How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?

Murad bhai, you are completely confused, eating beef is very different from being vegetarian or not. In most of south india, cows are not slaughtered, but bulls are. It has more to do with haumane considerations, an animal that provided so much of milk and sustainance should not be killed in its old age. The same is true for animals used for ox carts and used for ploughing.

Murad,

I think you are wrong about the southie Brahmins, they are (most of them) staunch veggies. Though you have surmised on cattle slaughter based on the male population, this does not truly reflect the real situation. I think cattle slaughter is happening but not as much you have pictured and also the Hindu consumption could not be much because the present Hindu population has been fed with aversion towards beef eating at a very early age.

You have missed the point that we have a huge Muslim population, which does not have anything against eating beef. I admit that Hindus too eat beef, but they are a miniscule percentage. A large percentage of Hindus, including North Indian Brahmins, consume meat of goat/sheep and chicken. Most of the barren cattle, especially in South India, are smuggled into Kerala, which has a large Muslim and Christian population.

Yes, vegetarianism could be the result of Buddhists and Jains, but the current form of Hinduism, I believe, too accepts the merits in it.

Beef eating is prohibited for long time. Does that implies, it has to be mentioned in all the texts. This guy is pure liar (like Muhammed.). Ram had tried to trap the deer to gift to Sita. Ramayana mentions clearly that the wild animals and birds were very fond of sita and they used to roam around freely without any fear. Sita used to feed animals and birds. In most of the texts fruits, vegetables are mentioned as food for rishis and kings. Meat used to be consumed by lower caste people. How this stupid has concluded that, India had not good agriculture at the time of Vedas/Ramayana? Ramayana mentions quite a couple of cities and administrative regions (Like Sita was from Mithila). Agriculture only empower people to settle and create civilisation. As per beef consumption, it is mostly in Kerala and in other states by moslems/barbarians.
In eastern india mostly moslems eat beaf and cow smuggling is major issue in border districts of West Bengal.

Nkg,

Kindly read the Vedas.

Regards

Re: # 3

Nkg,

What makes you think Hindus don't eat beef?

Murad,

Do you mean to say that the Krishna movement is solely responsible for converting Hindus to vegetarianism? I thought you haven't given the answer.

Nkg,

Have you heard of the story where the demon Vatapi's brother killed him and fed him as goat meat to the rishi Agastya. Incidentally this story has been quoted by C. Rajagopalachari, Indian freedom fighter, scholar and a Brahmin (not a lying Moslem!!!) in his version of Ramayana.

Regards

First of all, the question itself is plain wrong.

"How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?"

It has been a wrong perception in the minds of many people that Hindus are vegetarians.

Around 70-80% of Hindus are non-vegetarians. Beef/Pork are taboo for many, but that has been changing too.

Human sacrifice was also part of Ancient Vedic tradition.

haideri

Murad, one should also consider the climate of India. It is one thing to eat a lot of beef in cold Afghanistan, but it is a different matter in the extreme heat and dust of India. Eating non-veg, especially beef will severely impact health and well-being. In such a climate, dal, dahi, veggie type foods are more practical. So I think the aryans started out as meat eaters and probably gave up on it based on the climate.

Personally I am a meat eater and eat beef as well, but I can understand why someone living in the Indian heartland would want to avoid it.

Haideri: Dear boy, did you say, ""..Human sacrifice was also part of Ancient Vedic tradition...".

Anything is possible! But how about quoting the sources if yu please?
kamath

Dear Murad,

This was a very interesting read. I was always puzzled by the phenomenon you tackle. It would be nice to know what pundit Ekalavya thinks about it.

In Assam there is a temple called Kamakhya (jang, I believe knows a lot about it). Goats and pigeons are regularly slaughtered there. On a particular day of some pooja (I believe Durga puja) buffaloes are slaughtered. The locals say that humans were also sacrificed there till the Brits. stopped the practice. There is also a rumour, that since then, on some particular day, a man made of atta (dough) is "sacrificed" (so Haideri may very well be right). I was surprised to know that the temple is very popular amongst the people of Nepal!

Anyway, I shall be reading the interacts with interest!

And last but bot the least....

Hamid Mian Zindabad (he has reasons to be proud of Gopinath).

great article.

you had me at beef..

i even have a friend whose family, in her village, sacrifices a boar during religious festivals and then serves the cooked meat..

interesting article, unfortunately things like diet etc. have now taken on the image of religous identity, so people unnecessarily get upset when discussing it..

valmiki ramayan is quite old, written down maybe 200AD or so but probably reflecting memorized tales from early BC timeframe. So it gives an older picture of "hindu" traditions. Looking at Tulsidas or Kamban ramayana would give an alternative more medieval view of hindu traditions.

Buddhism has never emphasized pure vegetarianism, as you should know buddha was against showy and strict rituals. The buddha himself ate meat and so do most current buddhist leaders (e.g., dalai lama). A buddhist monk is required to accept any food offered, provided it isnt poisonous/spoiled etc. But there is a general preference for reducing violence and violence against animals is definitely part of it...

There is no question that "hindu" traditions manifest non-violence from an early stage. It seems that in response to the deep ethical teachings of jains, buddhists and other groups, brahmins became vegetarian and vegetarianism became an ideal. You will notice also that even today the north indian business-classes and many gujaratis are vegetarian. Its likely that many of these peoples ancestors followed jain traditions in early times. The time-line is a bit hazy, but it seems to that vegetarianizing by the medieval period.

Hindu food rules are, of course, jati and region based. Kshatriyas have always been permitted meat and working people allowed to eat their traditional foods. But to rise up in the hindu hieracrchy of jatis you must give up meat etc.

The hard prohibition on beef-eating does seem to be somewhat recent, its possible that it has something to do with turkic invasions of the 9-11th centuries. Its a little strange in that it is one aspect of modern hinduism that is more like a formal prohibition - very few aspects of hinduism have that character.

So it could have been formulated in response to another tradition that has a lot of sharp rules and dogmas. Many islamic accounts refer to making sure that hindu converts have "truly" converted by having them eat beef or other food prohibited to them. So some clues may lie there...

Dear pmishra2,

Majumdar babu may correct me if he so wishes, but Bengali Brahmins are non-vegetarian. They eat goat and fish ... but not chicken! Tibetan Buddhists, on the other hand, eat almost everything. There was a Tibetan refugee camp near Delhi University where one could down gallons of "chang" (rice beer - illegal of course) and chew on dried beef (sour and hot).

mishraji

i have a theory on banias not eating meat...you see, banias were often on the move for trading and over time must have figured out that in hot climate like india, meat at serais can be bad. the french coutiers log in mughal courts clearly indicates that buying kidd in dilli and agra markets was a very risky bussiness where the vendor sould show you fresh cut of kidd and then will pack a rancid piece of mutton. so just like the europeans realized that drinking beer makes you not get sick (water used to be contminated with shyte) smart banias prolly figured out that grain is a way to go for living well in a tropical climate.

protecting the cow and the brahmin has always had a political signinficance..akbar prohibited cow-slaughter and sivaji decalred himself "go-brahman pratipalak" (protector of the holy cow and brahman) .. both symbolic acts of laying down the "dharma" (order).

i found out one of the largest mutton-prcessors and exporter out of india "al-kabeer" is a jain..and one of the largest poultry operation is venkateshwar hatcheries...so go figure.

GT

absolutely, bengali brahmins eat fish, kashmiri brahmins eat goat and so on. So there is no such thing as monolithic food rules for "hindus" - it has always been a mixture of jati rules with some premium on giving up "tamasik" meat. Again, things are never straightforward in hinduism - bengali gaudiya vaishnavas are pure vegetarian somewhat irrespective of jati origin, probably because they are a reform group anxious to prove their purity. This is why the beef prohibition feels out of place...

jang

It is generally thought that the business classes were early supporters of buddhism and jainism. If you think about it, these more reflective traditions are in some ways very supportive of business, much more so that ancient hinduism with its kings and sacrifices and so on.

But your point is also a very good one - in a hot climate eating bits of meat is going to be risky. In fact, that is the story of Buddhas death - that he eat a tainted meal of pork and died as a result.

Akbar, Shivaji, Ranjit Singh all prohibited cow slaughter. But I think this is a response to something that already existed at before that time - not something they invented.

An interesting read!

I think it all happened 10 million years ago, when a huge meteor struck earth and wiped off dinosaurs and other life form from the planet. The only survivors of that apocalyptic event were two species - cows and some humans. Cows survived because it is the most resilient creature on this planet. Every year hundereds of millions of cows get eaten up, not to mention a substantial number falls victim to Coccidiosis, Anaplasmosis,Blackleg,Brucellosis, ringworm,
mad cow disease and hoof and mouth disese and what not, and yet not only they survive but thrive as well.

The humans who survived decided not to eat cows for a while because they needed milk for their babies. But some of the humans were greedy; they would miss the roast angus beef. They stole some cows and ate them. The elders among the survivors when realized that the number of their toes all put together now did not match with the legs of the all the cows put together, they quickly figured out that some cows were missing. Did I mention that they were all good mathematicians? Anyhoo, they put their head together and decided to declare cow as the sacred animal and also declared taht if anyone tried to eat a cow again, god will again strike them with the ball of fire that had already wiped off most of the life form from the planet. That was the birth of a new religion which we now know as hinduism. That was also the birth of vegeterianism; for hundereds of years people had to suck green slime and algae from rocks to survive after the big fireball struck - and the word vegeterianism was coined to dignify the practice.

#19 miaN Urstruly

Very original.

Now, what's your take on some people not eating pigs?!

A PRINCESS BRIDE

The great-great-granddaughter of the legendary "Lion of the Punjab" returns to her home in Pakistan after an overlong absence

BY SUKETU MEHTA/LAHORE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

One day in august 1947, Nony Singh overheard her father talking about shooting her. She was around ten then, a Sikh girl growing up in a big house in Lahore, just before partition. She was walking along a passageway when she overheard a conversation out on the veranda: her grandfather, her father and her uncles were planning how they would defend themselves against Muslim mobs that were returning with increasing frequency to the house. The men--most of whom were army or police officers--had stockpiled a huge cache of arms in the house. The teenage girls in the family--her oldest sister and her three aunts--had already been sent to safety across the border to Simla, a hill resort that would eventually fall to India; only Nony and her two younger sisters were left in Lahore. She heard her father tell the others that, if Muslims broke into the house, he would fight to the end. But before the end came, he said, "I will take the three girls into a room and line them up and shoot them."
We were standing on this same veranda now, my friend Nony Singh and I, 50 years later. It was the first time she had returned to Lahore since 1947. She was making a unique crossing, not merely from the country in which she lives to the one left behind, not just from her present home to an earlier one, but from approaching old age back to the territory of childhood, a realm preserved only in dreams and old photographs.

What made her return unusual was that she is the great-great-granddaughter of Maharajah Ranjit Singh, the "Lion of the Punjab," the Sikh king who at the beginning of the 19th century ruled over all of Punjab from Lahore. So when she came back, it was with a special sense of belonging, above and beyond that of the many other partition refugees visiting ancestral homes. Signing the Pakistani visa forms in Delhi, she had remarked: "I felt I own the place. How dare they ask for a visa?"

Nony had left Lahore on a sour note: a fight with her best friend Fauziya, who lived next door. Nony had made a doll, with a long plait, the face painted with watercolors, and a wardrobe fashioned of brightly colored scraps from her aunts' old clothes. Fauziya wanted Nony to marry her attractive doll to Fauziya's male doll. At first Nony agreed, but then Fauziya told her that since her doll was female, it would have to come with a dowry--all the doll-clothes and doll-bedding that Nony had hand-stitched. Also, Fauziya insisted, after the wedding the female doll would have to stay in the male doll's house--as was the custom among humans. Nony turned down the match, and Fauziya stopped speaking to her. A few days later, Nony and her family left Pakistan forever, taking the doll with her. She has always regretted, she told me, that she left Pakistan on a fight over the distribution of property.

What she wanted to do now was to go back to the two houses in which she had grown up: her maternal grandmother's amid the winding lanes of Anarkali Bazaar, and her paternal grandfather's in Model Town. Her grandmother had died soon after crossing the border, Nony said: "We were thrown out. We felt very hurt. My grandmother died of sorrow."

The Anarkali Bazaar house is now a printing shop. Sometime after partition it was taken over by the former tenants, and stacks of old books crowd the rooms where her grandmother once conducted business from behind a latticed screen with the accountants, making sure that rent-collection from her numerous shops in the bazaar was in order. Though he was quite ill, the old man who now owns the house invited Nony for dinner because, he said, he had something to explain. He was ashamed. At partition, he said, Nony's grandmother had given his father the key to the house for safekeeping. The father had kept all her grandmother's possessions locked in the upper rooms of the house, allowing no one to enter them. Then, he said, after a family dispute his cousins had broken into the rooms and stolen everything. He said he had lived with the guilt for 50 years. Now at last he could explain and apologize. Nony said later, "I was embarrassed also, and I was hurt. This was my house, and some other people took it over. But I admired him for telling me. His family was so affectionate. The human feeling was what mattered."

When she left the man's house, she was given bangles and an embroidered veil--the traditional gifts a daughter of the house is given when she returns to her in-laws. The symbolism was clear: this was Nony's true home, here in Lahore. Delhi and India were merely in-laws, the family into which she had found herself married.

Nony was overwhelmed at the reception she received, not just from the people who lived in her family's houses, but from taxi-drivers, bellboys, merchants in the bazaars. Her coming from India was good for substantial discounts in the ancient shops of Anarkali Bazaar. As a daughter of the neighborhood, she was able to buy a 750-rupee suit for 600 rupees. The elderly proprietor of a photo shop, upon learning Nony was from India, said he was, too, and asked her to have lunch or dinner with his family.

One evening we went to the Pak Tea House, a writers' cafe that Pakistan's greatest poet, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, used to frequent. A group of poets and writers clustered around us. Surprisingly, this was the place in Pakistan where Nony found the closest thing resembling hostility toward her as an Indian. A professor of Urdu literature declared that the enmity between India and Pakistan would be solved if India "liberated" Kashmir, Punjab and Assam. "I was scared of their fanaticism," Nony said. "They were so vehement. These are the people that create the frenzy. If they were my age, they would never have talked that way." After one in the group maligned Maulana Azad, a prominent Muslim in the freedom struggle who chose to stay in India and is therefore reviled in Pakistani history texts, Nony added: "He was talking like a fanatic about Pakistan. I wish he had seen that united India [before partition]. We sacrificed together, we shed our blood together to win freedom. Then what happened?" For all her warm feelings toward ordinary Pakistanis, Nony remained clear about the political gulf between the two countries: "The difference between India and Pakistan is army rule. Their youngsters hate India. Army rule has dinned it into their heads to make war. Our democracy, whatever it is, has worked."

Not always. Like most Hindu and Sikh refugees who fled to India, Nony's family did well in their new homeland. She married a fellow refugee, a farmer who in 1965 set a record for wheat production. Then in 1984 India's Sikhs suffered through what for many of them was a second partition: the pogroms against Nony's community that followed Indira Gandhi's assassination by her Sikh bodyguards. Nony and her three daughters were saved by a Hindu neighbor across the street, who hid them from the fury of the mobs for 11 days.

Once the riots were over and she could return to her house, Nony worried about what she should put on the name plate outside her gate. After all, she had just witnessed the evil attention a Sikh name could attract. In the end, she used only the number 15, the address of the house. She still regrets not being able to display a name. "I felt one day people will be reduced just to numbers," she says. "We are not proud of being anything--Sikh, Hindu, Muslim."

Her grandfather's home in Model Town was a household of women before partition. Nony's father was frequently away on army duty, and her grandfather usually closeted himself with his second wife on the ground floor. As teenage girls are wont to do, Nony's aunts and her sisters liked to play the radio full blast, mostly film music--Saigal, Kanan Bala, Nurjehan. Her aunts often stole away to the movies, a forbidden activity. Once they took the family tonga, or horse-cart, and caromed down the road until they lost control of the horse, crashed, and fell off laughing--shocking all the neighbors. Before partition the family was united, rich and happy.

When she traveled to Lahore, she was looking for something that would be defined for her by Badar, the man who now lives in her grandfather's house. At the end of the lavish dinner his family had laid out for Nony and me, Badar became thoughtful. Like his wife, he said, he was the child of partition refugees who had made the crossing the other way, from Delhi and Bhopal to Pakistan. "It is a miracle you're here," he said, turning to Nony. "It's like a movie, a dream. After 50 years, coming back to this house." Then he reflected: "Man is always in search of old things. We go to ruins, to museums. You have come to look for old things. Something is lost. That is common to all men." A little later, he asked, "What is lost?" and then answered his own question. "I think it is love."

Now, age 61 and living in Delhi, Nony is not at peace. After her husband died in 1982, she became ensnared in property disputes--the curse of the descendants of India's princely class. Her days are taken up dealing with her six lawyers and her multiple ongoing law suits, many of which she has inherited from her ancestors like a useless watch. All this has made her a bit lonely in her adopted city. Says she: "Delhi to me seems faceless."

I returned to Delhi ahead of Nony. She wrote me from Lahore: "Here I am in conversation with my grandparents, my mother, my father, my aunts, my sisters, my little brother. For the first time I am not grieving for my grandmother having gone, for my Daddy having gone... For the first time I feel that part of my grieving shall go--as if I have called them all back to meet me at a place where they gave me birth, as if I have had a long conversation with them and clarified all my doubts, of not having done my best for them, for not having given them enough love... Here, meeting them after their deaths was easier because we all belonged together, we belonged to each other, we belonged to this soil, this town. On the other side of the border we had all separated, our personalities scattered. Here we are all one, we are together in grief and in happiness... Here--in Pakistan--an enemy of my country India!"

GT, here is my read.

Mr. Murad A Baig is either just ignorant or a bigot peddaling an alien, anti-Indian agenda. I think, both.

This article of his is not any different from all his other articles. :)

--------------------------------

Sahranpuri, please stop that. Now you are just spamming.

Re: # 3
"This guy is pure liar (like Muhammed).

Argue without derogatory remarks against a Prophet. Is this how you live where you live? I think Raam would disapprove of your behaviour.

Shanti

Murad,

You chose an excellent topic to write on. I think India suffers greatly from lack of research in many areas of history. History has become just whatever the white man deems fit to focus on. No attempt has been made to research the genesis of all the languages, variations in cultures, cuisines , music, sciences and arts in India by the Indians at a big scale.
Coming to the topic, first some inaccurate statements by you need to be corrected. Shiva is not a pre-vedic deity. He is also called Rudra eloquently mentioned in the Vedas in many verses riding on the bull etc. Second, Krishna movement is not a cult. If it were, then you may have to start calling Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed as cult leaders too.
Your premise that vegetarianism started in Hinduism due to the influence of Buddhists and Jains is based on Ambedkar's views. They are quite far from the facts.
It is here that the contribution of Krishna as the world's first environmentalist needs to be mentioned. Since you have researched many scriptures, you may want to focus on Srimad Bhagvatam to know what I'm writing below.
Prior to Krishna, the hindus worshipped Indra as the supreme deity as mentioned in the Rigveda. Animal sacrifice as you mentioned was rampant. The sacrifice was done to appease the unseen power in the skies (God). These were also the times that the concept of judgement at the end of one's life was an accepted belief. Hence the need to appease the judge to get in heaven. Krishna changed it by challenging the view that sacrifices need to be made to propitiate the unseen power high above us all. He instead argued that before caring for this unseen power, the immediate surroundings need to be cared for. Thus the importance of cows and other animals for milk and other things should be considered as a higher priority than this unseen and unknown power. Thus he came to be called Go-Vardhan (protector of cows). A respect for these animals then helps the society also get rid of useless rituals without calling the veneration of Indra as a false God and going to war against his worshippers. A needles ritual is replaced by inner reform silently and inclusively.
His sculptures of lifting the mountain to challenege the might of Indra (and hence called Giridharan) and that of Go-vardhana are there even in Mahabalipuram (6th-7th century AD).
The concept of animal sacrifice was replaced in Gita by sacrificing (AAhuti) one's desires and fruits of Karma in the sacrificial fire (Yagna). This way, Krishna freed the Hindus from rituals afflicting mindless violence in the name of God. The only other way of reform would have been to attack the Indra worshippers as wrong and exclude them from the fold of Hinduism or perhaps wage a war.
Is it any wonder then that Gandhi took Gita for inspiration and concluded that the method is equally important than the end. He perhaps understood the supreme rationality of Krishna's actions and message.
The last para was an unnecessary digression.
Adios

Eklavya,

You need not feel bad about Murad Bhai's expose. Afterall our Pakistani brothers' presumption that we are beatable because of our subsistent diet will no more carry weight ;-).

On a serious note, its not only the Brahmins who are staunch veggies, there are other castes at all levels of the caste pyramid.
In Tamilnadu, most of the Mudhaliars, Pillais,Vysyaas, Badugas (a hill tribe) and a few more castes are veggies.

Somebody on the board had said that not consuming meat means you move higher on the caste hierarchy. This is not correct.

Excellent, and mostly factually correct article.

Infact once my Grandfather, a conservative Brahmin, once quoted a famous passage ( I beleive from Rigveda), where Rishi Agastya offered to Indra, a leg of Indra. My Grandmother left the room in disgust......

Usually it is the case that we try to put our beleifs, our prejudices, and taboos in the mouths of our ancestors, beloved ones, prophets and holy books. Revisionism is usually the way of life.

It is well known in Turkey that Muslim hunters eat Wild Boar, just that they are not classified as pigs. Bosnians Muslims toast to Whisky since it is not classified as Wines. In fact the Alcohol in India came with the Muslim invasion, the older forms of Indian wines were long dead.

Let us try to treat history as it is. It is never going to diminish our Hinduism, or identity as Indians. If we start to lie, we will never identify the real cornerstones of our identity.

I dont see what is so controversial in this article. The most famous book on this topic is "The Myth of the Holy Cow. by D. N. Jha. a histroy prof at U of Delhi.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20021101fabook10064/d-n-jha/the-myth-of- the-holy-cow.html

Nirad Chowdhuri has also written very well on the topic in his book "continent of circe"

#3, nkg

"Ram had tried to trap the deer to gift to Sita"

I'lll try to find the reference if you insist, but seems like Sita's favourite food was venison cooked with rice and vegetables :-)

We all come from a hunter-gatherer past. The "Dandakaranya" was a huge forest. It stands to reason that people would partake in the wealth of such a forest, including its animals.

kaal,

he,he.... is all that I can say. By the way Murad may not know where you are comming from :)

#12 GT,

Traditionally a buffalo was slaughtered in many communities on the last day of Durga Puja (Dassera). Visit any Gorkha regiment on dassera day to watch the buffalo being despatched in one stroke of the khukri.

Among bengali's it has been replaced by a goat or more commonly today substituted by a pumpkin.

LOL, GT, I am sure Mr Baig is an informed person, and has done his research. Besides, he seems well intentioned and sincere. It's just that who knows, the earth might indeed be flat, and at least some people must have the right to fully believe so. :)

Anyways, personally, I fully expect that our ancestors ate the cow and the cow-ling (whatever that means), and then, somewhere along the way, for some reasons, beliefs changed, and some people stopped eating the cow. All of Hinduism is basically like that. Nothing divine or fixed about it, except for those who hold specific beliefs for a certain amount of time. Nowadays I am told that no one can be a Hindu without eating a couple of cows and bulls, which is perfectly fine. :)

If we ignore some of Mr. Baig's comments or insinuations, I owe him an apology for being dismissive.

Next topic for Murad A Baig Saab

How did Hingboos become urine drinkers

ali_1, let me give you even more material.

I spent my childhood in a mud house whose walls, and the floor specifically, were covered in cowshit most of the time. We ate food cooked on fire made by burning dried cowshit. Our family kept ourselves warm in winters on the same fire. And we used cowshit for all sorts of religious ceremonies.

I distinctly remember collecting cowshit many a time for sundry purposes, and helping mother carry it in buckets.

And although I did not see anyone eat or drink any of that stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if some people tried, and became its advocates for various reasons.

Now, you would obviously say that cowshit is what that life was, and cowshit is all I got out of it. And you may well be right. But the world needs to make a place for us freaks too. I, for one, don't get this obsession with everyone wanting to be wise, smart, and utterly rational.

#30 Posted by bongdongs:

Bongy,

I have seen a buffalo being slaughtered with something more than a khukri, actually I remember the head-less body remain standing (actually stretched by the legs) for a few seconds before tumbling over.

Readers, who have seen the film Reshma aur Shera might remember Sunil Dutt (where he is some Rajput shyte) slaughter a buffalo (????) at the beginning of the film. Am I right here?

#3, #28

The way I understand it, Sita liked the dazzling skin color of the deer and wanted that skin (probably to use as a blanket or something). Rama went to hunt it down - he went with a bow and arrows to shoot it, to bring its skin back for Sita. Had it been a real deer (instead of that Mareech guy looking like one), it is anybody's guess what would have been done with its flesh.

Most Hindus are not - and have never been - vegetarians.

I fully support my friend kaalchakra here.What he described in #33, brought back many memories from my childhood too. May be slightly differently, but cow was always revered even in sikhism till the khalistanis came on the scene. We were taught that one of the five 'K's, the kirpaan (sword) was for the protection of cow and the poor (gaoo-ghareeb. Kooka movement started with closing down slaughter houses in Amritsar and Maler Kotla and as a result nearly 80 kooka sikhs were blown away with canon at Maler Kotla.

Eklavya,

I have not read (or do not remember) other pieces from Mr. Baig. Besides, each piece - like each person in the world - needs to be judged on its own merit and not on the basis of its siblings (other pieces) or parent (the writer).

I like this piece because the author has made a decent attempt to establish his thesis and seems to have made considerable effort to back it up. He certainly seems to have taken the trouble to dig up the Rigveda - something I have never done (or am likely to).

Articles like this would have been considered (in the past) rather pointless but are no more to be considered so because of the currently ongoing effort by certain segments and political groups to rewrite and revise Indian history to elevate the status of the cow to more than just an animal and to create an "idyllic" account of the past.

Murad,

Well reserached and well written.

Bondongs is right abt the Dr. Jha's book.

The obsession with cow and cow urine is nothing but obsession. The Himachal pradesh govt (BJP) even went a mile furhter and started buying cow urine in gallons (for the purpose of research and what not of Sangh thingy).

Cow and Gau are the same. 'Ka' in Cow and 'Ga' in Gau are cognates (Ka-Ga). What the Europeans call cow is gau for the Aryan Indians.

It's Gandhi's obsession (Gujju obsession) with gau raksha (cow protection) that they even incorporated it in the Art 44 (?) of the Directive Pricniples of the Indian Constitution.

Yes, cow is a good economic unit and Hindu Indians worship anything on earth. Cow gives us the basic necessities of diet i.e milk, yoghurt, butter & dung (dung cakes are good as firewood).

As for Krishna being linked to cow worship. I dont know how this came into being but Krishna as a yadava king would have eaten meat (if not beef). It's very funny that krishna devotees, esp the white ISKCON guys insist on vegetarianism. Vegetarianism promotes saatvika behavior is a big BS. Those who know of Gujarat riots would not dare say this. Most of the killers, rapists in Gujarat are staunch vegetarians.

There's a ritual called somayaaji, where the Brahmin who becomes somayaaji must eat meat in the ritual.

It's also true that Muslims in Bengal and Punjab forced this ritual of beef eating on Hindus in 1947 as part of their forced conversions.

Finally it's the poor cow that became pawn in the politics of the Indian subcontinent.

#11 Posted by Kamath on February 29, 2008 5:07:16 am

There's a variety of ritual called 'naramedham', means sacrifice of a person.

vrv, why shouldn't vegetarians be allowed to rape and kill, in gujrat and elsewhere, just like everyone else?

See, this is exactly the kind of bigotry that drips from every word of this article.

(Masanamuthu is right. We are speaking here of just a taboo that will/may go away. But what is the big deal is the silly and unreasonable implication that a great religion shouldn't have any dietary restrictions. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Mr. Baig can't allow us Hindus to be flat earthers.)

Thanks, drlokraj ji.

Hindu-Sikh Society of Flat Earthers will be proud to count you among its revered honorary members. :):)

Masanamuthu is right. We are speaking here of just a taboo that will/may go away.

Eklavya,

don't know what part of my statement that you claim is right. The whole premise of this article is wrong. i.e. "Hindus being vegetarians". It is part of the "urban legend" or "orientalist writings of history".

The statement that "Hindus are vegetarians" is true ONLY when you restrict Hindus to be just the sum of few "vegetarian" castes (almost all upper castes).

The available stats say almost 70-80% (or even more) of Hindus are non-vegetarians. Most of them don't eat beef/pork and are satisified with chicken/mutton/fish etc.. But even that trend is changing. Myself and quite a few of my friends have no qualms in eating beef / pork. Infact, I have taken a liking to the crispy bacon found in the US. :-)

Re: # 41

Agree... pakis, for some reason, continue have these patently false notions about hinuds : 1. Hinuds are vegetarians 2. Hinuds are gentle and non-violent....

Nothing can be further than truth.... Most hindus are non-vegetarian, including upper castes in many places... Most hindus have nothing to do with principle of non-violence, gandhi's preachings notwithstanding... All gods and godesses in hindu pantehon are warrior figures and carry weapons as part of their get-up... including nerd Gods like Ganesh :)...

Violence and war has always been celebrated in hindu mythology... Geeta is nothing but pep talk on violence... So is Ramayan, Mahabharat... Durga Puja and Dushera is all about killing the "monster"... violence and vegetarianism do not go together... so pakis, please, get some knowledge...

GT,

(Majumdar babu may correct me if he so wishes, but Bengali Brahmins are non-vegetarian. They eat goat and fish ... but not chicken! )

Bong Brahmins are non-veg. They indeed had taboos in the very distant past about chicken but that was becuase chicken was supposed to be Muslim food. These days they eat everything apart from beef. In Bongs only widows and Vaishnavis are traditionally veggie, everyone else NV. Incidentally in the whole of East- that is Bihar, Orissa, Bengal and Assam, Brahmins (the veggie caste normally) eat meat and fish. In Bihar only Baniyas are traditionally veg.

Regards

Re to 24:

Thanks Maharana! At last found the jewel in the heap of garbage.

Non-violence means not violating Natural Law which keeps every thing in balance. This balance sustains the life in the nature. Otherwise life and death is the same thing as many Yogis say.

Purpose of any writing/expression/communication is for organizing and cleaning ones thoughts. For this to happen one needs to be open for growing one's mind or altering one's thoughts. I have found lot of researchers/PhDs do not have this willingness. They are asking others to change their mind but are not willing to change their own. I have found this happens more if one has grown in dictatorial, feudal or exploitive environment. it's hard to have communication with them because they violate this first law of communication. Violence breeds from there on.

Violent people are violent because what thoughts they entertain not because of what they eat. Probably how much they eat matters more because they have lost the balance. If they violate their own organs such as stomach, intestine and heart, then why wouldn't they violate others?

kc,

Sorry if I tried to divert the topic. I dont mean to but I heard all my life that vegetarianism is good and & it makes ppl saatvikam. I made that ref in that context.

Though I am an omnivore, I want to be a veggie in future. :)

To the proponents of non-veg consumption is invariably proportional to the position in the caste pyramid; Nattukottai Chettiyars, at the top of the pyramid, have developed fine non-veg cuisines. Though the credit should go to the Ramnad Thevar cooks, somehow the chettinad dishes have come to be identified with the Chettiyars. Some of the famous Nattukottai Chettiyars are:

P.Chidambaram, Murugappa Chettiyar (EID Group), SPIC Muthiah, M A M Ramaswamy...

Ironically, Nattukottai Chettiyars belong to the business class.

Agree... pakis, for some reason, continue have these patently false notions about hinuds : 1. Hinuds are vegetarians 2. Hinuds are gentle and non-violent....

Nothing can be further than truth....


Right, I think it is part of the "1 beef eating Momin = 10 vegetarian Kafirs" mythology.

non-veg consumption is *invariably proportional to the position in the caste pyramid;

non-veg consumption is *inversely proportional to the position in the caste pyramid;

masanamuthu and vengie bros

While you are/may be totally right about most Hindus being non-vegetarians, Murad A. Baig is 'right' too about Hindus being vegetarians.

The difference is that you and I look at India and Indian life as insiders, as people who live and breathe that life (even if some of us may be physically not present there) while Murad A Baig and others like him look at India and Indian life as aliens and as people living and breathing an alien life (even if they some of them may physically live there).

Apologies if that sounds convoluted. I will come back and explain that point of view. Meanwhile think of this. Are Muslims terrorists? Again, depends on whether you live Islamic life as an insider or look at it from the outside.

no problem, vrv bhai.

We need rationalists like you to be our leaders, if you would just leave a tiny little space for us neanderthals too. :)

Eklavya:

The difference is that you and I look at India and Indian life as insiders, as people who live and breathe that life (even if some of us may be physically not present there) while Murad A Baig and others like him look at India and Indian life as aliens and as people living and breathing an alien life (even if they some of them may physically live there).


That's right. I never realised that the author resides in India. :-). How does he not know the basic fact that a majority of Hindus are non-vegetarians?.

I can agree that the English man or the "orientalist" historian would not have figured that out, not knowing the local language and talking in English to the "brown sahibs" who are probably from the "upper vegetarian castes".

Apologies if that sounds convoluted. I will come back and explain that point of view. Meanwhile think of this. Are Muslims terrorists? Again, depends on whether you live Islamic life as an insider or look at it from the outside.


No it is not convoluted. I can understand the difference between an insider and outsider's view.

Re: # 51

Eklavya and Masanamuthu,

Eureka! It dint register till Masanamuthu opened the bag.

Fyi, I prefer being a veggie. I have been violating at times.

Way to go Murad Bhai. Is his 'treatise' on Hindus' eating habits aimed, at his brethren across the border, to
clarify that we are not aliens?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

vengie, masanamuthu undestands these things better than most of us. He has a deep, instinctive feel.

There are two Hinduisms. The Hinduisms of us who live the life. And the 'Hinduism' of aliens looking at us and wondering what must wrong with us. Since mostly it is the outsiders who are the masters of defining business, only their view forms common perceptions. :)

----------

ali_1, only complete fools believe in proportionate response. I never asked Mr. Baig to initiate the attack. :)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 55

Do you spend the fee on wot to build toilets?

ali_1 bhai, all that is true, but Murad A Baig is still both wrong and misguided.

----------

#56, why lift a hand when the flick of a finger would get rid of a trouble?

-----------

Anyways, we can leave ali_1 bhai and Murad Sahib alone to arrive at whatever consensus they want according to their common needs.

Later, my friends.

Re: # 53

Let me try to make you understand. Vegetarianism is indeed practiced at differing degrees within various Hindu communities. We abstain on selected days of a week. We don't have non-veg on Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. We don't eat on the Hindu holy days. We don't eat on the day of visiting temple or pilgrimage. We don't eat in the month of ' Purattasi - Tamil month '. Women of the family almost remain veggies . You will have to forego non-veg diet, for 40+ days, to enter Ayappa's temple. Though 100% Hindus are not
veggies, vegetarianism is practiced at differing intensities. It ranges from complete abstinence to partial. My paternal uncle is a pure veggie.

Its for you to infer now.

Re: # 58 Eklavya

You seem like a reasonable person to have a discourse with. Could you please help me understand why Hindus almost universally found this writing by Murad so offensive. What does it mean when you say that Murad is ""wrong and misguided"

Baig saab doesn't claim that a majority of hingboos are veggies, rather he questions why some hingboos consider vegetarianism as part of their religion. You understand the distinction, but being shameless penchod hingboos, you take this opportunity to bash a minority member.


slyder:

I don't normally respond to insulting comments, but since this is a weekend and I have some spare time i'll indulge in disabusing you.

Don't you think Baig saab should then have used a different title?. It is like writing "How did Muslims become terrorists" and then claiming in a comment that "Muslims" in the title actually refer to some Muslims who consider terrorism as a part of their religion. :-)

slyder

Verse 100: To utter harsh words when sweet ones would serve Is like eating unripe fruit when ripe ones are at hand.

Thirukkural

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

arjun, it will take time for beef to become just another meat for many Hindus. The change will occur mostly over generations. But believe me, at least in the US, every year it is becoming harder to find another totally vegetarian Hindu, and the number of Hindus who actually like beef is increasing every day. As expected, the trend is most noticeable among younger folks. People like Harimau and me are stuck in a time warp, and some of us know that. :)

---------------------

Urstruly, a fair question.

Mr. Murad started a little political game and we played briefly. The cows was not the issue for Mr. Murad or for us.

Some Hindus seemed genuinely taken aback that Mr. Murad would hold views that they would expect only an outsider to hold.
---------------

vengat #62, that's so cool.

For some reason I just assumed that Harimau would be a vegetarian too. But it may be, I am the only one living in dark ages! :) :)

seriously...what's up with hindoos..you should try beef..just don't start with the mcdonalds/bk crap...start off with the small burger places..


That's right. I'd suggest any good American restaurant, (not a chain) that serves steak tips and rice, medium well.

and muslims...pork is actually very delicious...and it's white meat too...


Bacon strips along with omelette / toast for weekend brunches is a good start.

you're invited..my pet pig mohammad is part of the main course...

:-)

Re: # 64
a straight answer would have been nice

urstruly, this is a exclusively Indian problem. Pakistan was very lucky to solve this problem, and doesn't confront it anymore. Hopefully, it can be explained in simple terms. Only, it will require a bit of thinking from the 'Hindu" point of view. So I request your patience, and if I don't make any sense at all, do accept my apologies in advance.

---------------

Urstruly, in 1947, Hindu leaders - Gandhi and Nehru - chose to shut their eyes, and continue Hindu-Muslim strife and politicking. The issue of Muslim identity that logically should have been put to rest in India was revived, supported, and continues to be with us. It is is getting stronger, as anyone who knows anything about Islam would expect.

Consider what has happened to Taslima Nasreen. To be fair, she cannot be acceptable to any believing Muslim.

A key element, urstruly, of Indian Muslim identity has been killing cows and eating beef. Many Hindus too do the same and don't care two hoots about really about the cow; but for Indian Muslims, the approach to cow has been anything but lackadaisical: aggressive slaughtering of cows and eating of beef has almost a 'local' religious condition.

True, there may even be some vegetarian Indian Muslims, but in general, the willingess to eat beef has been an identity marker for Muslims, in general.

It is an in-your-face statement, of clearly rejecting the Hindu identity, and creating and strengthing a non-Hindu, Islamic Indian political identity.

Quite like, although the scales and universalities of opinions are different, tearing and stomping over a copy of the Quran would be for some Hindus in Pakistan, were they similarly inclined, and had similarly clear/passionate beliefs. Indian Muslims have proudly considered doing something equivalent, in the eyes of SOME Hindus, almost their right and their obligation.

Now, a FEW Hindus have, as Mr Baig mentioned, begun to pay attention in political terms. This has not yet gone to the extent of Hindus tearing up and stomping over copies of the Quran (and I hope it doesn't have to), but has begun to show up in SOME Hindus beginning to emphasize their determination to 'protect' the cow. Mr. Baig clearly disapproves of this trend, as we would expect him to.

So, now, you may get a feel of the political game that Mr Murad started, and we played briefly.
-----------------------------

Obviously, this is an absurd and tragic situation in that Indians/Hindus - no matter what their religious beliefs - should not have to confront, just as Pakistani Muslims don't face it at least in their own country.

--------------
Please, this is a Hindu flat earthers view! It does not reflect the opinions of most other good Hindus for whom political identity is a complete non-issue. What's more, there are also many Hindus who are extremely afraid that we Hindu flat earthers are going to force them and their children to become equally backward flat earthers too!! Such Hindus would even support Mr. Baig. :)

Re: # 68

Thank you. Now I understand your POV better. But politics aside, do you see an academic merit to his historical and religious refernces? Personally, I have no clue about their authenticity, so I want to hear from a horses mouth.

Re: # 68

eklavya,

... i hate to say this, but you guys are making a big mistake by pandering to the indian muslims ..... remember, muslims have never been able to live as a peaceful majority - it is only a matter of time before the green flag is once again flying from the ramparts of the delhi fort ........ good luck

urstruly, since old texts/history etc don't matter to us much in shaping current and future life, not many of us specialize in studying them. But there is no basis at all to doubt Mr. Baig's integrity in quoting or highlighting whatever he thought was relevant. Also, remember, this cow issue itself is not such a big deal. There have been Indian/Hindu scholars who have arrived at similar conclusions before - that eating meat was common in India, and beef was eaten as well.

Mr. Baig's contribution here was putting that already existing research in Hindu/Muslim political conflictual terms.

---------------------

hamidm2, Muslims have no reason to not live as mostly peaceful majority. They may (and invariably will) fight among themselves, but for the most part, they should be peaceful toward minorities.

Again, I have more confidence in Islam than you do. I actually quite admire Islam's clear approach to religious minorities.

The issue, hamdim2, is always what to do with Islamic minorities, particularly when the majority is as clueless and suicidal as Indian Hindus.

Don't you sometimes read posts by Indian Hindus and go: "What are these guys thinking?"?

There are some deep logical gaps in traditional Hinduism. Those gaps keep even the smartest Hindus from understanding Islam as it is. Consequently, they either hate it (thinking of it as worse than it is even from their pov) or talk foolishly about this large group of Muslims being different from that large group.


Anyways, we got sidetracked. :)

Re: # 70 hamid

don't worry about it - the "pandering" is almost a thing of past, except for commie infested areas... why do you think Modi is considered a big shot "leader" these days?... According some people - he is supposed to be the Prime Minister in waiting...

Even though that would be a gross violation justice, but looks like it will take a person like Modi to set things back where it should have been in the first place...

Re: # 71
[...ehen the majority is as clueless and suicidal as Indian Hindus...]

Actually, hindus are not really that "clueless", as you say...

Hindus have always known exactly what they are dealing with... and have takens steps to reduce the problem in various ways... partition was first such step... as YLH would tell you, it was congress which caused partition to happen... of course, then they tried to "balance" the things by "pandering" to the decimated remaining muslims, that was a mistake...

which is why BJP and their fellow-travellers have become a force in politics, pandering was going a little too far...

So don't worry about hinuds... they are neither clueless, nor suicidal, in fact - they have gone a step beyond what was required... hard-handed treatment given out in gujrat and kashmir being examples...

Which is why pakis are so afraid of hinuds... they know that hinuds will teach them lessons given half a chance, just like what happened in 1971...

A good read.

Kaal,
It is nice to see you interact with passion after quite some time. You make an intelligent point -
1. Hindu identity (not Hindus per se) rejects beef. The identity may or may not be based on myths. The myths themselves are of no consequence (at least in this context) but the identity is.
2. Muslims, in India, reinforce the separation of their identity by eating beef.
3. The politics of identity is driven to quite an extent through the fight on the issue of beef.
4. The author is making light of this important issue of identity politics in his article. Hence he is acting like Edward Said's outsider all with "rational analysis of history" and other bells and whistles.

Well, you have a point. However, your attempt to homogenize the Hindu identity by defining the "outsider" (Murad in this case) scares the hell out of the Hindu in me. It seems to be very close to "you are either with us or against us". The Hindu that I identify myself with has fought this homogenizing effort for quite some time now. It took the form of Jaichand who opposed Prithiviraj and the form of Shivaji who opposed Aurangzeb. Long time back even Vishnu had to take the form of Narasingha to get outside the paradigm of homogenized identity. Neither Sankaracharya nor VHP can define me the Hindu. Nor can anyone else, by telling me who is not "like me".

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Re: # 70 hamidm,

Muslims can live peacefully under heavy repression, by a king..saudi, by a military man..mushy, simple repression...turkey.

Freedom well you have problems...london bombings, indian plane hijackings etc etc.

End to terror central..iraquise pakistan/

Re: # 76 GT & Eklavya

I have never understood this double-speak. On one hand you people on almost every borad on Hinduism, say that it is impossible to define a hindu because a hindu could be one that belives in nothing or the one who belives in everything; it could be one who believes in One God, or it could be one who belives in millions of gods. So by your definition a Muslim must be a Hindu also. I know you people consider hindustan as the center of universe but what about quadianism; it emerged in the land f hinduism; why can't quadianis be regarded as yet anothet 'goath', another 'panth', and what not. On one hand you guys so vehmently claim the so called "homogeniety" yet exclusiveness of hinduism and on the other hand you whine about the Hindu identity. So which one is it. What the hell is wrong with you people??

It took me hardly a week to understand Einstiens bothe General and Special theory or relitivity and I have been taking interest in hinduism for the past 8 years and heck I am absolutely clueless what hinduism is. I have asked the same questions from some live hindus too and I find their shifting eyes quite uncomfortable.

urstruly,

In fact BJP wants to call all muslims as ahmadi hindus and christians as christi hindus.

That should solve your confusion. Budhism did not spread in india because shnakarachary in first centuary AD made budha an avatar, a god in the hindu pantheon. Give us some time, slowly and steadily muslims will vanish into hinduism.

I know of many muslims who typically exclaim " ayyo rama", calling a hindu god which is typical in south india.

90 percent of the people who visit velankanni church in tamil nadu, good for the health of children, are hindus. I used to visit a muslim saints tomb in my young days, said to be good for education, and I am thankful, teh saint did deliver on my grades all through my school days.

In fact recently my mother visited valankanny church to pray for her grand children. Hindus like god who can deliver goods in this world. We do not much care for houris and the like after death, and that is why hindus do not much care for that saudi chappie.

Baig Sahib:

Thanks for a well-researched article. I think that there is now a general acceptance of the hypothesis that the aryans were beef eaters at one time.

I don't know why some Hindus are sensitive on this issue. The Hindu society has never been static and has changed under external influence. In recent times, sati was banned under western influence and now they have realised the evil of caste-based oppression. I think that they should also learn the art of self-preservation from others and introduce the concept of apostacy and punishment to thwart the onslaught of proselytising faiths.

Re: # 56

Dear Raam, stop pretending to be Allah. Don't abuse.

May God excuse you too Mr. Slyder.

Eklavya ji,

I am not competent enough to judge the merits of this article or its authenticity, but some comments seem to praise the article. Similarly, some also disputed the conclusions. But all this apart, your assertion that this article has some political angle to it is beyond me. This is what urstruly is also referring to. The explanation you came up with; well frankly, they also just shot above my head. Definately, the reason could be nothing else but my position as an outsider.

So, can you please try again, keeping in mind our abrahamic state of mind looking for things in black and white.

BTW I know for sure that in rural Pakistan Punjab, cow dung is used as a fuel, and even as a mixture with mud to coat the mud floors and mud walls. I have seen it personally done.

regards,

khalid

bhatti ji, no problem at all. This is a problem entirely manufactued by Hindu leaders in 1947, so it has to be hard for any outsider - not just those with an abrahamic state of mind - to grasp.

First, can we think of ANY condition(s) under which killing and eating a cow or a pig or a dog or any other animal may be an out and out POLITICAL act?

----------

GT, ustruly bhai, ...will be back in a little while. As usual, you guys make discussions worth the trouble, and obviously instructive. Thanks.

ok, this can be made even easier. Let's forget cow/pig/dog/man.

Can we think of ANY conditions under which the mere ACTS of eating and charity (say, giving food away to the poor) can be exclusively POLITICAL ACTS?

I looked with curiosity at this article and the interacts that followed. Great going. The article is well-researched, I must say. No issues with that. Dont mix up academically researched articles with petty politics. Politicians cling to every issue and try to tweak them to suit their purposes. So, forget BJP and their friends: they were not present in the Vedic days. They should know the things only from the available texts, as we all do.

bhowmick ji, this discussion has moved far beyond the academicity of this article. Had Mr. Murad A Baig not turned now acknowledged historical facts into political hatchet job, nobody would have objected.

Please understand. The 'regard' many backward and regressive Hindus have for the cow is not based on the fact that the cow was never eaten in India (unless you can tell us otherwise).

On the other hand, if you, like Mr. Murad A Baig, have no respect for people who have silly dietary restrictions based on make-belief logic, be my guest.

Thanks Eklavya ji,

I think I got the point. What I grasped is that:

It is bloody stupid of any nation to eat cow not because they want to eat it but because to wear it as a differentiating badge from someone else.

Equally stupid is the reciprocal act of counter party to consider it as an insult.......

I agree 100% with you if you mean what I stated above...

Thanks, bhatti ji! That is precisely the point. There is NOTHING logical in any of this. It is a purely a religio-political fight.

When people try to 'rationalize' one side or the other's viewpoint, they are just being hyper smart. And somehow, I don't like such smart people. They just come across as dishonest warriors who don't have the moral courage to dress up as warriors, leaving that dirty job to neanderthals like us who are accused of all manner of unnecessary evil. :)

Re: # 86 kaal

good point...

#78 Posted by Urstruly,

Urstruly,

Quadianis can call themselves Hindus if they so wish. You too can, no problem. Do you remember FV? She did not believe in God, but enjoyed and respected festivals and traditions associated with Islam. And identified herself with Islam. She would give a damn as to whether you considered her a Muslim or not. I (and perhaps kaal) would call her a Hindu. She perhaps would not like it. And I would apologise. In other words, the ability to give a damn about the relative "authenticity" of "beliefs" but not disrespecting others' beliefs or identities is what defines a Hindu FOR ME.

As for your not understanding double-speak, you may want to start by trying to understand yourself.

"the ability to give a damn about the relative "authenticity" of "beliefs" but not disrespecting others' beliefs or identities "

wow, GT, no way could I have put this so succinctly yet accurately!

But GT, that is not YOUR Hinduism, it has to be the Hinduism of all thinking people who KNOW that Hinduism is NOT some god's gift to mankind.

Now, I do run that approach down as 'traditional Hinduism' and point to political/logical problems that that approach runs into, but am glad to know that we are rooted at the same place.

-----------------

Urstruly, the point you raise IS an interesting and important one. TS has raised it before. And even chaltahai once hinted that I should accept mirzais as 'Hindus.'

Basically, Hindus would have no problem accepting anyone who calls himself a Hindu (sometimes even if they don't call themselves Hindus, as in the case of sufis). It's only a POLTICAL person like me who keeps crying (in wilderness) that sufis (and others) cannot be Hindus so long as they politically identify themselves (that is, prefer to formally count themselves) as non-Hindus.

It will require a VERY SMALL shift in the position of many 'Muslims' to turn them into good Hindus, not only politically but also intellectually. You may ask why even that tiny shift may be needed, why a Muslim be a Hindu and still believe in the basics of Islam (Allah is the only god, and Muhammad is this only god's prophet, and this only god called allah sent his last message to mankind through Muhammad in the form of Quran).

This is where, I believe, traditional Hinduism has some logical gaps, which need to be filled.

I suspect if you had difficulty 'understanding' Hinduism, that could be because of those logical gaps within Hinduism as Hindus have understood their religion for the last thousand years (since the arrival of Islam on India's borders).