Gau rakshak violence: A reading of Gandhi's work shows he revered the cow as much as his fellow human

Killing people in the name of Gaubhakti is not acceptable, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said. “This is not something Mahatma Gandhi would approve.” Gandhi not only did not approve the Hindu ways of protecting the Holy Cow but also went to say that “gau raksha samitis” should be renamed ‘gau vadh samitis”. [caption id=“attachment_3290864” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  File image of Mahatma Gandhi.[/caption] Gandhi was a deeply religious person, and held the Mother Cow in high reverence, also appreciating the animal’s significance in India’s rural economy. He, however, was equally aware of the politics behind cow protection: that cow – one of those matters where Hindus and Muslims have completely different views – has been turned into a symbol, like the pig. Simply put, Gandhi’s thinking on this vexed issue – it was as vexed back then as it is now – goes like this: Cow is holy, no doubt, but not worth shedding human blood for. Because a Muslim is also my brother. Firstly. I would like to persuade him to give up cow meat. If he doesn’t, then I will ignore the matter. If I really feel very deeply about the cow that is going to be slaughtered, then I should offer my life to save the animal – not take somebody else’s life for it. In his key text ‘Hind Swaraj’ (1909) , Gandhi devoted better part of a chapter on this question. The 10th chapter is titled ‘The Condition of India (cont.): The Hindus and the Mahomedans’. Here is the whole of the relevant part; emphasis added: “Reader: Now I would like to know your views about cow-protection. “Editor: I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her with affectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India because, being an agricultural country, she is dependent on the cow. The cow is a most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will admit this. But, just as I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is just as useful as a cow no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu. Am I, then, to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In doing so, I would become an enemy of the Mahomedan as well as of the cow. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of the country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me I should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond my ability. If I were overfull of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice my life to save her but not take my brother’s. This, I hold, is the law of our religion. When men become obstinate, it is a difficult thing. If I pull one way, my Moslem brother will pull another. If I put on a superior air, he will return the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much more so; and if he does not, I shall not be considered to have done wrong in having bowed. When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows increased. In my opinion, cow-protection societies may be considered cow-killing societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need such societies. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed such societies. What am I to do when a blood-brother is on the point of killing a cow? Am I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him? If you admit that I should adopt the latter course, I must do the same to my Moslem brother. Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when they cruelly ill-treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they mercilessly belabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But this has not prevented us from remaining one nation. Lastly, if it is be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine of non-killing and the Mahomedans do not, what, pray, is the duty of the former? It is not written that a follower of the religion of Ahimsa (non-killing) may kill a fellow-man. For him the way is straight. In order to save one being, he may not kill another. He can only plead—therein lies his sole duty. But does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? Going to the root of the matter, not one man really practises such a religion because we do destroy life. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtain freedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we may observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore, followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the two cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa and the Mahomedans do not. These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious teachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have habit of writing history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all peoples. God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the functionof the Godhead and indulge in novel experiments. They write about their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotize us into believing them. We in our ignorance then fall at their feet. Those who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, and they will find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus; and the Bhagavadgita contains passages to which not a Mahomedan can take exception. Am I to dislike a Mahomedan because there are passages in the Koran I do not understand or like? It takes two to make a quarrel. If I do not want to quarrel with a Mahomedan, the latter will be powerless to foist a quarrel on me; and, similarly, I should be powerless if a Mahomedan refuse his assistance to quarrel with me. An arm striking the air will become disjointed. If everyone will try to understand the core of his own religion and adhere to it, and will not allow false teachers to dictate to him, there will be no room left for quarrelling."