By Maneka Sanjay Gandhi

Many of us believe that what the media says is the truth. But that is not always so. Many makers of harmful products and processes use the media to lobby for untruths (for instance a recent spate of articles appeared that monosodium glutamate was not bad for humans) and nowhere is it more evident than when laws are passed to protect animals. A sharkfish ban will attract hostile articles – when you find the source, it is a public relations agency for foreign shark fin trawler owners who has written the piece and fed it to the paper. Likewise the cattle killing ban in Maharashtra has led to a great number of people with vested interests – exporters of illegal meat, illegal slaughterhouse owners, restaurant owners who sell beef, transporters and policemen, for instance, to carry on a shrill tirade against the ban. They are joined by the strangest of people, so called “secularists” who jump into action at any cause that gives them publicity, no matter how bad it is for India. It is amazing that they are only secular over the killing of cows and any attempt to protect any animal leads them to label their saviours the worst word in their lexicon “Hindus”.

The arguments of these people do not take any economics, farmers’ views or any agricultural good into consideration. They refuse to understand that illegal slaughter is killing India, that the money made from this is going to terrorists as well, that the bribes made from illegal trafficking by the police has destroyed the effectiveness of that force and turned many of them into criminals instead of defenders of the innocent. Their arguments are simple: a) everyone should be allowed to eat what they want b) the Hindus always ate beef and the Vedic scriptures say so.

Regarding the first point, 90% is going for export so it is not a question of eating and feeding people, it is simply business for, by and of the rich- many of whom are not even Indian citizens. Secondly, these same people attack the government for letting young people take alcohol, cigarettes, pan masala and chemicals. What do they want? A hands off government where everybody does what they want no matter what its effect, or a government that regulates what is best for all?

However, it is this second point that I wish to take up in this piece. It is written again and again that according to the Vedas, Hindus ate beef and Brahmins specially practiced rituals in which they killed animals.  These “scholars” use out of context quotes from bad western translations of Vedic literature and fit them into their own business agenda. Their misleading analysis of ancient scriptures goes uncontested. Their interpretations of the Vedas come from the interpretations of commentaries written by Mahidhar, Uvat and Saayan in the medieval times and to what Vam-margis or the Tantra cult propagated in the name of the Vedas. Western scholars, with their incomplete knowledge of Sanskrit or the ancient people of India, mutilated these commentaries of our ancient scriptures in the name of translating the Vedas.

Shri Vardhman Parivar  & Akhil Bhartiya Krishi Go Seva Sangh has done an excellent amount of research at this attack on the Vedas and I reproduce some of their research.

गौर्मेमातावृषभःपितामेदिवंशर्मजगतीमे  प्रतिष्ठा।’

Meaning: “Cow is my mother & Bull is my father. These two bestow upon me heaven and terrestrial comforts. Cow is the spine of my life.”

Let’s start with the allegation that animal sacrifice is common in Vedic yajnas:

The word Yajna is derived from root ‘Yaj’ by adding Nan pratyaya. Yaj root has three meanings: Devapuja (behaving appropriately with the entities around- worshipping divinity, respecting parents and forefathers, keeping the environment clean are few examples), Sangatikaran (Unity) and Daan (Charity). These form the primary duty of human beings and so Yajna is emphasized not only in Vedas but in all ancient Indian literature.

Yajna has no reference to animal killing whatsoever. In fact, Nirukta (Vedic vocabulary) clearly states in 2.7 that Yajna is called Adhwara. Dhwara means violence and hence it is totally banned in Yajna. In other words, any kind of violence – through mind, body or voice – is completely banned in Yajna.

Adhwara is used to imply Yajna in a large number of mantras in the Vedas. For example, Rigveda 1.1.4, 1.1.8, 1.14.21, 1.128.4, 1.19.1, Atharvaveda 4.24.3, 18.2.2, 1.4.2, 5.12.2, 19.42.4.  Around 43 mantras in Yajurveda refer to Adhwara.

In fact Yajurveda 36.18 clearly states that “May I look upon all beings – Sarvaani Bhootani with friendly eyes.”

But, our beef eaters / exporters / secularists say :  what about Ashwamedha, Naramedha, Ajamedha, Gomedha yajnas? Medha means killing and Vedas even talk about Naramedha (human sacrifice).

The  word Medha does not necessarily mean slaughter. It denotes an act done in accordance to the intellect. It also means consolidation or nurturing, as evident from the root meaning of medha i.e. medhru san-ga-me

If the Yajnas are supposed to be Adhwara or non-violent, why should we assume that Medha  means violence? An intelligent person is called Medhaavi. So many children are named Medha. Do we imply they are violent people or intelligent ones?

Shatpath 13.1.6.3 and 13.2.2.3 clearly states that:

A Yajna dedicated to the glory, wellbeing and prosperity of the Rashtra the nation or empire is known as the Ashwamedh yajna. Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaq, Neta Subhaschandra Bose, Shivaji, Lokmanya Tilak etc performed Ashwamedha Yajna. They did not slaughter any horses.

To keep the food pure, to keep the senses under control, to make a good use of the rays of Sun, to keep the earth free from impurities the Gomedha Yajna is performed. The word Gau also means the Earth and the yajna dedicated to keep the Earth pure is called Gomedha Yajna. (refer Nighantu 1.1, and Shatpath 13.15.3).

The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha Yajna. An effort made for the training and productivity of people is also Naramedha Yajna or Purushmedha Yajna or Nriyajna.

Aja means grains. So Ajamedha Yajna refers to increasing agricultural productivity or in a very narrow sense : using grains in Agnihotra. Refer Shantiparva 337.4-5.

Vishnu Sharma in Panchatantra (Kakoliyam) clearly states that those who perform animal sacrifice in Yajna are fools because they do not understand Vedas properly. If one goes to Heaven by animal sacrifice, what could be the path to go to Hell?

Mahabharata  Shantiparva has two shlokas in Shantiparva that those who state that Yajna contain alcohol, fish or meat are frauds, atheists and devoid of knowledge of Shastras. (263.6, 265.9)

What about Yajurveda 24.29 which uses words ‘Hastina Aalambhate’ that means sacrifice of elephants?

Alambha derived from Labha root does not mean sacrifice or killing? Labha means to acquire or gain. While Hastina has a deeper meaning beyond elephant, even if we take it to mean elephant in this mantra, it means that the king should acquire elephants for nurture of his kingdom. Alambha is used in several places to mean ‘acquire’ or ‘gain’. For example, Manusmriti prohibits indulging in women for Brahmacharis by saying ” Varjayet Streenam Alambham”.

But what about ‘Sanjyapan’ used in Brahmana and Shraut texts to mean sacrifice?

Refer Atharvaveda 6.10.94.95 which says that we should do Sanjyapan of mind, body and heart. Does it mean we should commit suicide! Sanjyapan simply means unity and nurture. The mantra says that we should strengthen our mind, body and heart and ensure they work in unity. Sanjyapan also means ‘to inform’.

What do you have to say about Yajurveda 25.34-35 / Rigveda 1.162.11-12 which states that:

“What from thy body which with fire is roasted, when thou art set upon the spit, distilleth,— Let not that lie on earth or grass neglected, but to the longing Gods let all be offered.”

“They who, observing that the Horse is ready, call out and say, The smell is good; remove it; And, craving meat, await the distribution,—may their approving help promote our labour.”

Very clearly there is explicit description of horse sacrifice.

This is a mistranslation done by Griffith which, like all his works, has taken practically everything out of context.

The first has no reference to horse. It simply means that when people have fever, doctors should care for them unselfishly.

In the second mantra, all he did was to assume that Vaajinam word means ‘horse’. ‘Vaajinam’ simply means a dynamic/ fast entity and is an attribute of the horse. None of the interpretations of the mantra leads to horse sacrifice. Even if Vaajinam refers to a horse, the verse could mean those who attempt to kill horses should be stopped. The translations by Swami Dayanand Saraswati are closer to the truth. It is hardly likely that hundreds of mantras in the Vedas explicitly prohibit animal killing and severe punishment for killers of horses and cows and one mantra pops out saying the opposite. 

To join the animal welfare movement contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., www.peopleforanimalsindia.org