Almost every single page overwhelms you with too many citations. More than necessary. I wish there is a future edition with tighter editing, or at least an abridged version.
It is an important book exploring Brahminism and its belief systems. It also disproves the widespread rumour that India is a vegetarian country. It’s a shame the writing is not more approachable.
It is an important book exploring Brahminism and its belief systems. It also disproves the widespread rumour that India is a vegetarian country. It’s a shame the writing is not more approachable.
April 9, 2020
This has obviously been heavily researched as evidenced by the extensive references. Reads much more like an essay than a book. There are just so many examples for each point that the point gets quite convoluted and lost making the thread of the book quite hard to follow, but definitely an interesting concept to argue against why cows should be revered as holy in Hinduism.
June 30, 2020
This book is a series of well cited and documented articles exploring religious texts and their original ideas around meat consumption. For what it is, I think it is a worthwhile read. I look forward to literature documenting the cultural markers of meat eating, caste, and political power throughout time.
May 23, 2021
Anyone who has objectively read about Hinduism would know about the myth of the holy cow. Cattle sacrifice and eating was prevalent in Brahminism till 4th century AD. And then there were factors that changed the narrative which is mentioned in the book. Also, Ambedkar's work in this subject (and on any subject for that matter) is quite seminal and must read for anyone and everyone
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews