017 Why protect only cow?

ybrem

Source: Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 32.
Here is a part quote from Gandhiji's letter TO HARIBHAU PHATAK.
Date: 30.8.1934.

MY DEAR HARIBHAU,
I have your letter. My position on the cow is not that the cow might be superior to the buffalo in giving milk. If cow protection is part of Hinduism, then we must abjure buffalo milk even if it is superior to cow's milk. Such is the conception of religion. You cannot apply to it the bare rule of utility. If we would prefer buffalo milk , then by and by the buffalo would become the object of worship and the cow would disappear, as she is fast disappearing. Having said this, I can say that all the information that I possess goes to show that, all things considered, cow's milk is superior to buffalo milk. But it is a question whcih does not much interest me, because I am sure that it would be possible to obtain medical testimony in favour of the superiority of the cow's milk over buffalo milk and vice versa.

ybrem

*Gandhiji's basis for joining the cow protection movement appears to be RELIGION. Different religions will come up with different demands, sometimes totally conflicting. E.g.: Hindus may want cow protection. Christians and Muslims may want cow slaughter, because it is their food. Some other parent may want to avoid singing National Anthem in schools, because it conflicts with his religious beliefs. Some other persons may want to come to public places with full burqas and refuse to take the veil off even when a physical verification of identity is necessary. Some other persons may want to carry knives with them everywhere, because it is their belief. Individualism will be good in individual affairs and socialism (not the economic variety of Marx with its limited scope) should be good in social affairs. Since it is not possible to have a common single religion, for social purposes, it cannot be basis for behaviors.

For that matter, even utility cannot be a basis for behaviors.

Example: If an old buffalo/camel/cow/yak or some other miltch animal becomes dry, should we slaughter it simply because economics and cost-benefit analyses show that an old dry miltch animal has become a cost-centre or expense centre. This utility-cessation -kill concept will work well in businesses, but not in humanities. Having drunk the miltch animal's breast milk for several years, a human cannot apply his knife on it or sell it to butchers. It will be like selling one's own mother to butchers.

*Ancient Indians of Mahabharata and Ramayana fame did not hesitate to consume beef both as a food item and sacrificial offering. Proof is available from Uttara Rama Charitra of Bhavabhuti, and Mahabharata itself. Whether they regarded cow as mother or not, they regarded cows as wealth on par with land. At what point of time in the history, they shifted to regard cow as mother and abhorring its slaughter, it is not clear. This shift may be to overcome the competition from Buddhism (a reform in India) or even not owing to. Reason: If non-violence and kindness to animals were the factors which influenced the shift, then compassion should have been shown on all animals, at least to start with miltch animals. This implies that same compassion and proective urges should ooze from minds for the protection of buffalos, camels, yaks, whose milk Indians drink.

ybrem

*The argument of Gandhiji, that those who revere cows, should abjure taking buffalo's milk is also not tenable. On the other hand, if somebody, regards cow as holy, then they should abjure taking cow's milk, because drawing cow's milk involves denying some milk intended for the calf. Rearing cows for their milk consumption, makes them objects of business and economics.

ybrem

Protecting animals - particularly the miltch animals- should not therefore, be based on RELIGION or UTILITY. It should be based on our compassion, gratitude and love to them. We owe our duty to look them after well till their natural death, even after their milk-cessation. But bearing the economic burden of miltch animals, poor owners cannot undertake. The Government/NGOs/philanthropists have to step-in to maintain old age homes for worn-out miltch and draught animals. Some cess/tax may be levied on large dairy farms and rich farmers to mobilise funds for the purpose. A small tax may be levied even on milk satchets and dairy products.

ybrem

Had Gandhiji supported 'MILTCH-ANIMAL PROTECTION' instead of 'cow-protection', Christians and Muslims might have understood his stance better. They, and even large sections of Hindus, might have resisted the idea, because it denies them their non-veg food. But anyway, such resistance will not have religious forebodings. It would not have contributed to the division of India on religious lines.

ybrem

Utility and Worship need not have any link, as Gandhiji seems to advocate when he says: 'You cannot apply to it the bare rule of utility. If we would prefer buffalo milk , then by and by the buffalo would become the object of worship and the cow would disappear, as she is fast disappearing.'

ybrem

I shall say like this: If we eat rice daily, rice has utility. Some people revere it calling it 'annam parabrahma swaroopam'. For a truly hungry person, annam is parabrahma swaroopam (form of the supreme formless almighty). Then, maize or wheat: Won't they be parabrahma swaroopams? All will become parabrahma swaroopams, not only rice. This supports my idea of treating buffaloes, camels, goats, yaks etc. on par with cows, for the purpose of protection.

*ybrem: I treat protection of plants and animals on equal footing. This is because: plants and fruits may also suffer pain when we use knives, but they may not be able to express it as audibly as animals which cry when we slaughter them. But the fact remains: Human beings cannot survive without applying knives to plants or animals. We cannot eat stones. Here, therefore, comes the concept of MODERATENESS or SOBERNESS. This means, simply because, we have licence to kill plants and animals for our food, does not mean that we should kill them without limits. The limit we get is our BARE SUBSISTENCE AND SURVIVAL. That means, we have to eat less, whether veg or non-veg. The quantity will depend on our age, health, calory needs and physical exertions etc. No hard and fast rules can be made out, Conscience of individuals becomes the best guide in self-restraint. This self-restraint will also reduce the incidence of diabetes and obesity. Yet, it is much easier said than done. I, myself, overate on several occasions and retraced my binges and indulgences later. Our nerves seem to dictate our indulgences much against our will, Tensions in our environment - say work tensions, business tensions, mutual influences of social circles, seem to force our nervous behaviors. Emancipation of the human will from the bewitching and intimidating sensations of the objects of desires, is an eternal philosophical strife, starting right from the days of Brahma, Yayati, Adam and Eve. This small blog piece does not allow me to analyse it in length.

ybrem

: Most successful persons were/are practical persons. They do not mind to compromise overtly or covertly. The compromises are not often visible to ardent devotees of the celebrities and heros.

This concept leads me to a deduction which may seem to be unreasonable to Gandhi lovers: Gandhiji, in supporting ban of cow-slaughter on religious basis, acted very practically. The religious-vegetarian lobby of Western India was very influential in terms of wealth. Gandhi needed donations and subscriptions for freedom movement as well as for his other campaigns. He also needed general support from veg-Hindus for his campaigns of Harijan upliftment and eradication of untouchability. He, therefore, seems to have traded his support to anti-cow-slaughter in exchange for support to his campaigns of eradication of untouchability. The problem with concealed or open compromises is, they do not help in getting lasting results. Gandhiji's engagement with the west Indian Gujarati Rajasthani veg--moneylending-business lobbies
have alienated him from the Muslim leaders and led to division of India. He also neglected Maharashtrian fundamentalist Hindu lobbies, who wanted him to address their grievance of his excess placating of Muslim fundamentalists. This led to his assassination in the hands of Maharashtrian caustic Hindus. It was true, that one cannot ride two or three horses at a time. At the same time, there is no bar, on avoiding horses, when their true nature is not known.



For that matter, even Abraham Lincoln and Lenin have compromised. But they did not live long to see how their compromises adversely affected their own movements. Had Lenin lived long, the power-mongers in the Russian hierarchy would have disposed him off, just as they had done with Trotsky. The industrial tycoons of the North American States would have ditched Lincoln, in spite of the benefit they got from the emancipated slaves as industrial labor. Chasing with hounds and running with hares cannot be undertaken at the same time or with short intervals.

GIST of ybrems:

Let us move towards the protection of all miltch animals, to start with. We can extend it to other animals and plants, with the help of new technologies, later.