Pal, Amarnath - The Sacred Cow in India - A Reappraisal

8/13/2019 Pal, Amarnath - The Sacred Cow in India - A Reappraisal

1/11

Indian nthropological ssociation

The Sacred Cow in India : A ReappraisalAuthor(s): Amar Nath PalSource: Indian Anthropologist, Vol. 26, No. 2 (December, 1996), pp. 53-62Published by: Indian Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41919804.

Accessed: 21/01/2014 09:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Indian Anthropological Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Indian Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 94.26.23.157 on Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:08:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=indanthassochttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41919804?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41919804?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=indanthassoc


2/11

Indian nthropologist1996)26 : 2 ,53-62

The Sacred Cow in India : A Reappraisal

Amar Nath Pal

IntroductionThe doctrine f thesanctity f the cow is regarded s one of thedominantymbols epresentingheHindu ulture. he Hindusplacethe owson a levelhigherhan ther nimals ndassign glorifiederm o-matacow-

mother). hisprohibitshevery ctsofcow-slaughterndconsequentlyeefeating oo. The Indian sacredcow has become a highly ebated ndwidelyacclaimed opic hat ets mmenseopularitymong he cholars rom numberofdisciplines, amely, nthropology,ociology, conomics, tc. The variousdiscourses y cholars n the rigin f this deaof sacred ow is debatable sit s still controversialssue.Thispaper ntendso recordheways n which hecow has beenplaced in the annalsof Indianhistory.t discussesbrieflyhetheoretical ontroversiesbout theorigin f thiscultural rait nd seeks toidentifyheir imitations.t concludeswith n attemptoprovide possiblesolution f the acred ow dilemma.Historical background

The historical ecords evealampleevidences f thecattle n Indiansubcontinent.round 000 B.C. in the ndusvalley, hebulls mong ll animalswere used for acredpurposesBasham,1954). In thefollowingVedicage2,cattlewere ofgreater mportance. he hymns fRig Veda3mention everalspecializedwords odistinguisharious ypes f cattle.ThroughoutheVedicperiod, attlewere a sourceof foodand a measure fwealth Brown,1964;Kosambi,1970). In the aterpart f Vedicage,therewas a popular ustom fkilling bigox to feeda distinguisheduestforhishonourPrakash, 961).Even the acrificial riestwas rewardedwith attleforrenderingis serviceAMARNATH AL,U.G.C.Fellow,epartmentf Anthropology,niversityfCalcutta,35,Ballygungeircularoad, alcutta700019.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/11

54 THE ACREDOW(Basham,1954).To theVedicpeoplethemportancefcattlewas notmerelyneconomic ne. t had a significantole n ritual erformances.acrificewasthecornerstonef theVedic rituals. attlewerethechief acrificial bjectsandtheir roductsikemilk, hee butteril), etc. wereoffereds oblation o theVedic deities Brown 1964; Lodrick1981). On thewhole,thedoctrine fahimsa orspecialsanctitynthe ow wasabsent ntheVedic iteraturexceptat tsvery ndwhen tappearednonly hebarestmannerBrown1964).Thetextual eferenceo thedoctrinef ahimsaappearedfirstn the ChandogyaUpanishad5This periodwas marked ythedisappearance f theold Vedictradition. he centuriesollowingheUpanishadic ge favouredhedoctrinemainlyn Brahmanicalircles. ccordingoSutras,heBrahmins ere nchargeof acrificingnimals. uring he eriod recedinghe mergencefBuddhismandJainism,nimalkillingswererestrictedotheextent fhonouring uestsand for eity fferingsPrakash, 961).

With he nceptionf Buddhism nd Jainismn the seventh enturyB.C. came the doctrine f ahimsa in its fullestmanner. oth thereligioustraditionsoseda fundamentalppositiongainstBrahmanicalacrifice. ordBuddha,in particular, ad antipathyo animal sacrificewhereasJainismimposed urtherigiditynit.During heMaury period,mperor soka 304-232 B.C.) became adherento thedoctrine f ahimsaand madeBuddhism nimperial eligion.He set theexampleof vegetarianismn his ownpalace,curtailingheroyalhousehold's onsumptionf meatalmost o a vanishingpointKosambi 1970).A revival fBrahmarismollowedwith he ise fSungaDynastyn185-72B.C. From he hirdentry.C. tothefourthentury.D.,the ealposition fthe oncept f himsawasnot lear s the lassical exts iz.theBhagavataGita ,Manusmritiand theArthasastraremained quivocaland ambivalent n this ssue Brown,1964).From hethirdentury .D., theconsumptionf beefwasdiscouragedndfinallyttook he hapeof taboobytheKrishna ult fVaishnavism9hich lsostartedt the ametimeLai 1967).Vaishnavism rtheKrishna ultremained ormantor ome centuries.t wasrevivednthe 15th enturyythe ppearance fVaishnav oets nd aints,ndalso thetranslationf BhagwatPurana intoHindi.As theKrishna egendappealed o the ommonman n ndia,Krishna'sowbecame he ow-motherfeveryHindu Lai 1967).

After he stablishmentf theMuslimregimenIndia, omeMuslimrulershowed espectowards he ows as reconciliation ith heHindusParel1 69).They, s a matterf tatesmanship,romulgatedntislaughteregislation.Babar 1483-1530)had ssued farman orbiddingowslaughter.kbar1542-1605)made njunctionsgainst he laughterfcow.During he17th entury,thegreatMaratha ulet hivaji 1627-1680)usedcowsymbolicallyor oliticalpurpose. heprotectionfcowgavehim hepopular upportor isopposition



4/11

Indian nthropologist1996)26 : 2 55totheMuslim ule.Cowwas also usedas thepolitical ymbol uringhe ndiannationalist ovement.ayanandaSaraswati etup Gorakhshiniabha (CowProtection ociety) in 1882 and made cow protection s an importantcomponentfhisconcept f ndian olidarity.al Gangadhar lakstartedheShivajifestival nd made thecow symbol n integral art f it. Thepoliticalsymbol f cow becamea rallying ointforHinduresistancegainstboth heMuslims nd theBritish ince hey rebeef aters.MahatmaGandhi lso spokemany imesn favour f cowsas an inseparabletemwithin induism. ut henever ncited heHindus gainst hebeef aterMuslims.Gandhimost robablydid notsupport ayananda' Gorakhshiniabha Forhim, he termRakshaimplies egative,nti-Muslimndaggressiveonnotation.nstead, efoundedGoSevaSangh Cow Service ociety) n1924. ndoing o,he tried okeeptheHindus wayfrom heviolentlynti-Muslimorakhshiniabhas Parel,1969).In theConstitutionf India, Gandhi's vision came under the DirectivePrinciples f theStatePolicy Article 8). In 1952,the CentralCouncil ofGosamvardhanaCentral ouncilof Cattle mprovement)as setupto fastentraditionalindufeelings or he owwithmodernoncept fcattlebreedingand care.The holiness fcow and ts mportancen India'seconomy ave edmost f the tatesn ndiato enact egislationntheban ofcowslaughter.TheoreticalControversy

A considerablemount fdisagreementxistsamongthe scholarsover heorigin f the acred ow in ndia.A closer xaminationf all theoriessuggestshathesemainly allunder wodifferentines fthought.neassumesa purely lassical approachwhich sees thesanctity f cow as religiouslydeterminedhile he therakes nopposite iewbyrelatingtwith he echno-environmentalactors. heproponentsfclassical pproachreofopinion hatthe attle opulations surplusnd tresults rom he ct of himsa.Accordingtotechno-environmentalists,hepresent aycattlepopulations in hrmonywithnature; ence hepopulationize,througharge, s not urplus.Classical Approach

Afternalyzinghe lassicaltexts, rown1964) refershe acred owconcept s being rimarilyeligiousnorigin. e identifies constellationf atleastfive lements,mainly eligiousnnature,s contributingo the mergenceof these oncepts. heseare- theroleof cattlenVedicritual; hefigurativeuse ofwordsfor he cow in the Vedic iteraturend their ubsequentiteralinterpretation;rohibitionsn the Vedasagainstviolations f the Brahmin'scows;the ssociation fthe owwith hemother oddess ult; ndthe himsaconcept. fthese, himsawas ofutmostmportancend tgainedground romabout he5th entury.C. to4th entury.D.



5/11

56 THE ACRED OWDandekar 1964, 1969a) assertsthat he bullocks are essentialforploughingnIndia andcows arekept hiefly or roducing oung ullocksnorder omaintain ullock tock.Consideringheprevailing echnologyndinstitutionalrrangementsn agriculture,e arguesthat hepresent ullockpopulations verymuchneededwhiletheexistence f largenumber f cowsseems to be unjustified.n terms f bullock-replacement,e calculates hatIndia had 43.50% surplus ows in 1961. This huge surplus esults rom heHindu entimento the ow.Heston 1 71 , applyinghe ameprinciplesfDandekar,hows hatn

the tate fUttar radesh, resentdult ovinemalepopulationf72.5millionswould equire ortsmaintenancenly 4millions reedingemales s opposedto the ctual54 millions. herefore,he urplus emales 30 millions. e findshigher roportionf cow indistricts aving redominantlyindupopulationthandistricts ominated yMuslims. Similarresults re obtainedwhenhecompares arts fEastPakistanwith ssamandWestBengal,West unjab ndEastPunjab, nd SindwithRajasthan ndGujarat.He remarks hat heHindureligion oes lead tounusuallyargeholdings ffemale attle.Misra 1973) observes hat he urplus ovines nIndia datesbackatleast o the19th entury. ccordingohim, ovines re ndeed urplustpresentas itwas before.He works uttheextent fsurplusow at19.37%bytakingcalving nterval f 2.4 years.His conclusion s similar o that f Dandekar,Heston nd others.Lodrick1979) explores he mpact freligion n cattle opulationnurban situation,thus eliminating he agriculturalvariables. The twoneighbouringistrictsone is predominantlyinduand otherMuslim)werechosen or he urpose. issamples how hatheMuslims eep nlybuffaloes,not owsatall,while heHindus o favour ow overbuffaloy ratio f lmost4 to 1. He opinesthat hepredominancef cow among heHindus ppears oreflectreligious referenceor he ow,whereas heMuslim referenceor hebuffalos based on economic onsiderationthe uperiorityf thebuffalo s amilk nimalunder ocal conditions.Freed ndFreed 1972; 1981), nexplaininghe nfluencefreligionon thedemographyfcattle,made a diachronicmicro-leveltudy t a villagelevel. n the1950s, hevillage gricultureastotally ependentnbullocks.n1958-59, herewere95 bullocks nd 47 cows nthevillage.Adoptingheratioof 1cow to 3 bullocks rom eston 1971), they avefound ut that bout32cows would have been sufficientomaintainheexisting tockof bullocks,leaving surplusf about15 cows or47% (Freed ndFreed1972).From1958-59 to 1977-78, hemajor echno-environmentalhangewas the ntroductionftractoror gricultureperation.s a result,henumberfbullocks asreduced.In 1977-78, herewereonly12 bullocks nd47 cows. In terms fbullock-



6/11

Indian nthropologist1996)26 : 2 57replacement,nly bout cows wouldhavebeenrequired,eaving surplus f43 cows.Notonlythe ows appear o be surplusnboth heperiods, hey realso uneconomic ecause he attle ensus how hathebuffalo,ot he ow, sthe nimal fchoicefor he roductionfmilk, hee nddung. hus he echno-environmentalunctionor he resencefmost f he owshasbeen liminatedand their xistences ascribed othereligious enerationfcows (FreedandFreed,1981).Techno-EnvironmentalApproach

Harris1966) explains he ntire attle omplex f ndia necologicalterms.He addresses attlemanagement olicies as positivefunctionedndprobablydaptiveprocessoftheecologicalsystem f which hey re a part,ratherhan he nfluencefHindu heology.hesanctityfcow, sheconsiders,appearsto be an identityftheHindus. t derivesmeaning rom cologicalregularitiesn ndia. t s a naive tatementince ndiawas never single nifiedecological ntity,athert sa cultural nityDiener,Nonini ndRobkin, 978).According o Alland 1975), this s an ancient raitwhichdevelopedunderecological nddemographiconditions astly ifferentromhose ound n thepresent ay.Harrismakes nassociation etween attle omplex nd gro-economicsystemn ndia.Thecattle re hiefly sedfor raction, ilk, ung ndhide, tc.Inaddition,owsgivebirthocalvesandthus lay crucial ole nmaintainingbovine tockHarris, 966). ndian gricultures featuredyprivatewnership,smallholding ize and seasonalrainfall. loughings done within very hortperiod f time uring hich armersakeno risk fhiring raughtnimals romothers. herefore,heres no otherwaybut opossess numberfcattleBhatia1963;Harris, 966).As the ands refacing ragmentation,t eadsto the rowthofcattle opulation. utthis rocess perates pto certainimit eyondwhichhighmaintenanceost of cattle ompelsfarmersogiveup theownershipfdraughtnimalsVaidyanathan,air ndHarris, 982).However,his heoreticalformulationacesunrelentingressuresrom thers. ccordingoCrotty1982),the statisticalorrelationetween attle emographyndagricultureoes notspeakofthepossessionofcows bya largenumber f landlesspeople.Azzi(1974) remarkshat owmayhave some economicmportance,ut tdoes notsuggest hat he attle re unaffectedyahimsa.Harris urthereasons ut he daptivenessfcattle omplex nd tates,'Men and bovinecattledo notcompetefor xistence' Harris,1966). It is afalsified tatement.ecause cropresidues ndother ropsusedas fodder lsohave alternativeses forhuman onsumption.f the attle re ess,the andputunder odder ultivation ouldbe diverted or uman ses.Therefore, en ndcattle lwaysdo compete or xistenceDandekar, 969b;Heston, 971).



7/11

58 THE ACRED OWHarris pines hat heHindusnever laughterows,becausepeoplegetbenefit rom hosetilltheir cattle)death. s thepasture nd cattlefeedrelimited, largenumberfcattle ndergoestarvation.e, nmost fhiswritings(Harris, 966; 1974; 1977),demonstrateshat tarvationrneglect f cattle ytheHindus s a statewhich rises utofunconsciousnessrunknowingness.tis a fallacious tatement.mpiricalvidences rove hat hemodeof starvationisentirelyeliberatend theHindus onsciouslytarve hose attle hat re essproductiver have ostusefulnessSebring, 987).Raj (1969) establishes the age-sex compositionof the required

livestockpopulationforgivenpattern f consumption emand of USA, adeveloped ountrynd of ndia, nunderdevelopedountry.e then omparestherequiredwith heobserved onsumptionatternndpoints utthat heresno marked ifferencesetween he wo nbothUSA and ndia.Later, aj (1971)alsocomputeshe atio fcow tobullock saround .33 oreven ower n severaldistrictsfWestern ttar radesh.Notallof these istricts ave largeMuslimpopulationnd as a result,he ause ieselsewhere han nreligion. ollowingHarris, e concludes hat he attle opulationf ndiahaveeconomic ase andreligious entimentoes notoperate n itsdemography.Rao (1969) advances his view which s based on 'Cobb-DouglasProductionunction'. he actualnumberfmilch nimals, s hesuggests,maynothave exceeded thedesirednumber. andekar 1970) opposestheuse of'Cobb-DouglasFunction' ndargues hat orrect ormulationhouldbe basedon marginal roductivity.ao's estimations notfreefrom ias,becausethesamples re drawn ot nlyfromhe eastmilk roducingegion ut lso fromwhere uffaloesather han owspredominateMisra,1978).

LimitationsThe classical and techno-environmentalheorists houghhaveadvanced heir cholastic iewsonthebasisofdemographicnalysis f cattlepopulation,tilltheapproaches avegotcertain imitationsudgingfrom heHindu alue ystem.heclassical heoristsee the owcult s one ofthe ncienttraitshat amewith heriseof BuddhismndJainismn the7th entury.C.and laterpopularisedwith the Vaishnavismn the 3rdcenturyA.D. Theauthenticityf this tatements undoubtedlyrue, ut t still casts doubtonother reas.The doctrinesfBuddhism,ainismndVaishnavismreachhimsatowards ll animalsnot pecially ows.How andwhy he ows,not nyotheranimal, ameto be a symboln Hindu heologyEventoday he eopleofthese

sects, hough ollowvegetarianismccordingothedictum f their eligions,worship nlycows in almostall religious eremonies nd as suchcow isaccorded pecial sanctitymong hem.Do the cows have significancetherthanreligiousone ? These are thequestionswhichdo notfind dequateexpfanationnclassical theoretical odel.



8/11

Indian nthropologist1996)26 : 2 59The techno-environmentalheorists, hileestablishingheir tand nthis opular ebate, avealso done omeerrors. ccordingothem,hepresentdaycattle opulationesults rom he daptationoagro-ecologicalystemndis never nder he nfluencefreligion. evertheless,he oleofreligionannotbe completelygnored.At thetimeof communal iotsbetweenHindus andMuslims,ndiscriminateilling fcowsby he atter as anattemptostrike nHindusentiment. he Hindufundamentalistsccasionallyraisedslogans nwhichban on cow-slaughterooka significantosition.n order o emulateupper asteHindus, great umber f tribal nd ower astepeoplehavegivenup beef-eating. oreover,heconcept f ahimsa mposesban on beef-eating

which rohibits indus otake very heap ource fprotein.t s notunusualto see inalmost ll cities hat heMuslimproprietorsfhotels nd restaurantslocated nareaswithmixed opulation ang boardwith No-Beef' writtennit to attract industhere.All thesephenomena o notruleoutthe effect freligion,tleast npart, n themanagementf cattle opulation.The techno-environmentalistsurtheromment hat heHindusarerational; hey ither ell thecattle o slaughter ouseor starve hem odeathonlywhen heyose their conomic otentialities.his, nturn,mplies hat heHindusdo not ove andrespect heir ows,ratherwhat hey o is just-being

opposed o ahimsa.This s indeed nironical tatement.nreality, ajorityftheHindus o not elltheirgedcows tothe laughterouse.Only section fthemdo it and neglect hem o death due their ooreconomic conditions.Milkmen nthe ity fCalcutta ndother uburbanreasiiold-the-sameiew.Buttheirove towards ows is stillreflectedn a number fways. n manyoccasions, heymourn or heir attlewhich re sold out toslaughter ouses.The eldest members f such familiessometimesbecome nostalgicwhilenarratingast vents ssociatedwith hose attle o other amilymembers holisten othemwith apt ttention.ven newborn abies, peciallyn rural rea,aregiven henames ftheir eloved ows whom hey ave ost.These nstancesshow that he ction fHindus n this ontext s not lwaysan expression ftheir elief. here eemsto be a major heoreticalimitationf transformativerule nempiricalnalysis. pistemologically,he mic spect an notbederivedfully romhe tic aspect fculture.Conclusion

Whilereviewinghetopic, tcan bepositivelytated hat he anctityofcow in ndia snot recent henomenon.tsgenesis atesback t east o the7th entury .C. Earlier ttemptsxplain he attle omplexfrom religiouspoint fview. temanates rom tsreligiousmbit ogetmodernredentialsn1960s argely hroughheworks fMarvinHarriswhoexplains heproblemnecologicalperspective.ince then, he hiatusbetween hetwo ncreased ndthe entire iscussion, s a matter f fact, s marked ytwosharply ividedpolarised heories.



9/11

60 THE ACRED OWThepolemics lusteringround he acred owdilemma avealreadyreached ts pinnaclewithouthavinga single exposureto its solution. ntheoretical arlance,boththe analyticalmodels, thoughhave theirownlimitations,re equally mportant.heyare, n fact, omplementaryo eachothernd constitutewo idesof a coin. Theanalytical ower f eachonegetsmomentumfit recognizes he mportancef theother ne. Moreover, helimitationsf onetheoryre the ource fexplanationor heother heory.In ndia, he acred owencompassesn ntricateelationshipetweeneconomic-ecologicalndreligious actors.twouldbeunrealisticotracewhichoneprecedes he ther. heymust eviewedwithin heframeworkffeedbackrelationship. n ecologicallyadaptive ocio-cultural henomenonperateswell f t sprotected yreligious rescription.nthe ther and, he ositivelyfunctionedeligious henomenonerformsmoothly hen t s economicallyviable andecologically daptive. n this ontext,hemost mportantssue iswhetherhefeedbackmechanisms inbalance r not.With egardo the ndiancattlecomplex,the feedbackmechanisms not balanced as theoverdueimportancen the himsa. esultsnto largenumber femaciated attlewhichare ndeeduneconomic nd ess adaptive oo.

Notes1 This eportsbased n paperubmittedor Researchrainingrogrammen ocialAnthropology1988-89) tCentreor tudiesn ocial ciences,alcutta.2. Theperiodxtendsrom000B.C.to200 B.C. and smarkedyfouruccessivestages Samhita,rahmanaAranyaka,panishadicndSutra Vedanga.nparticular,ourollectionsf extromhe amhitaeriodre eferredo s the ourVedas-Rigveda,thararvaveda,amavedand ajurveda.3. The arliest eda hat ontainslarge umberfhymns, ost fwhichealwith

mythology.few f hemlso ontainocio-historicalnd hilosophicalspects.4. The ndianoctrinefnon-violencernon-injuryo ny ormf ife.5. The arliestpanishadhichsattachedo amavedandsaligned ithheeachingofpantheism.ts extshighlyllegoricalnd ymbolic.6. Concise ormfHinduhilosophyontaininghe ospel fKrishnaism.7. Itdepictsncientndianodifiedaws, ocial ustomsnd racticesptohe ourthcentury.D.8. It swrittenyKautilyand ivesn ccountf ndianociety,ustomsnd racticesbetween000B.C. to400B.C.9. Amonotheisticeligiousraditionhatentresoundheworshipf he isnu.incethe edicge, he ult fVisnu as ndergoneodificationsy everalncarnationssuchsRama, rishnatc. n tsiteratures,hemostmportantnes reMahabharataandBhagavataurana.



10/11

Indian nthropologist1996)26 : 2ReferencesAiland, lexander975.Adaptation.nnualeviewfAnthropology:59-73.Azzi, orry974.More n ndia's acredattle. urrentnthropology5: 317-24.Bas am, .L.1954. hewonderhat as ndia Asurveyf he ulturef hendianub-continenteforehe omingf heMuslims.ondon Sidewiskndackson.Bhatia,.M.1963. aminesn ndia. ewYork AsiaPublishingouse.

Brown, .Normal964. he anctityf he ow nHinduism.conomic eekly6:245-55.Crotty,aymond982.Commentn : Bovine ex andspecies atiosn India, yaVaidyanathan,.N.Nair ndM Harris. urrentnthropology3: 375.Dandekar,.M. 964. roblemfnumbersn cattle. conomic eekly6:331-53,55.. 1969a. owdungmodels. conomicndPoliticalWeekly: 1267-69,271.

, 1969b.ndia's acredattlend ulturalcology.conomicndPoliticalWeekly:1559-67.. 1970. acred attlendmore acredroductionunctions.conomicndPoliticalWeekly: 527, 29-31.

Diener,aul, onald onini,ndEugene obkin978. hedialecticsf he acredowEcologicaldaptationersusoliticalppropriationn the riginsf ndia's acredattlecomplex.ialecticalnthropology: 221-41.Freed,tanley.andRuth. Freed. 972. attlena Northndianillage. thnology1399-408.. 1981. acredows ndwater uffalon ndia Theusesofethnography.urrentAnthropology2 : 483-502.

Harris,arvin966.The ulturalcologyf ndia'sacredattle. urrentnthropology: 51-66.. 1974./Cows,igs,wars ndwitchesThe iddlesf ulture.ewYorkRandomHouse.. 1977.CannibalsndkingsThe riginsf ultures.ewYorkRandomouse.Heston,lan. 971. n pproacho he acredow f ndia. urrentnthropology2 191-209.

Kosambi,.D. 1970. The ulturendcivilizationfancientndia nhistoricalutline.Delhi Vikas ublishingouse.Lai,Mukandi967. Cow ult n ndia ,nCow laughterHornsf dilemma.ditedyA.B.Shah, p.15-34. ombayLalvaniublishingouse.Lodrick,eryck979.Onreligionndmilk ovinesn an urbanndianetting.urrentAnthropology0 : 241-42.

. 1981. acredows, acred laces Originnd urvivalf animal omesnIndia.BerkeleyUniversityfCaliforniaress.Mishra,.N. 1973. urplusattle n India A criticalurvey.ociologicalulletin22 : 297-308.



11/11

62 THE ACREDOW. 1978. iverstocklanningn ndia.NewDelhiVikas ublishingouse.Parel, nthony969. he oliticalymbolismf he own ndia. ournalfCommonwealthPoliticaltudies: 179-203.

Frakash,m1961. ood nddrinksn ncientndiaFromarliestimesoC. 1200A.D.).Delhi Munshi amManoharlal.Raj,K.N.1969. nvestmentn ivestocknagrarianconomicsAn nalysisf omessuesconcerningsacredows*ndsurplusattle*.ndianconomiceview : 1-33.. 1971.ndia'sacredattleTheoriesnd mpiricalindings.conomicndPoliticalWeekly: 717-22.Rao,C.H.H. 969.ndia'ssurplus'attleSomempiricalesults.conomicndPoliticalWeeklyeviewfAgricultureDecember,p225-27.Sebring,ames987. ovidicy.ournalfAnthropologicalesearch3 : 309-24.Vaidyanathan,.,K.N.Nair ndM. Harris.982. ovineexand peciesatiosn ndia.Currentnthropology3 : 365-83.

Pal, Amarnath - The Sacred Cow in India - A Reappraisal

Documents