Login
When I was getting ready for my PhD program to study Indian philosophy, I figured I should get more acquainted with the classics, so I sat down to read through the Upaniแนฃads in their entirety. I was making my way through a passage about what a man should ask his wife to do if they want a good and learned son. I saw it advance through progressively better outcomes, a son who knows one Veda, two Vedas, three. And then it culminated in this passage:
โI want a learned and famous son, a captivating orator assisting at councils, who will master all the Vedas and life out his full life spanโโif this is his wish, he should get her to cook that rice with meat and the two of them should eat it mixed with ghee. The couple thus becomes capable of begetting such a son. The meat may be that of a young or a fully grown bull. (Bแนhadฤraแนyaka Upaniแนฃad 6.4.18, Olivelle translation)
I was startled. One of the first things you would typically learn in โHinduism 101โ is that โHindusโ are supposedly forbidden from eating beef, that that is one of the key requirements of their โreligionโ. And that certainly fit my own experience with the Indian side of my family, who consider themselves Hindu and donโt eat beef. I had vaguely heard of D.N. Jhaโs The Myth of the Holy Cow, and its argued that the prohibition on eating beef was not as ancient as we think it is. But I hadnโt expected to encounter the very opposite โ an instruction to eat cows right there in the Brแธฅadฤraแนyaka Upaniแนฃad.
The other thing you typically learn in โHinduism 101โ is that the Vedas are โthe sacred texts of Hinduismโ, and the Upaniแนฃads (the Vedฤnta, the โend of the Vedasโ) the most sacred of all. But here, right in the Bแนhadฤraแนyaka Upaniแนฃad โ the oldest and longest Upaniแนฃad, first in all the collections โ is an instruction that if you want the goal, clearly highly valued in the text, of having a learned son, then you should eat the meat of a bull. Thereโs no qualification attached here, no hint that this is a transgression of normal rules, nothing elsewhere in the text to say that these are special circumstances and normally you shouldnโt eat meat or even beef. It sure sounds like in these โsacred texts of Hinduismโ, eating beef is just normal, and in significant circumstances encouraged. I had expected that Jhaโs argument on the myth would have gone over obscure historical sources in painstaking detail to show that maybe there had been some cow eating somewhere in past Indian societies. I didnโt expect that it would be something this obvious, something that stares you in the face even when youโre not looking for it.
All of this came back to me as I read Milan Singhโs Substack post on Narendra Modiโs India. Singh reminds us that the RSS โย a militant Hindu fraternal organization with close ties to Modiโs BJP party โ has been trying to ban the slaughter of cows, โwhich are considered to be sacred in Hinduism.โ The RSS and related organizations have rarely taken the law as a restraint on their actions; Singh cites a Human Rights Watch report that identifies 44 people killed in India on suspicion that they were slaughtering cattle, 36 of whom were Muslims. What those slaughtered people were doing, it turns out, is something required to fulfill the injunctions of the Upaniแนฃads.
The RSS, the BJP, and a variety of other organizations share a pro-Hindu, anti-Muslim ideology that they refer to as Hindutva, literally โHindu-nessโ. To characterize the Hindutva ideology more descriptively in English, there are a couple of reasonably accurate nouns one can attach to the adjective โHinduโ: one can call it Hindu militancy or Hindu nationalism. The term thatโs not at all accurate to describe them, though, is Hindu fundamentalism.
The term โfundamentalistโ was first used as a self-description by Protestant Christians who believed the Bible to be infallible, a source of ultimate truth. If weโre going to use the term โfundamentalistโ in a serious way โ not just a throwaway pejorative to mean โany tradition more theologically conservative than mineโ) โ then it needs to have that core feature of scriptural infallibility. By that definition, there are many fundamentalist Muslims, who take the Qurโan as being absolutely and often literally right; in his assertion of the primacy of scripture over philosophy and observation, al-Ghazฤlฤซ seems like a good example. Catholics, on the other hand, are almost never fundamentalist, since they place at least as much authority on the pope and the church as the text.
Militant Hindus, in turn, are extremely far from fundamentalism. Most of them probably arenโt even aware that the Upaniแนฃadsโ endorsement of beef-eating exists. Protestant fundamentalists might also be relatively ignorant of whatโs in the Bible, but their conservative politics is one that is tied to whatโs in the Bible as read by other people who read the Bible. With Hindu nationalists Iโve never seen any reason to think theyโre even trying.
Hindu nationalism isnโt about scripture and fundamentalism, thatโs clear to me. What is it about? Well, whenever I try to explain Indian politics the first thing that usually comes to mind is an old joke about the Troubles in Ireland:
A man is walking along the streets of Belfast late at night and is suddenly surrounded by a gang of young toughs. Their leader yells at him, โYou! Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?โ Not wanting to get into trouble, the man tries to sidestep the question and gently says โNo, no, Iโm an atheist.โ The leader retorts โYeah yeah yeah, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?โ
The โsectarianโ violence in Ireland was never really about the Bible or the Church, about anything that people believed in. It was about โwho is your gang?โ When the riots start, which people will defend you and which will attack you? In the study Iโve done of Indian politics, that always seems to be what the โHindu vs. Muslimโ divide is really about: who is on which side of the fight, a fight that in some respects is no longer really about anything except the fight itself, the memories each side has of violence done to it and the response in kind. Attempts to ban cow slaughter or destroy mosques, I think, are really about this fight: about asserting the dominance of one social group over another, establishing that group as the winner in the fight. Now that it is also so clearly divided into two hostile factions that rarely speak to one another, I worry that the United States today might be headed in a similar direction.
I recently received a note from Prof. Nirmalya Chakraborty (Rabindra Bharati University) about an exciting new digital library. It includes three categories: Navya-Nyฤya Scholarship in Nabadwip, Philosophers of Modern India, and Twentieth Century Paแนแธitas of Kolkata. You can find the site here: https://darshanmanisha.org
You can learn more about the project from the following announcement.
Anouncement
Introducing the Digital Library Project
By
Bhaktivedanta Research Center, Kolkata, India
Right before the introduction of English education in India, a new style of philosophising emerged, especially in Bengal, known as Navya-Nyฤya. Since Nabadwip was one of the main centres of Navya-Nyฤya scholarship in Bengal during 15thโ 17th Century, many important works on Navya-Nyฤya were written during this period by Nabadwip scholars. Some of these were published later, but many of these published works are not available now. The few copies which are available are also not in good condition. These are the works where Bengalโs intellectual contribution shines forth. We have digitized some of these materials and have uploaded these in the present digital platform. ย
As a lineage of this Nabadwip tradition, many pandits (traditional scholars) produced many important philosophical works, some in Sanskrit and most in Bengali, who were residents of Kolkata during early nineteenth and twentieth century. Most of these works were published in early 1900 from Kolkata and some from neighbouring cities. These works brought in a kind of Renaissance in reviving classical Indian philosophical deliberations in Bengal. Attempts have been made to upload these books and articles in the present digital platform.
With the introduction of colonial education, a group of philosophers got trained in European philosophy and tried to interpret insights from Classical Indian Philosophy in new light. Kolkata was one of the main centres of this cosmopolitan philosophical scholarship. The works of many of these philosophers from Kolkata were published in early/middle of twentieth century. These philosophers are the true representatives of twentieth century Indian philosophy. Efforts have been made to upload these works in the present digital platform.
The purpose of constructing the present digital platform is to enable the researchers to have access to these philosophical works with the hope that the philosophical contributions of these philosophers will be studied and critically assessed resulting in the enrichment of philosophical repertoire.
We take this opportunity to appeal to fellow scholars to enrich this digital library by lending us their personal collection related to these areas for digitization.
The website address of the Digital Library is: www.darshanmanisha.org
For further correspondence, please write to:
FreshRSS 