Truth is always bitter to hear, it's a myth buster with a high pitch of materialistic view. Jolt of progressive thinking just passes through the minds of who ever reads this book.

Quiet an eye opener.
Hard to read as it reads like a phd thesis / research article rather than a book!! Go to last chapter to get a summary of the whole thesis.

The book deals with an issue which is of great relevance in our country today. Given the spate of lynchings, beatings and rioting being done in the name of the 'holy cow', the question of the cow's status in Hinduism and when it became 'Holy' assume importance. Has the cow been for all history been held as sacred by the Hindu religion and thus protected from being killed as food untill the muslim rulers came in and started killing 'our mother' as the Hindutva brigade would have you believe? When did the cow become holy and why? What protections did the Hindu religious texts offer the cow and what punishments did it prescribe for the abhorrent beef eaters? The book attempts to shed light on these and other related questions.

The book traces the consumption of beef from the early Aryan arrival in India as a semi nomadic people with a dominantly pastoral economy where beef was not just eaten, but considered as a food above all other, all the way to today's India, where the mere suspicion of having beef can get you and your family lynched. It talks about evidence in the vedas and the other holy books including the Rig veda, the Atharvaveda and the Manusmriti as well as other works including the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Charaka and Sushrutha Sanhithas of consumption of beef not just by the Muslims or the untouchables, but also and preferentially by the Brahmins.

It fittingly ends with one of Dr. Ambedkar's essays on Beef and its evolution from preferred food to a sin which is comparable to Brahmahatya, the most abhor able of practices. This is particularly welcome in light of the Hindutva brigade's attempts to water down Dr. Ambedkar's association with Buddhism and incorporate him into their folds.

While the book is informative and well researched and referenced, the writing style and the overall readability of the book is far from perfect. It seems to be written keeping in mind only the Indian Hindi/Sanskrit speaking reader and no explanation is provided either for some of the Hindi/Sanskrit phrases that he quotes from several sources, nor is the meanings of several customs such as the Ashwameda or the concept of twice born etc. been explained. For all its faults, it makes for an informative and undoubtedly interesting read.

3.5

The book does not live up to the potential offered by its captivating title. "The Myth of the Holy Cow" has no dearth of references and examples of animal sacrifice and non-vegetarianism from various holy books and legal scriptures of Hinduism. As I am unfamiliar with most of these referenced texts, I cannot vouch for the objectivity/lack of internal bias.

Where it fails terribly is in its structure. The first few chapters are bound to overwhelm lay readers with its scrambled excess of examples. The main argument this book puts forth is the claim for supremacy by Hindus over Buddhists in the society. Jha proposes that the concept of ahimsa (non-violence) towards all living entities preached by the Buddhists was gaining popularity, and they strongly condemned the pointless sacrifices by the Hindus, even when they allowed consumption of meat in practice. This in turn forced Hindus, especially Brahmins, to give up meat altogether and adopt vegetarianism for Hinduism to regain foothold as a revered religion. This argument, however interesting, is not central to the book as it should have been, and is only dealt with in the last few pages in a cursory fashion. Also, it fails to answer with certainty why and when the cow was anointed holy.

But do read it, for it presents intriguing examples and anecdotes of animal sacrifices and non-vegetarianism prevalent in the Vedic times, the central tenets of Budhhism and Jainism dealing with animals and treatment of animals, and of course, the ever contradictory injunctions in most (or all. Probably all) holy texts.

The issue of beef consumption is a pretty inflammatory and divisive topic in India currently. Mohammad Akhlaq, a Muslim, was killed by a mob in September 2015 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Da...) for allegations that he had kept beef in his refrigerator. The repercussions of this case are far-reaching. Laws against eating beef, especially meat from cows, have been included in Directive Principles of State Policy in India. Many states have passed laws prohibiting beef consumption.

India is a Hindu-majority (~80%), but secular country. States which have passed the above laws have done so due to the influence of Hindu organizations, most notablyt RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) and VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad). These organizations revere Cow as a goddess and therefore, advocate for the ban on beef.

So, amidst all these events, the central question is: What is the evidence for the claim that Hindus always revered Cow, and never ate beef? The answer, lucidly provided in this short but powerful book, is in negative. With considerable backing of sources including some of the holiest Hindu scriptures, the author demolishes this claim.

I cannot recommend this book more strongly to any Indian interested in knowing Hindus' "beefy" past :)

This is not a commentary on the beef politics in India, but a look back at the history of meat eating habits in ancient Indians that included apart from cows, at one point consumption of peacocks, leopards, bears...you name it! A must read in the climate of culinary lies that have recently deitified the cow.

A factual account of the history of meat (esp. beef) eating in India. Unbelievably true. How the Vedic brahmins had the 'privilege' getting to eat beef every day, how the issue is politicised and much more.

Must read for beef-haters and religious fundamentalists. All the more relevant now since MP govt banned and Karnataka govt plans to ban beef eating itself (earlier only cow slaughter was banned).

Written in 2002 , this book and the author had to face various hurdles before getting published.From the printers backing out for fear of facing the wrath of Hindu hardliners and months of legal wrangling.The problem - it repeats what scholars have known for a long time - early Hindus (including Brahmins) ate beef.
Thoroughly researched ,this book offers quotes from the Vedic texts to show how cow slaughter and consumption was quite common and how only in recent history has the cow been venerated.
The book goes on to destroy some cherished views of right wing political narratives which is why it irked them about this book in the first place
The sayings and beliefs of religious fundamentalists are often taken at face value. As fervent believers, they seem not to have any truck with rational politics. But it is important to realise how pathetically little they know about the religious and spiritual traditions that supposedly inform their political beliefs.An absolute must read for the times we live in.

This is a fascinating read. You can see from the extensive citations and references (including archaeological) that careful research has gone into this book to present the case, and that many scholars and academics both within and outside the Indian subcontinent are well aware that cows were sacrificed and eaten since Vedic times.

This book was written by the eminent Indian scholar and academic DN Jha. His first contracted publisher had cold feet and pulled out from publishing this book at the last moment, even as the book was at the printing press. When the book was eventually published in Indian in 2001 by a courageous Indian publisher (Matrix Books), the author received death threats. This current second edition of the book was published in London in 2009, and contains new materials encapsulated by the chapter at the end by BR Ambedkar, the first Minister of Law of post-independent India and who helped draft the Constitution of India.

DN Jha is a courageous man, and his book was written to dispel untruths, shine the light on reality, and promote a less hardline position so as to prevent sectarian strife. For this, I would have given this book and the author more than 5 stars if I could.

The Hindutva/Hindu fundamentalist/Hindu nationalist movement has been gaining momentum for decades, and especially in the recent years. Fundamentalists claim that the sacredness of the cow is a Hindu communal identity, and that this has existed since Vedic times in India. They also claim that Muslims brought cow killing and beef eating habits into India, thus pitting Hindu against Muslims in yet another area of contention.

DN Jha has shown that this is not true - that sacrificial slaughtering of cows and the eating of beef has existed from the Vedic period to las late as the 18th Century in parts of India. This is evident from literature that the Hindus hold as sacred - no less than the Rigveda, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Law of Manu (which talks specifically about what food is permissable or not), as well as ancient medical texts which recommended beef for curative purposes (eg cooking beef with pomegranate to cure fever).

The Rigveda is replete with incidences of animal sacrifices which includes cow. And mentioned how certain Vedic gods such as Indra has a special fondness for beef. In the Mahabharata, 2000 cows were killed a day for King Rantideva, till the blood formed a river called Carmanvati. And in the Ramayana, there were many references to killing animals including the sacrifice of cows.

Archaeological evidence from ancient and medieval sites also show cattle bones that were cut and burned, pointing to how the animals died and how they were treated after - they were slaughtered and also cooked/roasted. Observations from Chinese and Persian travellers namely, Xuanzang and Alberuni were also cited.

I am aware that Vedic literature came from the eastern branch of the Indo-European people, the Aryans, who migrated to north-western India. They came after the Harappan Civilisation had waned, when the the people of the Harappan culture moved east and south of India. The Aryans were semi-nomadic people, with clear social division of 4 castes or "vadas", with the Brahmins at the top of the hierarchy. Sacrificial practises, led by Brahmins, was a key aspect of social and religious life. So when this book mentioned that animal sacrifices (including that of cows), as well as meat eating (including beef), was a feature of their culture - I was not surprised. They were semi-nomadic people after all - a people with a nomadic past and who were just starting to be a bit more agrarian and settled.

This is the same position held by BR Ambedkar, who cited evidences eg from the Rigveda where cow sacrifices and beef eating habits were mentioned many times. He emphasised that this is well-known and well-researched among scholars.

In an interview in 2018, and also mentioned in this book, DH Jha pointed out that for all the sacred status claimed for the cow, there is not a single temple across India which is dedicated to the cow. I never realised that!

I also enjoy reading the short article included at the end of the book by BR Ambedkar. This chapter called "Untouchability and the Sacred Cow" was extracted from his 1948 book "The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why Did They Become Untouchables?" His point was that India is divided broadly into 3 groups according to dietary habits - vegetarians, meat eaters (not beef) and meat eaters who eat beef. This corresponds roughly with the 3 main groups in society- Brahmins, non-Brahmins and the Untouchables (who eat beef). The Dalits, or the Untouchables, are beef eating as they were often given the left-over dead cow which no one wanted (apparently "fresh" cows were needed by the Brahmins). Hence, when cow sacrifices and beef eating became unpopular, apparently the Dalits were first blamed for beef eating and treated as "unclean".

He goes through a process of elimination of various hypothesis, and said that the most plausible reason why Brahmins became vegetarians was the rivalry with Buddhism. That while Buddhists are not strict vegetarians, Brahmins wanted to "one up them". The rivalry between competing religion and religious groups since the time of the Buddha is well known, such as among the Buddhists, the Jains, the Ajivikas and the Brahmins. Buddhism was enjoying popularity, and while Buddhists do eat meat but generally frown on animal sacrifices. During King Asoka's reign, he discouraged animal sacrifices and encouraged kindness to all animals (although he never forbade the slaughter of specific animals aka the cow). I learned by Johannes Bronkhurst's book "Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism" that this adversely impacted the Brahmin's livelihoods and position in society and that they felt compelled to reinvent themselves to regain lost ground. So this position is plausible.

I read some of the readers' reviews before reading this book. And I noticed that some reviewers, while they find the book very interesting, well-researched and convincing, are very cautious in their approach. One even declared upfront at the start of his review that he is a vegetarian, and asked others not to jump at him. Why is that so? It is clear that there are many who would. There is fear.

But I think we need to understand that Hinduism is not Vedic Brahmanism. Hinduism has absorbed and transformed so much over 2000 years over a very large geographical area. Even Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Som and Agni (who apparently have Greek and Roman equivalents) are not as central today as Puranic gods such as Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu -which were absorbed into the Hindu pantheon later. Hinduism is not a monolithic whole. And it is not something that remained static from Vedic times. Same for all cultures and religion.

I am not too clear why the cow in particular became sacred over time. It was not dealt more extensively by both DN Jha or Ambedkar. Apparently one positions is that the age of Kali had something to do with this - as it was later considered not good to kill a cow during the age of Kali. Some say it was because people became more settled and agrarian and there was less need to kill or eat cows. Another reason cited was the the products of the cows has always been seen as purifying and may have thus evolved to something sacred. But it is still not very clear to me.

I feel we should read this with an open mind. If we are seekers of truth then we should be open, and objective, and not cling too much to a position but be open to possibilities. We need also to respect those who feel that the cow is sacred. Which I feel, is good for the cow! Less animal slaughter and more kindness. But can kindness also be extended to other animals? Or to other humans? I am just throwing these questions out. Because I am also "guilty" of contradictions - I will not eat a dog or a cat because I keep them as pets. But why so I eat chicken and fish - why am I being discriminatory?

I remember my Dhamma teacher, a monk, once told me that over time, I may naturally be less inclined to eat meat because as I progress in my spiritual path, I might be naturally more inclined to practise non-harming. But he cautioned with an important point - there is no point being a purist and so strict about being a vegetarian, yet remain an unkind person who treat others poorly and cruelly!

So, I think that whatever position we take, kindness and balance is important. It is our greatest protection for the next life - whether in a heavenly or earthly realm. Even Buddha taught his monks thus - if someone criticises or disparates him, his teachings or the sangha, we are not to become upset. But just point out what is true or untrue/correct or wrong. Same if someone praises the Buddha, Dhamma or the Sangha - do not be elated. Just point out what is true or untrue/correct or wrong.

Peace to all.

Clear references to he current scenario. It clearly explains the fact that Jains, Brahmins, Buddhists ate beef. Lots of historical incidents covered including Ramayana and Mahabharata. Ma must read to know the truth.

Let's give the credit where it deserves. The book is an overwhelming encyclopedic compilation of various cow mentions in the Hindu, Buddhist/Jain texts and scriptures- right from its treatment, usage for sacrificial or other purposes, comparison with other animals, Mahaveera or Gautama's alleged comments or treatment of cow, to its downright butchering technique.

But where the book terribly fails is when it tries to judge dietary preferences of Hindus by only these texts. It runs on the popular eurocentric idea that Hindus started as Aryans invading India on their horses, butchering and sacrificing people and animals at the drop of a hat. It completely ignores the vast spiritual texts in Hinduism and doesn't even attempt to connect its translated version of cow practices to some kind of logic or possible alternate translation.

Continuing with the eurocentric idea, it goes on to prove that only until Buddhism and Jainism came along, did Hindus started treating their cow as holy. It is naive to expect that Hindus loved their cow since eternity or could've never butchered or have eaten it but it is also equally naive to satirize a particular religion considering few of its texts in silos. If that was the case, imagine people of the 30th century having a worldwide view about the present world based on our beef cookbooks. Wow, we would look some nasty beef butchers, wouldn't we?

The sheer breadth of the references is something! A well-presented account of how various available sources show that meat has been a part of the Indian diet forever including beef. It touches on possible reasons for conversion to vegetarianism in certain parts of the society though I would love to read more about that.