By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Beef politics in India is nothing new, and this is not the first time the issue has caused frustration for the indigenous communities of Meghalaya and the North East. In 2015, Thma U Rangli-Juki (TUR) organized a beef festival to greet BJP president Amit Shah during his maiden visit to the state. The message of the protest, led by Angela Rangad, a senior member of TUR, was for “the BJP and its affiliates not to impose their ideas on people whose food and cultural habits are different.” I was also part of the protest, and the beef never tasted better than on that day. Although we tried to march to the venue where Amit Shah was addressing BJP workers, we were prevented by the police from doing so. This time around, TUR is once again calling for a beef festival to protest the plans of a Hindu group led by Bramachari Mukundanand, who is organizing the ‘Gau Dhwaj Sthapana Bharat Yatra’ on October 2 in Shillong to declare the cow the ‘Mother of the Nation.’ If the last beef festival was any indication, I am confident that this time, too, both the meat and the festival will be memorable.
As for the intention of declaring the cow the ‘Mother of the Nation’ and imposing a ban on its consumption, it is ironic that a culture which once treated beef as a special dish for people of high status is now making such a demand. The book Ancient India: In Historical Outline by D.N. Jha is an important work in this regard, as it describes the significance of cattle to the ancient Vedic people—an Indo-Aryan group that migrated from Central Asia to the subcontinent around 3,500 years ago, displacing the original indigenous population of North India (the ancient Dravidians, who had built the Indus Valley Civilization).
The Indo-Aryans came as a semi-nomadic people for whom cattle were the chief source of wealth, with the term for a wealthy person being gomat. As a result, cattle became a source of inter-tribal warfare, and the word for battle came to be known as gavishti, which literally means ‘a search for cows.’ Cattle were also important for establishing lineages. People who lived in the same cowshed belonged to the same gotra, a term that later indicated descent from a common ancestor and thus an exogamous clan unit. At that point, the cow was not yet considered sacred or political, and both oxen and cows were slaughtered for food, with beef in particular being a delicacy offered to guests, who were described as goghna or ‘cow-killer.’ In addition to cows, goats and sheep were domesticated for both milk and meat, as evidenced by the discovery of charred bones of cattle and other animals at several archaeological sites. The fact that the ancient Vedic people consumed beef is also confirmed by Romila Thapar in her book History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, where she states that “the eating of beef was reserved for specific occasions, such as rituals or when welcoming a guest or a person of high status.”
The eating of beef was defended and supported by sages in literature as well. In the Shatapatha Brahmana (Brahmanas are ancient Hindu texts that contain prose commentaries attached to the four Vedas, the oldest Hindu sacred texts), there is a reference to Yajnavalkya, a great Hindu sage, giving a spirited argument for eating beef. He expressed the difficulty of forsaking beef, saying, “I, for one, eat it, provided it is tender (amsala).” He also indicated how the aroma of beef was believed to be an ailment for spirits. The 1918 book Yajnavalkya Smriti with The Commentary of Vijnanesvara Called the Mitakasara and Notes from the Gloss of Balambhatta, Book I: The Achara Adhyaya, translated by Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava, mentions under Chapter V (which addresses the duties of a household) the ‘beef offering to the honored guest’ and the ‘annual feast on beef.’ Both these sections contain passages from Yajnavalkya. In her book The Hindus: An Alternative History, Wendy Doniger mentions that the Brahmanas state “a bull or cow should be killed when a guest arrives, a cow should be sacrificed to Mitra and Varuna, and a sterile cow to the Maruts,” and that “twenty-one sterile cows should be sacrificed in the horse sacrifice.” She also refers to the Asvalayana-grihya-sutra, a dharma-sutra from the third century BCE, which specifies that “the meat of milk cows and oxen may be eaten, and the meat of oxen is fit for sacrifice.”
So, while today eating beef is considered sacrilege, it was not so in the past. The changed attitude could have emerged from the growing importance of cattle to an agricultural society. Myths and religious sanctions were thereafter created to elevate its status as sacred and inviolable, especially among the upper castes. For example, the four ages of Hindu mythology—Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapara Yuga, and Kali Yuga—are often analogized to the four legs of Dharma, visualized as a cow standing on four legs, gradually losing its legs as the ages progress from Satya Yuga to Kali Yuga. Thus, the cow, which was once a special delicacy, became an object of reverence.
Among the Khasi, the cow also has a special place. The sacrifice of a cow was an important component of the rituals practiced when a woman dies, known as ka masi pynsum. Portions of the lower jaw of the cow are kept to be placed afterwards in the mawshieng, or bone receptacle. Pieces of the sacrificed animal, i.e., the cow, are kept inside a small basket (ka shang), which is hung over the head of the corpse. Betel nut, a jar of water, and a dish containing food are placed near the head as offerings, given each morning and evening until the body is removed from the house. This practice is called di ja miet ja step. Guns are fired, drums are beaten, and flutes (sharati) are played during each night the corpse remains in the house. This description, as given in P.R.T. Gurdon’s book The Khasis, shows that the cow’s position was not unlike the position of other animals the Khasi kept for food and sacrifice. The kind of reverence that Hindus have for the animal is not found among the Khasi.
What is interesting about the sacrifice of a cow during the event of death is that it is also found among the indigenous Bonda people of Orissa. Numbering less than 20,000, they are an Austro-asiatic-speaking people, many of whom have, to this day, maintained their distance from the mainstream community. Although they follow a patrilineal system, women enjoy a high position in their society, holding several vital roles both at the familial and community levels. It is a common practice for a Bonda girl to marry a boy who is five to ten years younger than her. The girl looks after her husband, who, in turn, cares for her when she grows old.
This suggests that, in the past, the Bonda might very well have been following a matrilineal culture. As they came into contact with other groups (such as the ancient Dravidians), they likely adopted patrilineal customs but still retained the privileged position of women in their society. The Bonda are part of the larger Munda group, who were part of the ancient migration of Austro-asiatic people that came from the east. This migration also brought the Khasi people. It is highly possible, based on the dates, that some of these groups continued westward, mixing with the local population and giving rise to the Munda population, with the Bonda being one of the sub-groups. Therefore, the more favorable position of women and the sacrifice of a cow on the death of a community member are vestiges of a very ancient culture brought by Austro-asiatic speaking people to the subcontinent. In this culture, the cow was, and still is, an important animal for food, but not for worship. This practice is much older than when Hindus decided to stop eating beef.
Now, there are some Khasi groups who follow indigenous faiths and don’t eat beef. It is very possible that this practice arose due to the influence of Hinduism from the neighboring plains, likely during the time of Shankaradeva or later. Otherwise, understanding the indigenous origin of reverence for the cow among this group is difficult for several reasons. Firstly, the Khasi don’t consume dairy products, and drinking the milk of a cow or goat is considered taboo. This suggests that, even if they kept cattle, they did not use them for milk, which is a key utility of cows among Hindus but absent among the Khasi. Secondly, except in a few favourable locations, the most common agricultural practice is jhum (shifting cultivation), where cattle do not play a significant role. Instead, pigs and poultry have traditionally been more important to the Khasi people.
Therefore, it seems unusual that an animal, which has little importance beyond its use for meat, would be revered in a manner similar to how Hindus revere the cow, despite the lack of cultural conditions that exist among the latter. Most likely, the practice of not eating beef started with some Khasi people who were influenced by neighboring cultures, meaning it was not indigenous but introduced from outside. It is also possible that a non-Khasi group, which later assimilated into Khasi society by adopting their matrilineal culture and language, brought this prohibition with them. This wouldn’t be surprising, as the Khasi have always interacted and exchanged ideas with neighboring indigenous and non-indigenous communities.
Hindus once ate beef, but no longer do so today. This change is part of their cultural evolution, which should be respected. However, the culture of indigenous groups, like the Khasi, who do not follow these food prohibitions, should also be respected. Any attempt to impose such restrictions on them will only create animosity between indigenous and non-indigenous communities, at a time when unity is of utmost importance. Live and let live—otherwise, the cycle of animosity will continue. I don’t believe anyone wants that!
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)