By Bhogtoram Mawroh
The farcical disaster of the proposed Gau Dhwaj Yatra, organized by Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwarananda Saraswati of Jyotirmath, ended in a tragi-comedy. The self-proclaimed leader of cow protection waved his cow flag from the aircraft after being denied permission to land. He has threatened to take the Meghalaya Government to the Supreme Court for this denial. It remains unclear whether he will also pursue legal action against the Governments of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, who similarly chased him away. Regardless, his grand entry into Meghalaya and the humiliation he intended to inflict on its indigenous population have been thwarted—at least for now. The term ‘humiliation’ is used deliberately, as this event seemed aimed at compelling the indigenous people to abandon their culture in favour of a foreign one, symbolizing submission and subjugation. This intent becomes clear when considering his speech in Sikkim, which was part of the itinerary before his attempt to enter the other Northeastern states.
In Sikkim, while sitting atop a throne, the Swami complained about the Nagaland government’s decision to stop him from entering the state. He expressed that for believers of Sanātana Dharma, the cow is their mother. For those who may not know, Sanātana Dharma is a term being popularized instead of Hinduism to suggest that it is timeless and one of the most ancient religions in the world. However, it is well known that this religion is a mixture of ideas and gods brought from Central Asia by the semi-nomadic Indo-Aryans, who combined them with local gods and practices to create what is now known as Hinduism. This happened after 3,500 years ago. By these dates, Sanātana Dharma is not even older than Niam Khasi, which is much older having arrived in the subcontinent with the Khasi around 5000-6000 years ago. Sanskrit—the sacred language of Sanātana Dharma—itself emerged only around 4,500 to 4,200 years ago. In the early period when Hinduism was still evolving, the cow was part of the diet and considered a delicacy served to special guests. Much later, it became sacred, and the drama unfolding in recent days is based on this later development in the religion.
Every religion evolves, and the reverence for the cow—which was not as pronounced in the past—is part of this process for Hinduism. It’s possible that in the future, Hindus may choose to reconnect with their roots by revisiting past dietary practices, including eating beef. However, that should be their own choice, and not an imposition. Similarly, attempts to force the reverence of the cow onto indigenous peoples is also condemnable. In his speech in Sikkim, however, the Swami was not content with simply highlighting the sacredness of the cow for Hindus. He made many other highly provocative statements as well.
The Swami told the audience that Muslims and Christians do not consider the cow as their mother and, therefore, do not share the same reverence for it as Hindus do. He was especially disappointed that the Nagaland government convened a cabinet meeting to prevent him from entering the state. Bemused, he asked why he was denied permission to speak with the local indigenous community about the need to protect the cow. He argued that only by meeting and discussing their differing perceptions can a way forward be devised. However, if both sides remain adamant in their positions, it will be difficult for people to come together. He expressed concern that without consensus, the country would struggle to stay united. Thus, for the sake of unity, he emphasized the need to discuss this issue, which he claimed affects all citizens. Except for this last part, where he suggested that cow protection is a matter of national importance—more significant than unemployment, inflation, women’s safety, and corruption—he sounded quite liberal and accommodating. However, immediately after these words, his true intentions were revealed.
The Swami remarked that it is untenable for both sides to remain intransigent in their respective positions. According to him, the country is governed by the majority, and sooner or later, if the majority makes a choice, the minority will have to accept that decision. Therefore, it is important to dialogue and find a way forward rather than forcing the minority to accede to the demands of the majority. He also warned that if the cow is not protected, he would request the Government of India to shoot him, as he cannot bear to see cows being butchered. This shift from a tone of accommodation to issuing clear threats about imposing the will of the majority on the minority is a clear provocation and intimidation aimed at the indigenous peoples of the Northeast. The planting of a cow flag was meant to be a symbolic step in that direction.
One of the most pivotal moments of the 2021 farmers’ protest against the three contentious farm laws introduced by the NDA government was the planting of flags by some of the protesters on the domes of the Red Fort. One of the flags was the Nishan Sahib, a religious flag of the Sikh community, recalling the time when, on March 11, 1783, the Sikh army captured the Red Fort from the Mughals. This was seen as a provocative move intended to undermine the sovereignty of the nation. Farmers’ groups quickly denied the allegations that it was orchestrated by them, but the damage had been done. Some of the farmers’ unions decided to quit the protest, and many protesting farmers also left the site. Then, on January 28, two days after the events at the Red Fort, Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) leader Rakesh Tikait cried on live TV, alleging that goons hired by the BJP were assaulting the remaining farmers. This proved to be the turning point of the movement, with farmers returning in droves to the protest site. Galvanized, the protesters vowed not to leave until the three farm laws were repealed. Eventually, the BJP Government was forced to retract and recently Kangana Ranaut, BJP MP from Himachal Pradesh, had to apologize for urging the farmers to request the government to bring back the laws. The planting of the flags could have been the death knell of the farmers’ movement, but the tears of a farmer leader saved it.
The planting of a flag, therefore, is a very significant and symbolic practice. When planted in a territory, it represents victory and subjugation of that territory and its people. In this context, where beef is an important item of food and ritual for the indigenous peoples, it was meant to showcase the victory of a more superior religion and culture over them. The imposition of the majority view over the minority, to which the Swami was alluding in his speech, would have been fulfilled if he had been allowed to plant the cow flag. An important point to note is that the decades-old Indo-Naga conflict is currently stalled over two demands: the issue of a separate Naga flag and Constitution. The Swami is well aware of the symbolism involved, and the denial of that is a significant victory for the indigenous peoples in their struggle to maintain their culture and autonomy.
The issue of declaring the cow as a national animal and banning the consumption of beef is part of an old Hindutva agenda. One might therefore assume that this drama is also part of the goals that the Sangh Parivar and its affiliates harbour. In this case, however, personal ambition and animosity are also involved. Let us examine who Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwarananda Saraswati is and what exactly his role is in Indian politics.
Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwarananda Saraswati came into the limelight when he refused to participate in the pran pratishtha (the rite or ceremony by which an idol of a deity is consecrated in a Hindu temple) of the Ram Temple organized by Prime Minister Modi. He cited that such a ceremony goes against religious scriptures since the temple was incomplete. The inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya was aimed at garnering Hindu votes for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections by the BJP. Ironically, the party lost Ayodhya in the ensuing elections to a candidate from the Dalit community, who are barred from entering temples and are treated as untouchables. The Swami also alleged that 228 kg of gold was missing from the Kedarnath temple and criticized the construction of a replica Kedarnath Temple in Delhi, arguing that the original temple belongs in the Himalayas. He has also stated that Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Uddhav Thackeray was a victim of betrayal and that the people of Maharashtra have suffered from this betrayal. Another Hindu religious leader, Swami Sri Govindananda Saraswati Maharaj, leveled allegations against him, claiming he is a fake baba who is “killing and kidnapping people.” In summary, Swami Avimukteshwarananda Saraswati is a divisive figure who has shown a tendency to dabble in politics. Most recently, he attacked Modi for not enacting a law to ban cow slaughter throughout the country and claimed that India has never had a President or Prime Minister who could be called a ‘real’ Hindu.
One therefore wonders if this farcical Gau Dhwaj Yatra was another political stunt he pulled to humiliate Modi and bolster his reputation as a devout Hindu willing to lay down his life (asking the government to shoot him if they don’t enact a law to ban cow slaughter) for the sake of religion. Whatever it may be, as indigenous people, we must always be vigilant not to allow our autonomy and freedom to be trampled by foreign forces.
I would like to thank all those (individuals and groups) who resisted this attempt and forced the MDA Government to belatedly come to the rescue of the indigenous peoples of the state. I would also like to thank the Shillong Central Puja Committee (CPC) for making it clear that they do not support the cow protection group and their move to hold a rally demanding a ban on beef consumption. With this farce over, I would like to wish the non-indigenous community, who were about to be used as pawns in this game of personal ambition, a happy and successful puja. I hope we can stand together against such divisive politics in the future as well.
(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)