Is cow slaughter becoming the Hindutva equivalent of drawing the Prophet?

Karl Marx, had written in The Communist Manifesto: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower." 

Now very few of us might agree with Marx’s economic theories, but he did hit the nail on the head when it came to explaining the power religion had over the masses.  From the brutal murder of secular bloggers in Bangladesh to the killing of four cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo in France, to burning the Koran in Pakistan, there are certain acts which elicit retribution from the believers. 

After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, political commentator Bill Maher had blasted liberals and “hundreds of millions” of the world for allegedly supporting the Islamic terrorist massacre of Charlie Hebdo’s staff.  He said on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live, “I know most Muslim people would not have carried out an attack like this. But here’s the important point: Hundreds of millions of them support an attack like this. They applaud an attack like this. What they say is, ‘We don’t approve of violence, but you know what? When you make fun of the Prophet, all bets are off.”

When Kimmel expressed some scepticism about the number, Maher replied: “Absolutely. That is main stream in the Muslim world that when you make fun of the prophet, all bets are off. You get what's coming to you. It's also main stream that if you leave the religion you get what's coming to you, which is death. Not in every Muslim country in majority numbers, but this is a problem in the world that we have to stand up to.”

Is Maher right?

The reaction from across the world showed that his remarks might not be very off. In India, six FIRs were filed against the Mumbai editor of Urdu magazine Avadhnama, Shirin Dalvi for putting up the cartoons in her paper.  Three FIRS were fined against Dalvi, she had to wear a burkha to prevent being recognised and even forced to make an apology. Meanwhile, the Avadhnama has shut down now. 

She was quoted saying: “I would first want to begin with an apology for having printed the title cover of Charlie Hebdo. It was a mistake and I had no intention to hurt anybody’s feelings. I firmly believe in Prophet Mohammed – sallallahu alahi wa sallam – Peace be upon Him.”

Now India wasn’t the only country which felt the after-effects of the Charlie Hebdo fall out. In Pakistan, thousands protested against Charlie Hebdo and tried to storm the French consulate in Karachi. In Niger, ten people died, while dozens were injured, and nine churches burned.

There were violent demonstrations in Pakistan, Algiers and Jordan, while peaceful protests were held in many other parts of the world. All of it suggested that what Maher said wasn’t so off the mark, the Islamic word was incensed by the fact that someone had decided to draw the Prophet. 

The Dadri Incident

The Dadri incident isn’t just heinous because of the fact that a man was mercilessly beaten to death for allegedly consuming beef. What’s more worrying is the reaction from the political class. It all started with the forensic team testing the meat to see if it was actually beef and the victim's daughter asking: "Will they bring my father back if it isn't beef?" 

In a piece titled Mainstreaming the Lynch-Fringe, journalist Shekhar Gupta wrote: “The Dadri incident is a chilling turning point in our politics. It marks the rise of Hindu supremacist mob militancy that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won’t unequivocally condemn or disown. It will criticise the killing, but qualify it in a half-dozen ways.”

But the question, is would her father’s death and horrific lynching be justified if it was beef? Why should a person feel that somehow eating beef made the man responsible for his fate? While Narendra Modi maintained his now-infamous Manmohansque-silence on Patel-less issues, others from the BJP suggested that it was an ‘accident’, perhaps like a hurricane or a tsunami, an act of nature which couldn’t be controlled.

Dr Mahesh Sharma who was in the news for his sudden zeal for Indian culture called the incident a misunderstanding, saying: “This (incident) should be considered as an accident without giving any communal colour to it. I feel this incident occurred due to some misunderstanding and the law should truthfully act against whoever is responsible for it.”

While controversial VHP leader Sadhvi Prachi went further and commented that beef eaters deserved such treatment, BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj supported her statement. 

Meanwhile facts have emerged which suggest that it was a BJP worker’s son, along with the priest who made the announcement that the guilty man had slaughtered a cow, 7 of the 10 arrested were related to BJP’s Sanjay Rana.

But it’s not just the BJP who painfully shied away from stating the obvious. Not one mainstream politician, including the likes of Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav or Arvind Kejriwal, spoke up about the ridiculousness of the situation. The Congress’ Digvijay Singh went as far to say that the Congress supported the laws against cow slaughter. As he pointed out, 24 out of the 29 states in the country already had laws against cow slaughter, laws put in place by state governments ruled by the Congress.

The history of cow slaughter in India  

The history of cow slaughter is complicated. The perception that cow slaughter was introduced in India by Mughal rulers is fallacious. Early texts suggest that even our gods liked cattle meat. Indra liked bull’s meat while Agni preferred cow’s and bull’s meat, which explains why they were routinely sacrificed and even used as medicine.  (Read Prof Ram Puniyani’s explanation in The Hindu about how beef-eating habits changed in ancient India)

To be fair, it doesn’t matter whether people or inhabited ancient India ate beef or not, it’s as immaterial in the course of things as the fact whether ancient India had nuclear weapons or not, or helped discover the Heisenberg principle.

Being proud of our heritage is fine, but should modern-day laws be based on what might or might not have done aeons ago?

The fact is that despite all the claims about the peaceful nature of Hinduism, what the political class is implicitly telling the masses is that there’s no greater sin than cow slaughter. And eating beef will justify retribution, just like burning the Koran or drawing the Prophet does across the Islamic world. We've often been told that Hindutva is not Hinduism, but the tacit silence of the leaders suggest acquiescence.

In 1985, the Supreme Court of India had defined Hinduism saying:

" When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion of creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more." 

It's fair to say that unless Hindus, the so-called silent majority speak up, that way of life will be dead soon.