Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India (45 page)

Madan Mohan Malaviya, a reluctant writer as Poddar used to complain, wrote a long article that relied heavily on the reports of various committees and commissions set up by the colonial government.
²⁰
His blueprint for protecting cows was also entirely economic in nature. He recommended popularization of mixed farming in which the cow played an important role, and incentives to farmers to keep more than one cow and ox. In densely populated cities Malaviya wanted government to encourage people to establish cooperative dairies and designate areas on city outskirts for this purpose. Each district, he said, should have committees to look after fodder and grazing areas for cattle. A movement should be launched in the country with a slogan ‘Produce More, Have More’
.

Astute businessman and conservative politician Purshottamdas Thakurdas regretted that excessive communal conflict was coming in the way of an amicable solution to cow slaughter. He asked atheists and non-Hindus to at least protect the cow for her economic worth, if not for religious and ritualistic reasons.
²¹

Rajendra Prasad called for a more scientific approach towards the breeding of cows, provision of extra pasturelands, improvement in agriculture techniques, and most importantly not allowing obscurantism to come in the way of extracting the most from body parts—skin, flesh, bones—of dead cows.
²²

For Gita Press an important aspect of secularizing the cow debate was to establish that eating beef did not have the sanction of Islam. Dharam Lal Singh claimed that
Sur-e-Baqr
, the second chapter of the Quran contained rich details about cow worship in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Muslim states.
²³
In wide-ranging extracts from different Islamic texts, Singh argued that Prophet Muhammad was kind-hearted and did not hurt any creature; in fact, there were various instances in his life when he saved animals from harm. Singh cited
Sur-
e-Haj
that stated, ‘Allah does not want animal blood and flesh in sacrifice; He wants your piety.’ Turning to the long period of Muslim rulers in India, Singh maintained they had respected the sensibilities of Hindus and discouraged cow slaughter. He reproduced a decree of 5 June 1593 from Akbar’s reign that barred residents of Mathura and adjoining areas from hunting peacocks and disturbing cows in pastureland.

Separately, the
Gau Ank
carried a small piece from Major Charles Stuart’s translation of the reminiscences of Zohar, a servant of Humayun.
²⁴
Zohar wrote how once, during his journey to Iran, Humayun did not get anything to eat. During the night halt, Humayun discovered his stepbrother Kamran and his mother camping nearby and sent his staff to fetch some food from them. The food consisted of vegetables and meat. Humayun had doubts about the meat, and when he found out it was beef, said, ‘Oh Kamran, is this the way to fill your stomach? You feed the same meat to your holy mother. Now you are incapable of getting four goats for your mother.’ Zohar said Humayun did not touch the food and retired after having a glass of sherbet
.

Maulana Kabil Saheb made a case for cow protection, stressing that the entire issue must be looked at from a non-religious perspective—from the point of livelihood, economic prosperity, politics and national progress, as the cow formed the backbone of agriculture.
²⁵
He pointed out that the country could progress if Hindus and Muslims were united. The Maulana said Muslim rulers of India had understood this need for unity and taken steps to save cows. ‘There is no other subject more important than cow protection to bring Hindus and Muslims on the same platform.’ He specifically told Muslims that the Quran did not mention eating of beef, and said that Sufis did not touch beef. To the Hindus, the Maulana’s appeal was to respect Muslims who were part of the cow-protection movement and not taunt them on religious grounds.

In July 1947,
Kalyan
appealed to its readers to send telegrams to Rajendra Prasad, president of the Constituent Assembly, demanding that the first law of the Indian Union should be that ‘in no circumstance would a single cow be slaughtered’
.
²⁶
Readers were reminded that ‘cow protection alone could save life and religion since the cow is the life of the Indian nation’
.
Newspapers were asked to be part of the cow- protection movement.

Popularizing ghee as a cooking medium that promised to make a person satvik (pure) was central to the cow protection debate. The first threat it faced was from the large-scale production of hydrogenated vegetable oil or vanaspati that was cheaper; provincial governments were giving incentives to entrepreneurs for setting up vanaspati units.
Kalyan
called vanaspati a ‘sweet poison scientifically proven to be a source of indigestion, constipation, impotence and several ailments’
.
²⁷
Reporting that Gandhi, who was ‘till recently opposed to vanaspati’, had asked for suspension of the agitation against the new cooking medium,
Kalyan
said, ‘if it is true one does not know the mystery behind it’
.

However, Gandhi was consistently critical of vanaspati. As late as April 1946, he agreed with Sir Datar Singh, who was also an active member of the Goseva Sangh, on the superiority of ghee. Gandhi summarized Singh’s article for wider dissemination. Vanaspati, he said, is a ‘poor substitute for
ghee
’ but ‘due to the great margin of profit in this industry [its production] has developed from 26 thousand tons per annum in 1937 to 105 thousand tons in 1943’
.
²⁸
Such rapid growth of the vanaspati industry, Gandhi feared, ‘will not only adversely affect the welfare of the cultivators, but will have a deleterious effect on the cattle industry upon which the prosperity of the whole nation directly depends’
.
Gandhi suggested that if manufacture of vanaspati could not be banned, at least it should be strictly controlled by immediately bringing it under a licence regime.

By 1950,
Kalyan
would become the vehicle for the anti-vanaspati lobby to campaign in favour of a bill brought by Thakurdas Bhargava, a Congress leader, seeking a ban on the vegetable oil business.
²⁹
The spirited campaign had more than a fair sprinkling of experts and scientists taking sides. After scientist Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar endorsed it, it became tough for the anti-vanaspati lobby to denounce a cooking medium they had alleged was made from animal fat. Equally tough to deal with were allegations that those who opposed vegetable oil were anti-poor and pro-rich. In his editorial comment appended to an article, Poddar said the vegetable oil lobby had earmarked Rs 700,000 for the campaign to fool the people, and alleged that vanaspati consumers were being asked to sign in favour of vegetable oil, extolling its nutritional value.

On 10 August 1947, five days before Independence, Gita Press and other Hindu conservative bodies were busy organizing an anti-cow-slaughter day throughout the country.
³⁰
Baba Raghav Das claimed that 400,000 letters had been sent to the chairperson of the legislative council, demanding a comprehensive law totally banning cow slaughter. He also boasted of the inclusive nature of the movement—sarvajatiya (all castes), sarvaprantiya (all provinces)—and exhorted readers not to give up till the demand was met. Raghav Das said pressure should be put on local bodies—assembly, council, district board, municipal board, cantonment board, etc.—as well as legislative bodies to make cow slaughter illegal. Three politicians, Rajendra Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, were to be sent letters and telegrams. Hindus were asked to canvas for support especially from Sikhs, Muslims, Parsis and Christians.

In the early months of freedom, cow protection made slow and steady progress, widening the circle of supporters by reaching out to Congress leaders and industrialists. The idea was to influence the Constituent Assembly that had recently started working on the Constitution of India. The initiative was taken by Poddar’s close friend of many decades, Ram Krishna Dalmia, ‘an orthodox Hindu industrialist of great wealth’,
³¹
who set up the Gaubadh Nivarani Sabha. However, the campaign for a law banning cow slaughter had not evoked all-round support from the Hindu members of provincial legislative assemblies and legislative councils. In the opinion of Gita Press, the main cause of their reluctance was Gandhi’s opposition to a ban through a law. The rift between Gita Press and Gandhi was fast widening;
Kalyan
said many of the political leaders who opposed the ban were Gandhi bhakts, and they followed a general policy not to oppose him, besides lacking the courage to do so.
³²

After a mammoth meeting on cow protection organized by Ram Krishna Dalmia, a delegation consisting of Jayantilal Mankar of the Bombay Humanitarian League, Baba Raghav Das, Hanuman Prasad Poddar, Lala Hardev Sahay, Jaidayal Dalmia and Ram Narsingh met Dr Rajendra Prasad with the demand to make the ban on cow slaughter a fundamental right just as Sikhs had been given the fundamental right to carry the kirpan. A committee was formed to look into the matter but ultimately the demand was rejected.
³³

Nevertheless, Gita Press persisted. Various proposals that could be made a part of the final draft of the constitution were collated to present a united Hindu view on the issue of cow protection. An interesting mix of personalities like Congressmen Seth Govind Das, Thakurdas Bhargava, Sardar Jaydev Singh, Shibban Lal Saksena, R.V. Dhulekar and Nihal Singh Takshak gave written submissions to
Kalyan.

During the Constituent Assembly debates, Thakurdas Bhargava proposed that the ban on cow slaughter be made a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Though his argument that the ban was needed as the cow was central to ‘agriculture economics’
³⁴
did not convince many members of the Constituent Assembly, who felt religion was the real reason behind the demand, ultimately Bhargava’s amendment to the draft constitution was accepted and prohibition of cow slaughter was included in the Directive Principles. Article 48 of the Constitution reads thus: ‘The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.’ However, this merely meant that cow protection became a guiding principle of public policy; it could not be enforced in a court of law.

Gita Press stepped up the pressure on the government, especially against the model bill on cow slaughter that was sent to the states. A specific provision in the model bill that used the terms ‘useful’ and ‘not useful’ when referring to cows attracted the wrath of Gita Press and the All India Gosevak Samaj.
³⁵
The bill allowed slaughter of cows above the age of fourteen and those that could not conceive. Endorsing an editorial in the orthodox
Sanmarg
,
Kalyan
asked, if this was the treatment to be meted out to old cows, would the same be done to old people who had ceased to be useful? Another objectionable provision in the model bill allowed cow slaughter for religious, medicinal and research purposes. A statement from Hardev Sahay, secretary, All India Gosevak Samaj, dismissed the arguments for such provision and called on the government to learn from Muslim rulers who had completely banned cow slaughter—even Aurangzeb had banned the killing of cows.

Gita Press realized the battle needed to now involve readers in protests. When news came of the setting up of a brand new slaughterhouse in Bombay, Poddar immediately requested readers to join the protest.
³⁶
He reminded them of how, during the British rule, a proposal to build slaughterhouses in Punjab and Sindh had to be shelved because of protests led by Madan Mohan Malaviya.

Keeping a keen watch on government action on the cow front, Poddar had news for his readers in December 1949. After the devaluation of the Indian rupee, a committee had been set up to suggest measures to increase exports. The committee, on finding a gradual decline in leather extraction business, had recommended that the ban on cow slaughter imposed by a few provincial governments should be lifted. Poddar said the leather extraction business was at the core of cow slaughter; in 1940 alone, 52,700,000 cows had been slaughtered. He reminded politicians in power about their promise of a complete ban on cow killings in free India, and made an impassioned plea to readers: ‘If Hindus are left with any sense of national interest and religiosity, they should protest this unethical move. I also request eminent journalists to protest against the proposal to set up a new slaughterhouse and lift the ban imposed by many provincial governments.’
³⁷

For the cow-protection movement, the years from the 1950s to mid-1960s were quiet ones but no less intense as the battle was fought in legislatures and the Supreme Court. It appeared that the cow protectionists had the upper hand. Much to the discomfiture of Nehru, who ‘was prepared to stake his prime ministership on this issue’,
³⁸
the Congress-ruled state governments of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh banned cow slaughter. In 1954, while the Central government’s Expert Committee on the Prevention of Slaughter of Cattle in India concluded that ‘a total ban on slaughter of all cattle would not be in the best interests of the country’, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on slaughter of cows by the four state governments.
³⁹
However, the apex court allowed slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes as well as sheep and goats.