Representational image. Photo Crrdit: Sikh Lionz

This story, first published on Countercurrents.org in 2005, is being republished as it has acquired added relevance in the prevailing political climate.

Recently while travelling on the early morning flight from Mumbai to Ahmedabad, I overheard my co-passenger's request for non vegetarian breakfast being denied by the flight steward on the ground that on Mumbai Ahmedabad route, non vegetarian food is not served. The same got confirmed a few days later when the management of the said airlines publicly stated that since the passengers on this route are manly vegetarians, and in case of some slip on the part of airlines staff if the vegetarian passengers if by mistake is served the non vegetarian food, it will be hurting their religious sentiments.

Similarly during one of the trips to Ahmedabad when sipping tea with one of the young IT professional friend in his rented accommodation, I was aghast to see the landlord barging into the flat and making headway straight to the kitchen, inspecting something and going away. I could not hide my amazement and asked the young friend as to how someone can come and inspect your kitchen utensils, and that too even without the courtesy of asking your permission. He replied that it is more or less a routine practice in the city where the landlords or landladies keep a watch whether the tenant is cooking non vegetarian food.

Also one house hunter in the city of Mumbai was surprised that the real estate agent inquired about his food habits before showing him the flats for sale. He was also told that the particular housing complex where he wanted to buy the house, they had the unwritten (? written) rule that non vegetarians will not be permitted in the housing complex.
By now it has become a routine for one to hear in different workshops and seminars that Muslims are having aggressive mentality because they consume non-vegetarian food.

There is a hidden sentence in this which comes out easily when probed further that the real reason for their having aggressive mentality is that they eat beef. It comes as an addition that since cow is holy for the Hindus, they at the same time are hurting the sentiments of the Hindus.

This trend is picking on from last few years more strongly. One can roughly say that it runs parallel to the rise of communalism and communal violence in society. It has become rooted in stronger fashion, post Babri demolition along with demonisation of Muslims reaching a new high.

Two issues have been deliberately intertwined in the social common sense. One is about non-vegetarian food causing violent tendencies and the second, the eating of beef by Muslims and thereby hurting the sentiments of Hindus. It is very clear that the definition of non-vegetarian food varies from place to place and community to community. Eggs are passé for some vegetarians and strict no for others. Some regard sea food, fish and the like, as vegetarian while for others it is non vegetarian food in all sense of the meaning.

Today world over roughly more than 80-90% of the population is non-vegetarian so to say. While Muslims in India are the object of wrath, apart from other things, also for eating beef, Europeans and Americans do get away easily in this psyche despite having beef as their staple diet. In the countries and people who follow the biggest apostle of non-violence ever, Lord Gautam Buddha, the consumption of non-vegetarian food is no less in quantity.

For that matter there are innumerable communities in India for whom beef has been a part of their food habit, non-vegetarianism being prevalent in most communities. Even amongst those who feel that Muslims are aggressive because of eating non-vegetarian food the prevalence of eating non-vegetarian food is substantial.

A section of community has been discarding non-vegetarian food in a very strong way. Amongst these sections of middle class, traders are taking the wows of vegetarianism. There are political over and undertones also in this 'hate non-vegetarians' thinking. One can go to the extent of saying that vegetarianism is also being used as a social and political weapon to browbeat the minority community. No doubt one has the choice of shifting to vegetarianism with full commitment, but to be intolerant to the non-vegetarian and to label Muslims as having violent personality due to the food habits is a part of political campaign.

Historically speaking, beef was the staple food in Vedic times (Cow is essentially food, Atho Annam Via Gau). DN Jha in his classic book on the ancient Indian food habits shows that it was with the rise of agricultural society that the restriction was brought in on cow sacrifice by Lord Buddha. The primary goal was to preserve the cattle wealth. The ardent follower of Buddhism, Emperor Ashoka, in one of his edicts to the royal kitchen orders that only as many animals and birds be killed as are necessary for the food in the kitchen. This was to put a break on the animal sacrifice which was part of Brahminical rituals.

It was as a reaction to this that Brahminism came up to project cow as mother to show that it also has concern for cattle. One can make an interesting point a la Kancha Ilaiah's 'Buffalo nationalism', as to why only cow was selected to have the exalted place as a mother, why not buffalo? Has the colour politics something to do with this? This needs investigation!

As far as the violent personality and food is concerned, not much scientific literature is available to prove any correlation of food habit with violent tendencies. Violence is a personality trait, in the realm of psychology, which is shaped by familial, social and political circumstances. It also keeps changing according to the situation. A quiet person can take to arms and violence when faced with adverse physical situation. A person with a history of violent behaviour can change to quietist behaviour, without change of food habits, with the change in circumstances.

There are systems of medicine, the traditional one's which classify food according to the Satwik (leading to pure, quiet persona), Tamsik (increasing anger) and Rajsik (royal) but it hasn't been vindicated beyond stray empirical assertions. It is more than understood in the modern system of medicine that the psychological traits have all to do with the circumstances at all the levels, family, social and political. Despite some people holding on to human nature and type of food, it is far from being vindicated by any of the modern scientific studies.

There are groups of people taking to vegetarianism, the vegans, on health grounds, which one can understand. The element of religiosity is not mixed up here. Neither are these people intolerant to the ones who consume non-vegetarian food. The phenomenon being observed amongst the sections influenced by Hindu right operates at the level of religiosity. Vegetarianism here is a part of one's religion so to say.

Being mixed up with religion it becomes associated with emotions and that's where the strong rejection of non-vegetarians in the neighbourhood arises. How this has been turned as one more tool of demonisation of Muslims is a matter of amazement for the writer of these lines. One also feels like complementing the myth-makers and rumour-mongers who have achieved this feat of using the food habits as yet another tool of spreading hate.

Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, the pioneer of Human rights, narrates a story about Mahatma Gandhi's Muslim friend's son visiting his ashram on the day of Bakrid. Gandhi, a strict  vegetarian, ordered non-vegetarian food to be brought to the ashram for his Muslim friend's son as it happened to be associated with his festival. It is another matter that the Muslim boy in deference to the rules of Gandhiji's ashram insisted that he will have no non-vegetarian food in the ashram.

Respecting each others sentiments comes alive in its best form here. One sees similar respect for 'others' sentiments in the will of Emperor Babur who writes to his son Humayun that since Hindus respect cows he should not let the cows be slaughtered during his reign.

What a contrast to the present atmosphere where vegetarianism is being propagated and imposed in such an aggressive way. One is not sure whether non-vegetarian food leads to aggressive tendencies or rather one can say violence is in the mind and mind is shaped by social situations. One can certainly say that those propagating vegetarianism in such a fashion are intolerant to the hilt, and that's for sure.

One would like to be informed, if Narendra Modi who presided over one of the worst carnages of present times, is a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian. This writer will wait for the answer! Forget Modi, one suspects that Hitler who unleashed the biggest ever pogroms in history of modern times was an ascetic and a vegetarian.
 

The post The Day of the Violent Vegetarian and the Myth of the Militant Meat Eater appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The sangh parivar's denigration of Emperor Ashoka is an attempt to undermine Buddhism vis-a-vis Brahmanism.

Past is used by communal politics for their present political agenda. In India on one hand we have the use of medieval history where Muslim kings are presented as "aggressors due to whom Hindu society had to suffer", on the other now we are witnessing the distortion of ancient history being marshaled to undermine Buddhism vis-a-vis Brahmanism.

The figure chosen to make this point by communal forces is that of Emperor Ashoka. Incidentally Noble Laureate Amartya Sen regards Ashoka and Akbar as the two greatest emperors to have ruled India. A publication from RSS progeny, Rajasthan Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad claims that it was due to Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism and his promotion of ahimsa that India’s borders opened up to foreign invaders. It also goes on to say the followers of Buddhism under Ashoka played a seditious role. They assisted Greek invaders with the goal that they would destroy “Vedic religion” and restore Buddhism. Here, what is being referred to as Vedic religion is Brahmanism as such.

Interestingly the article regards Ashoka to be a great ruler till he embraced Buddhism, while most of the thinkers show that his humane policies that made him a great emperor were brought in after he embraced Buddhism. There are many components of this formulation which are concocted as per the political requirement of Brahmanical Hinduism. One of these concoctions is the very notion of India being the state from times immemorial. One understands that India as a nation state emerged during freedom struggle. The earlier formations were kingdoms and empires. The boundaries of these kingdoms were not fixed and depending on the bravery and other associated factors kings were expanding their area of rule, or had to retreat into smaller areas, or even getting decimated at times. Even before Ashoka came to power Alexander had attacked India. Such forays of kings into other territories are not unknown. Mauryan Empire was a major empire the sub-continent has seen.

So many dynasties have ruled large parts of the subcontinent, no single ruler has ruled whole of what is India today. So why is Ashoka being targeted today? Ashoka was successor to Bindusar, from Maurya lineage. Chandragupta Maurya had built the empire and Ashok’s annexed Kalinga (modern Odisha) into his kingdom. This battle was very bloody and as is famously known the bloodshed shook Ashoka and he decided to embrace Buddhism. From this point on the transformation of an aggressive, insensitive king to a very humane person began with the embracing of Buddhism. He undertook measures for welfare of the people, opposed the Brahmanical rituals and opened the gates of his palace for listening to woes of people of his empire. Inspired by the teachings of Buddhism he took steps towards building a compassionate state, a guardian state.

His ideas and polices are deciphered from the number of edicts carved on pillars and stones which are vast in number. What emerge from these edicts are very compassionate and impressive norms being propagated as far back as in the third century BC. What is remarkable is that though he embraced Buddhism he accepted diversity as the norm for society. One of his edicts says that a ruler must accept the diversity of his subjects’ beliefs. He did transform Buddhism into a world religion. The spread of his ideas was not through force but through moral appeal and persuasion. His message was to reduce suffering and to pursue peace, openness and tolerance. This is why he is regarded as great contrary to the said article's claim that he was great till he embraced Buddhism.

Ashoka’s was the largest empire in the history of the sub-continent. His Dhamma was a moral code for the ruler as well as for the subjects who were exhorted to follow the moral path. His Rock Edict XII is something which we need to remember in current times as well as it has great relevance even today. It is a call for religious tolerance and civility in public life or as he puts it, "restraint in speech",  “not praising one’s own religion or condemning the religion of the others without good cause… Contact between religions is good.” (Sunil Khilanani, Incarnations, ‘India in 50 Lives’ page 52). "He did not foist his faith, Buddhism on his subjects…He is important in history for his policy of peace, non-aggression and cultural conquest". (R.S. Sharma, Ancient India, NCERT, 1995, 104).

Ashoka inspired the leaders of freedom movement with his principles of justice and non-violence. He did represent the agenda which symbolised cultural and religious pluralism which were central to the ideology of Gandhi and Nehru in particular. His symbols of four lions adorn Indian currency and the wheel has become part of the Indian flag.

The problem with Ashoka’s rule was not a military one. His empire continued till 50 more years. In 205 BC Greek emperor Antiocus attacked from north-west and established his rule in some parts (North-West: Punjab, Afghanistan). The bigger problem was from within the empire. This is related to Brahminical counter-reaction to the spread of Buddhism. Ashoka had put a ban on slaughter for rituals. This led to reduction in the income of Brahmans. The spread of Buddhism led to the erosion of Varna-caste system. What the communal forces are calling as Vedic religion is as such the dominant stream which was prevalent then: Brahmanism.

These factors led to the counter revolution. Pushyamitra Shung, a Brahman, the chief commander of Brihadrath, who was Ashok’s grandson, led the counter revolution. He killed the emperor and founded the Shunga dynasty in Sindh part of Ashoka’s empire. The counter-revolution led to the disappearance of Buddhism from this land. Ambedkar writes: “Emperor Ashoka proclaimed complete ban on killing animals. So nobody engaged Brahmans to perform rites and rituals. The Brahman priests were rendered jobless. They also lost their former importance and glory. So the Brahmans revolted against the Mauryan emperor Brihadrath under the leadership of Pushyamitra Shung, a samvedi Brahmin and the army chief of Brihadrath.” (Writings and Speeches, Vol 3 P 167).

Eighth century onwards Shankara led the ideological battle against the philosophy of Buddhism. Buddhism urged the people to focus on life in this world. The Shankara’s philosophy called this world as illusion and restored Brahmanism here in full glory. Due to ideological and social counter-revolution Buddhism disappeared from this land around 1200 AD.

So why is Ashoka’s reign coming under criticism now? Ashoka embraced Buddhism and this was a setback to the Brahmanical system. Brahmanism is the dominant part of Hindu religion as understood today. Ashoka talked of non-violence and promoted pluralism. All these stand totally against the Hindu nationalist agenda of sectarian nationalism where violence is part of politics. Hindutva wants to promote neo-Brahmanical values. So on one hand there is the attempt to co-opt Dalits and other hand the aim is to keep the ideological message of social hierarchy loud and clear and so Buddhism is attacked.

The casteless ideology of Buddhism and the accompanying respect for pluralism and peace are being attacked as a part of Hindu nationalist agenda. The garb in which it is being presented is "weakening of India" due to non-violence. As such Mauryan was an empire, not a nation state, empires rise and fall due to social political factors of the time. Despite adopting non-violence Ashoka's empire continued well till 50 more years. The weakness starts coming in due to Brahmanical counter-revolution. The forays of communalists in the ancient Indian history are an attempt more to denigrate the Buddhist values under the garb of attacking Ashoka.   

The post Did Ashoka’s embracing of Buddhism and Promoting Ahimsa Weaken India? appeared first on SabrangIndia.