GANDHI and the COW: the ETHICS of HUMAN/ANIMAL RELATIONSHIPS MARK JUERGENSMEYER University of California, Berkeley

GANDHI AND THE COW: THE ETHICS OF HUMAN/ANIMAL RELATIONSHIPS MARK JUERGENSMEYER University of california, Berkeley

The COlI is a poem of pity •••• • • the ritually defiling to do so; whereas lower JlDther to millions of Indian man caste persons JlDre frequently eat meat, and kind. •• CcM protection to me is sure have as their caste occupations the one of the JlDst wonderful phenanena tarming and preparation of hides. Gandhi's in human evolution. [1] vegetarianism was based on different notions (non-violence and nutritional, rather than It is a source of puzzled embarrassment ritual, purity of the body), and COlI protec to many Garrlhian admirers, who otherwise find tion was not a necessary correlation to it. in his thoughts a happy marriage of the JlDre For a time during his wayward youth, Gandhi sensible of Hindu concepts and the JlDre pro was a meat-eater, and later on in life he is gressive of western values, that Gandhi was said to have recarrnended eating meat to sure not JlDre JTDdest in his affection for the COlI. one undernourished for lack of protein, des Yet, it may also be argued, as I intend to pite the vigorous opposition of sane of the do, that Gandhi I s bovine peculiarities are upper caste residents of his Ashram at the integral, perhaps' seminal, to the whole of time. [3] Garrlhi also favored the expansion his ethical stance; and that a richer urx:l.er of tarmeries, to utilize the hides of cattle standing of the Gandhian symrol of the COlI which had expired through natural deaths. will lead to a JTDdel of human/animal ethics which may be useful in the west, where the present confusion on that issue is despaired Econanic and Political Reasons by the supporters of animal liberation and exacerbated by the sociobiologists. One may argue that instead of sacredotal and custClTliU}' reasons for venerating the COlI, we make no claim that Gandhi's position Gandhi relies fW1damentally on ethical rea is representative of Indian culture, for sane sons. Yet, before this argument may be made, of the JlDre traditional reasons for venerat one Trnlst acknowledge that Gandhi also had ing the COlI are absent fran Gandhi's ap rather practical reasons for regarding the proach. Despite his enigmatic claim that COlI with sane deference. "the central fact of Hinduism is COlI protec tion, "[2] Gandhi's COlI is not an especially One of these practical reasons was eco religious beast. He does not linger over nanic. The COlI is a useful and vital part of Krishna's lave for the CCMS, as characterized village econauy, and for Gandhi, COlI protec in the Haribamsa and the Puranas; nor does tion meant COlI care, the maintenance of cat Gandhi utili,ze the Shaivite irragery of the tle as an important econanic unit. Gandhi scholarly and Ferdinand-like bull, Nandi. might have vieYJed with sure synq;athy the

When Gandhi speaks of his "worship" of the efforts of Marvin Harris to make India I s COlI, one should regard this as an alm:>st teeming cattle population appear eCO:lanically metaphorical expression and not expect evi advisable. [4] And Gandhi might also have dence of the Mahabna saying prayers and per agreed with Alan Heston that the shabby and forming puja in front of cattle or ritually ill-tended CCMS are an econanic nuisance. [5] garlanding them with flowers.

Gandhi's veneration of the COlI is also not obviously connected with caste restric tions on touching defiled arrl polluted mat ter, and eating meat. Ordinarily, In India, PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY upper caste people do not eat Jreat or use leather products, in part because it would be 11 11 In general, Gandhi avoided the issue of whe the p:>ssibilities of a Hindu-Muslim alliance ther the CON p:>p.Uation, as presently util in Congress. In the 40's, it was the rise of ized, is econanically advantageous or disad Muslim nationalism, leading ~ the crea vantageous. When Gandhi was presented with tion of Pakistan, and its CO\ID.terpart in the argument, in 1925, by an English writer, militant Hinduism. In both of these instan that surplus CXJWS cost Irrlia almost two bil ces, Gandhi's camlE!Ilts about CXJWS were meant lion rupees annually, Gandhi admitted that to be words of reconciliation between Hindus there might be an overall public cost to CON and Muslims. Gandhi claimed, for instance, protection, but avowed that "a religious that "it is the Hindus that do OOIo/'""selling senti.Ioont is not worth the name if it is not business, and not the Musalmans," and hence worth paying for. II [6] Gandhi's solution to Hindus are really to blame for <::X)W""-slaugh the problem was not to kill off the CXJWS- ter. [8] '!be Muslim butcher, Gandhi claimed, which he regarded as being lIOrally rep..1gnant, was simply doing his business, and it was up if not impractical--but, rather, to make the to the Hindu cattle merchant to make the existing CXJWS econanically useful. profession econanically unfeasible. Gandhi was adamantly against the legal ban on CON In fact, the bulk. of Gandhi's writings slaughter, for"it is obviously wrong legally about the CON are essays on the utility of to enforce one's religious practices on those rrcdern dairy techniques, and their feasibili who do not share that religion;"[9] rather, ty for Irrlia. Yet, such essays are couched Gandhi urged an improvement in Hindu-Muslim in rhetoric about the sanctity of the CON. relations as the only viable protection of "By every act of cruelty to all" cattle, II the CON. Similar to the econanic issue of Gandhi dis~ God and writes, "we Hinduism•• scientific CON treatment, the p:>litical issue the miserable condition of our cattle." For of Muslim attitudes towards CON slaughter was the proper veneration of the sacred beasts, made plblically palatable by Gandhi through Gandhi is quick to suggest "rrcdel dairy fanns an appeal to Hindu religious sentiment. It and great profitable national institu was a mark of Gandhi's ethical agility that tions."[?] he could take a religious notion that usually implied narr~ess and prejudice, and turn it It is clear that whatever other ethical into a concept of progress and harIJOny. and personal reasons Gandhi may have had for speaking kindly of the CON, it had the prac tical effect of stirring Hindu sympathies Ethical Bases for eo.. Protection towards scientific dairy techniques. As he Md done on many other occasions, Gandhi was '!be econcmic and p:>litical importance of arousing religious passions in a way that Gandhi's CON should not, however, deter us would effect social change, in this case, fran proceeding apace and reaJgIlizing its econanic change. ethical symbolism. There are two levels of ethical significance: the obvious linkages, Gandhi's interests in the CON also had which Gandhi made explicitly, and those less p:>litical significance, especially in the obvious ethical inferences which we i.rnpJte to context of Hindu-Muslim relations. The Mus Gandhi. lims, after all, were the people in India lIOst liable to slaughter CXJWS for beef and Am:mg the obvious ethical elements, the by-products, and public sentiment anong Hin =cept of ahimsa, non-violence, loans IIDSt dus for a ban on CON slaughter has always had praninent. Gandhi OCIlIll){l1y would alternate a double edge: the p:>sitive virtues of ve paragra:fX1g on CON protection with paragra:fX1g nerating the CON and the negative aspect of on the concept of ahimsa, in an alIJOst litur protecting the CON fran its natural enemy, gical litany. '!bere is ancient precedent for the Muslim butcher. It is when Hindu-Muslim that connection, for although there does not tensions are at their IJOst taut that the appear to be evidence that the concept of CON issue of CON protection is IJOst visible and protection emerged at the same time in an lIOst visibly dangerous. cient India as that of non-violence, the two concepts certainly appear to develop, but I-bst of Gandhi's wrilings about the CON tressed by each other, during the first cen were in the early 1920's and in the mid-40's, turies of the Christian era. According to w. two m:::m:mts when Hindu-Muslim relations were Norrran Br~, "the idea of Ahimsa and the In critical. the 20's, the issue centered doctrine of the sanctity of the CON slowly around. the restoration of the Khilafat and gain status together. •• roughly about the

~ '!HE SPEX::IES 12 5th century to the 4th century AD." [10] and many cows. Gandhi persistently uses the singular form, as Irrlians frequently do, in What is distinctive about Gandhi's ap referring to the cow. And yet, of course, proach is that ahimsa is interpreted rather there are thousands of cows in Irrlia, each of broadly, to incorporate the ethical concept whan partakes in sore way in a generic sa of the unity of all life, and the fX)sitive credness. To harm anyone cow is to lay a injooction to love one's fellow being. Ac hand on the cosmic Mother. cording to Gandhi, "the cow merely stands as a symbol, and protection of the cow is the Moreover, not just the cow itself, but least [one] is expected to tmdertake." [11] one's relationship to it, is a resolution of Reverence towards the cow "takes the human the tension, a holistic act. 'ilie cow, after being beyond his species. •• the cow to lIE all, is a dtnnb animal, a thing which produces means the entire sub-human world."[12] For doog and pulls plows; and yet it is imputed Gandhi, cow reverence was a way of expanding to be also a close relative: our very one's consciousness, of gaining an identity mother. A thing becanes live, personable, a with the whole of the created order. related extension of the self. Gandhi ex plains this aspect of the cow's symbolic That wider identity is allied with the nature as our link with all species. It is concept of llRltual love, which also is re that, but it is also our link with all flected in the symbol of the non-violent cow. things, and persons whan we might otherwise For Gandhi, non-violence means not violating regard as things, by reminding us that even the integrity of another living being. 'ilius, the dtnnb cow is our symbolic mother. 'ilie Gandhi claimed that, in his opinion, "every otherness of the exterior world is integrated little breach of the ahimsa principle, like with the wholeness of the self. In Martin causing hurt by harsh speech to any one,man, Buber's terms, the "it" hcs becerne a "thou." wanan or child, to cause pain to the weakest and the most insignificant creature on earth, 'ilie cow is appropriate for this symbol would be a breach of the principle of cow in p:irt because it has been assigned that protection ••• differing fran it in degree, role by being designated the mother cow, the if at all, rather than in kind."[B] personable, self-extended, relative self. 'ilien too, the role of the cow in the Irrlian village also makes this symbol appropriate, Mediation Between the One and the Many and vital. The cow is p:irt of the family more than any other animal, physically in the These ethical concepts--ahimsa, respect center of things, its various products essen for all life, and llRltual love--are appro tial to the daily maintenance of the house priate to the image of the cow, but they are hold, fran the ghee (clarified butter) used sanehow insufficient in explaining the dis in cooking, to the dW1g-cakes which are used tinctive p:JWer of the cow as an ethical sym for the cooking fires. bol. One has the feeling that the gentle kitten, or the magnanimous water buffalo, This image of the cow's role in the might have done just as well. For Gandhi to village is especially evocative for Gandhi, have written about the cow with such virulent who thought of the Indian village as a para ethical p:ission, clearly sore other explana digm for the harmonious corrrnun.ity. Gandhi tions are in order. For these explanations, tended to idealize the traditional village, we will look directly at the cow itself, as even though he did not live in any, except Gandhi describes it, rather than relying ufX)n those which he recreated himself. It was in Gandhi's ethical interpretations. What we the rural p:ice of life, the econanic self have foood is that the image of the cow is a sufficiency and direct personal relation symbolic JOCdiation between t\\Q different ships, that Gandhi found the closest realiza basic ethical dilemnas. tion of the truthful, non-violent social ideal. According to Gandhi, urban civiliza '!he first of those dilemnas is the di tion has no hope W1til it is penetrated with chotany between the one am the many, the "the values of the rural life."[141 'ilie COli, tension between the ethical primacy of the then, symbolizes not only the closeness of integral self and the social whole. How does village relationships but also the character the cow resolve this dilemna? On the sim of the village itself. plest level, the cow is a resolution of the dilemna by being both one and many, the cow The symbol of the cow is a symbol of 13 13 psychic unity, a mediation between individu '!be IlOther-image also fits the dual alism arrl differentiation, between the perils roles of the nurse. Even though Gandhi of selfishness on the one hand, arrl loss of viewed his own rrother largely as a pissive self on the other. for Jung, the process of person, the image of the IlOther in his wri individuatioo acecmplished that unity, by tings clearly indicates the power which a linking the singular, conscious self with the IlOther may hold, if only by re<:.son of our universality of the symbols of the collective dependency upon her. It is the syrrlrane of unconscious. '!be symbol of the CCM implies a demanding passivity, which often character similar process in Gandhian thought, but in izes the rrother image of roodern hUllDr: "why dimen Gandhi it also is fused with a social should you think of me, after all the sacri sion. For as we have just seen, the CCM fices I've made for you?" '!be rrother has symbolically suggests the wholeness p:>8sible enorrrous control, even-perhaps especially in relationships with others, arrl the vil in her posture of self-effacement arrl sacri lage-like ha.rnony which is the p)tential of fice. Like the nurse, the IlOther is a media human camumities. tion between authority and sutxaission by exhibiting both of those characteristics si..rrnlltaneously• ~ation Between Authority arrl SUhnission

'!be other ethical dilemna which is sym bolically resolved by the characteristics of the Gandhian CCM is the tension between au thority arrl sutxaission, freedan arrl re straint. This dilenrna was especially acute to Gandhi personally, for if we are to accept his autobiographical account of his child hood, the tension between his father's au thoritarian attitooes,attitu::1es, arrl his rrother's pas sivity was a major force in the rrolding of his own diverse character, and in the wars which were waged within.

In Gandhi's life history, this tension was resolved rrost happily in the role of nurse, a task for which Gandhi volunteered on several occasions and which he claimed gave him enorrrous personal satisfaction. It was in the role of nurse that Gandhi tended his father in the tratllllatic IlOlleI1ts during his father's death. Nursing tasks seduced Gandhi '!be CCM, for Gandhi, is a symbol both of into participating in two wars, which other the passivity which characterizes the extreme wise he likely would not have done. And of the dichotany, and, in different m:>ods, there are many other instances of Gandhi the CCM is the nurse, the rrother, which re playing the role of nurse-to members of his solves the duality in a passive power. The ashram, his family, calves, arrl miscellaneous CCM is saretimes offered by Gandhi as the animals. perfect symbol of the sutxaissive spirit1 "CCM worship means to me worship of innocence. The nursing role is an interesting resa .the weak and the helpless."[lSl Yet this luticn of the tension between authority and weak and helpless CCM appears, in a renark sul:mi.ssion, because it fully E!11bodies both. able passage written in 1940, rrore powerful '!be nurse is in one sense a servant, sutrnis than our biological rrothers, through the sive arrl humbly waiting upon the every need sheer perfection of her sacrificial service: of the patient. No king has been so totally tended up:m as the patient in the care of an Mother CCM is in many ways better obedient and watchful nurse. Arrl yet the than the rrother who gave us birth. pitient, in his or her weakness, is totally CUr rrother gives us milk for a deperXlent upon the nurse, and in that sense, couple of years arrl then expects us the nurse embodies absolute and unlimited to serve her when we grcM up. Mo authority. ther CCM expects fran us nothing but grass and grain. Our llr::lther Elements of a Humane Ethic often falls ill and expects service fran us. l-Dtherz.Dt:her COti rarely falls '!be COti symbolism, as employed by Gan ill. Here is an unbroken record of dhi, therefore has at least three ethical service which does not end with her elements, which may be st1II1llarized as follows: death. Our IIOther when she dies means expenses of burial or crema Wholeness: the unity of all life, as tion. r-bther CCM is as useful dead expressed in the cxmcept of ahimsa, as when she is alive. we can make which for Gandhi includes the absence of use of every part of her body-her harmful intent. flesh, her bones, her intestines, Personhood: the roodiation between the her horns and her skin. well, I one and the many which results in the say this not to disparage the no regard of others as relevant persons. ther who gives us birth, but in Concern: the roodiation between authori order to show you the substantial ty and submission, which results in a reasons for my worshipping the passive power, expressed as concern. CCM. [16] '!bese three ethical elements which are 'Ibis unusual passage was quoted in its suggested by Gandhi's imagery of the COti fit entirety, since it indicates not only the well into Gandhi I S larger ethical structure, dual characteristics of the CCM symbol but and that structure is daninated by a concept also sarething of Gandhi's passionate, alrrost too sopusticated to be symbolized by a CCM, erotic, expression of it. '!be patently Oedi the concept of satya, the ha.nocnious good pal overtones, however, simply tm:1erscore the towards which conflicts are resolved in the argument;ar

15 15 '!his "CXM ethic" of Ganfu.i is sufficient unconscious, the CXI'llatose, and the suicidal, to build sound attitudes of humane regard for and the rights of animals. On the horizon the lesser =eatures. After all, one would are the issues of rights to be discussed by be unlikely to abuse an animal or to treat it sane future generation: the rights of rocks, ungenerously, if one regarded that animal as and whether trees have standing. [18] a perscn with whan one has a relationship of concern. Yet, this rather elementary I10ral Perhaps the concept of "animal libera attitude is predicated on one's acceptance of tion" might itself be liberated fran the the notion of the wholeness of all life, a burden of an ethic based on rights. An ethic notion which cares easily in the Hindu con of relationships, with its implications of text, but less easily in the context of the responsibility and concord, might be a I10re West, where it is rurrored that only hurrans useful place to begin. And for that, we have been gifted with souls. might I10destly employ Gandhi and his three fold ethic of the CXM.

Animal Rights and Animal Liberation A Response to the Ethic of Sociobiology Thus, in Western philosophy and reli gious thought, there has been an ethical However, even if Western ethics and laCLU1a in the shape of an animal, for there philosophy have been negligent in providing has never been any clear-headedness about hC1tl an understanding about the relationship of animals should-or could--be ethically re hurrans with other species, Western science garded. Western law, secular as well as has not. Indeed, the theological trem:>r I1Oral, has simply exacerbated the problem which was felt on the occasion of Darwin was with the insistance on the concept of rights an indication of the seriousness with which as the principle of legal and ethical beha the biological explanation was taken. The vior. Rather than our relationship with theories of evolution contained the elements animals, it is the nature of animals them of an ethic. selves which is at issue in determining whe ther they are or are not the sorts of things Yet, it has not been until the advent of which are deserving of fundamental rights. sociobiology that the implications of that ethic have becane obvious. Human/animal The animal welfare and anti-vivisection relationships, although taken seriously, are =usades, which were particularly ardent in no longer of critical issue. In sociobiology England in the last century, and which have the genetic dispositions to survival traits recently surfaced there again, and in this are assumed to underlie all attitudes and country, slip into the same quarrlary when activities of humans and other species, in they insist up:m "animal rights." [17] '!heir cluding those of their inter-relationships. arguments appear to be sadly tautological: At its I10st radical extraoos, sociobiology animals are the sorts of things which deserve justifies, by its ccrnpetitive survival advan to have rights, therefore they should have tages, certain racist and sexist attitudes, rights. The problem, of course, is that if and in that justification lies the evidence it were so obvious to everyone that animals of an ethic, or at least, an anti-ethic. should have rights, they would doubtless have had them. The "animal rights" people are, 'fue starting point of sociobiology and therefore, not arguing out of rational the starting point of Gandhi are not far principle but waging a crusade, a =usade for apart, however; both begin with the unviolat wider recognition of the rights-worthiness of able sense of the unity of all life and the lesser species. conviction that there are cxmron stanjards which we should use to gauge all species. '!he problem is that rights are assigned Gandhi and sociobiology part canpany with sanewhat arbitrarily and are always subject their choice of standards. And yet ~ere is tc disagreeroont regarding the boundary be an area of sociobiology's concern which might tween those beings who are worthy of rights admit sane of Ganfu.i after all; this is the and those who are not. In earlier genera paradox that survival may frequently involve tions, the issue was over slaves and WCIleIl, cooperation as well as

BmwEEN 'mE SPOCIES 16 survival, and a:x>peration enhance it. The 6. Young India, August 27, 1925. lone aggressive ant, by biting the foot of a boar, may signal his presence and find his 7. Young India, OCtober 6, 1921. ambitions erased by the scrape of a toe, whereas the cooperative ant, in ccncert with 8. Young India, September 8, 1921. persevering thousands, could send that boar into delirious termination. The point is 9. Harijan, August 31, 1947. that even by sociobiology's own lindted point of reference, the quest for survival, there 10. W. Nonnan Brown, "India's sanctity is an opening for an ethic based on a:x>pera of the CcM," Econanic and Political Weekly, tion, 1lU.1tuality of trust, and collective p. 247. obligations. 11. Young India, November 11, 1926. The basic cow ethic of Gandhi does not require 1lU.1ch llOre than that. The virtues of 12. Young India, OCtober 6, 1921. wholeness, personhood, and COr1cen1 in rela tionships can be understood and even admired 13. Young India, January 29, 1925. in species other than our own. Whether these are attitudes that are volitional in llOtiva 14. Selected Works, vol. III. tion or are due to biological predisposition would surely be debated, but faced with the 15. Young India, June 8, 1921. apparent bestialization of human values by biology, we can hardly resist the tE!llPtation 16. Harigan, September 15, 1940. to humanize the acts and attitudes of the lesser beasts. 17. Cf. Tan Regan and Peter Singer, Animal Rights and Human Chligations (Engle Whether the cow ethic is indeed the wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976) and Peter ethics of the cow is not, however, a soluble Singer's Animal Liberation (New York: Avon or urgent issue. Issues of human/animal Books, 1975). relations may appear to be both, although those issues which are soluble are frequently 18. The f'hrase canes fran the title of a not urgent, and those which are urgent often book by Christof'her Stone. cannot be solved. We have at least in Gan dhi's understanding of the cow the elercents of ethical attitooes which, if they do not lift the burdens and honor the lives of other species, will surely ennoble the lives of our own in the attE!llPt.

Notes

1. Young India, october 6, 1921.

2. Ibid.

3. Autobiograf'hY, Part I, chapters 6-7.

4. Marvin Harris, "India's sacred CcM," Human Nature, February, 19781 see also his (Fditor's Note: Professor Juergensmeyer has CcMs, Pigs, Wars and Witches (New York: Ran recently published a book-length study of dom House, 1974). Gandhi with Harper & Row, entitledentitied Fighting with Gandhi.) 5. Alan Heston, "An Approach to the sacred CcM of India," CUrrent Anthropology 12 (1971).

17 BEIWEEN 'mE SPEX::IES