A brief summary...
When I got selected for the Indian Foreign Services in 1971, my father had me take oath that I would never eat beef, as he was worried that I might start doing so, abroad. So important was this for him. I am reminded of that, and surprised to read, that the articles of Prof D N Jha in Hindustan Times, and essays on allahuakbar dot net, quate none less than the richas from Rigveda to support beef eating.
...
Then he explains, quoting several passages, how cow is treated in Rigveda. One of the quotes say, 'she is the mother of rudras, and daughter of vasus, and house of nectar'. At least 16 richas refer to cow as aghanya - 'one not to be hurt'. 8 richas are in context of prayers directy addressed to the cow, and 24 to rishabh (bull). At least 7 richas are praying to agnidev, in context that 'may the meat-eater rakshasa be destroyed'. etc etc...
Then, with examples, he goes into the 'hows' and 'whys' of mistranslations being possible.
He explains how British from East India Company days itself, had taken pains to mistranslate and make available those translations, to destroy the sanctity of cow and other symbols. British hired Max Muller in 1847 at a very high salary of 200 pounds per year, whereas the running average salary was 70/90 pounds per annum.
He mentions that the first Sanskrit-English dictionary was developed by one Pandit Taranath of Calcutta Sanskrit College, in the year 1866. This 6-volume dictionary called Vachaspatyam, is in vogue amongst scholars till date. This dictionary gives meaning of the word Godhan/Gohan as 'slayer of the cow' (and several other mistranslations). This is in complete contrast to the explaination Panini gives, according to which the same word means 'a guest who receives gift of the cow'. The other contemporary work by Swami Prakashanand Saraswati derived the same meaning. So the question is, howcome Pandit Taranath derived this (and other) meanings completely contradicting to Panini? He says the British had paid Rs 10,000 (equal to Rs 2 million of today) in addition to purchasing 200 copies of the dictionary in advance. So this explains the crooked dictionary on which the modern scholars rely. Jha has ignored Panini and followed Taranath. He explains other foundational issues related to translations.
He then comes to criticising Jha (and Thapar), by using some of their quotations. Also quotes from Mahabharat, and Shatpath Brahman to show why they are wrong.
Next he comes to the muslim question and says that this is a myth that cow-slaughter is a must for muslims. He says during Mughal era, cow was generally respected. Babar has written in his will to Humayun, to ban cow slaughter. It was so, during Akbar's time. EVen aurangzeb was a vegetarian, he says, and used Gangajal for his daily use. (I am not sure about these)
In 1919 at Amritsar, Muslim League had paqssed a resolution to not slaugher cows during Bakrid. On Feb 3, 2004, Indian Express reported that ulema of Darul Uloom, said they are trying to make muslims give up the cow slaughter. A day before, Jamayate Ulemaehind also appealed to muslims to give up cow slaughter as it is respected by Hindus.
Then he further goes into Ayurveda and modern medical opinions to explain about the importance of cow.
He concludes saying he thinks that it is upto the people to decide, whether they justify beef-eating due to some inferiority complex and in the name of progressivism and modernism.
When I got selected for the Indian Foreign Services in 1971, my father had me take oath that I would never eat beef, as he was worried that I might start doing so, abroad. So important was this for him. I am reminded of that, and surprised to read, that the articles of Prof D N Jha in Hindustan Times, and essays on allahuakbar dot net, quate none less than the richas from Rigveda to support beef eating.
...
Then he explains, quoting several passages, how cow is treated in Rigveda. One of the quotes say, 'she is the mother of rudras, and daughter of vasus, and house of nectar'. At least 16 richas refer to cow as aghanya - 'one not to be hurt'. 8 richas are in context of prayers directy addressed to the cow, and 24 to rishabh (bull). At least 7 richas are praying to agnidev, in context that 'may the meat-eater rakshasa be destroyed'. etc etc...
Then, with examples, he goes into the 'hows' and 'whys' of mistranslations being possible.
He explains how British from East India Company days itself, had taken pains to mistranslate and make available those translations, to destroy the sanctity of cow and other symbols. British hired Max Muller in 1847 at a very high salary of 200 pounds per year, whereas the running average salary was 70/90 pounds per annum.
He mentions that the first Sanskrit-English dictionary was developed by one Pandit Taranath of Calcutta Sanskrit College, in the year 1866. This 6-volume dictionary called Vachaspatyam, is in vogue amongst scholars till date. This dictionary gives meaning of the word Godhan/Gohan as 'slayer of the cow' (and several other mistranslations). This is in complete contrast to the explaination Panini gives, according to which the same word means 'a guest who receives gift of the cow'. The other contemporary work by Swami Prakashanand Saraswati derived the same meaning. So the question is, howcome Pandit Taranath derived this (and other) meanings completely contradicting to Panini? He says the British had paid Rs 10,000 (equal to Rs 2 million of today) in addition to purchasing 200 copies of the dictionary in advance. So this explains the crooked dictionary on which the modern scholars rely. Jha has ignored Panini and followed Taranath. He explains other foundational issues related to translations.
He then comes to criticising Jha (and Thapar), by using some of their quotations. Also quotes from Mahabharat, and Shatpath Brahman to show why they are wrong.
Next he comes to the muslim question and says that this is a myth that cow-slaughter is a must for muslims. He says during Mughal era, cow was generally respected. Babar has written in his will to Humayun, to ban cow slaughter. It was so, during Akbar's time. EVen aurangzeb was a vegetarian, he says, and used Gangajal for his daily use. (I am not sure about these)
In 1919 at Amritsar, Muslim League had paqssed a resolution to not slaugher cows during Bakrid. On Feb 3, 2004, Indian Express reported that ulema of Darul Uloom, said they are trying to make muslims give up the cow slaughter. A day before, Jamayate Ulemaehind also appealed to muslims to give up cow slaughter as it is respected by Hindus.
Then he further goes into Ayurveda and modern medical opinions to explain about the importance of cow.
He concludes saying he thinks that it is upto the people to decide, whether they justify beef-eating due to some inferiority complex and in the name of progressivism and modernism.