Friday, February 27, 2026

Eid has arrived. Threats and warnings to Muslims by the police of Uttar Pradesh precede it

Eid has arrived. Threats and warnings to Muslims by the police of Uttar Pradesh precede it. The police chief of Meerut has said that no one will be allowed to offer namaz on the road. Cases will be filed and action will be initiated to cancel the passport of those defying the order. People are wondering about … Continue reading Eid has arrived. Threats and warnings to Muslims by the police of Uttar Pradesh precede it →

why vande mataram should not be sung

Shashi Tharoor writes: Don’t force us to sing Vande Mataram. Our nationalism must encompass the believer, the dissenter and the quiet observer

Those who feel comfortable singing the latter verses should be encouraged to do so. Simultaneously, the state must explicitly assure those with conscientious or religious objections, whether they are Muslims, Christians, or atheists, that they are excused from singing the verses that trouble them

In a free society, the strength of a national symbol lies in the voluntary reverence it inspires, not the compliance it coerces. Patriotism is a sentiment of the heart; it cannot be legislated on to the tongue. (Illustration: C R Sasikumar)

Written by: Shashi Tharoor

6 min readFeb 19, 2026 07:44 AM IST

Make us preferred source on Google

The historical journey of ‘Vande Mataram’, from a stirring cry for freedom to a point of modern contention, reflects the broader complexities of our Indian identity. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s famous hymn to the motherland served as the primary emotional fuel for the early nationalist movement. It was the song that emboldened Satyagrahis to face lathis and the chant that echoed in the hearts of revolutionaries approaching the gallows. Yet, as we navigate the mandates of a contemporary secular republic, the resurgence of controversy requires us to examine anew the delicate balance between state symbols and individual conscience.

To understand the current friction, one must recall its origins. During the struggle for Independence, the Indian National Congress sang ‘Vande Mataram’ as a quintessential expression of patriotism. However, as Independence approached, the leadership was acutely aware of the need for a national anthem that could unite a religiously diverse population. While ‘Jana Gana Mana’ was ultimately chosen for its inclusive and rhythmic appeal, the Constituent Assembly accorded ‘Vande Mataram’ an “equal status” as the national song, recognising its indispensable role in the freedom struggle.

This was a deliberate compromise intended to honour nationalist history, without alienating those for whom the song’s later imagery posed a theological dilemma. The genius behind it was Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore. Despite being the first to set the poem to music and perform it at the 1896 Congress session, in 1937, Tagore recommended that only the first two verses be sung in public settings. His reasoning was both aesthetic and empathetic. The first two stanzas are a lyrical salutation to a personified, bounteous motherland: The “Mother” the song hails is the soil, the water, and the fruit-bearing trees of India, beautiful and eternal — imagery both universal and metaphorical. However, the subsequent verses explicitly identify the motherland with Hindu iconography, specifically invoking the goddesses Durga and Lakshmi. Tagore, a man of profound spiritual and pluralistic vision, understood that while these verses were beautiful as literature, they could not be expected to be recited by those whose faiths forbade the deification of anything other than the Creator.

This remains the crux of the objection voiced by many Indian Muslims. The core tenet of Islamic faith is Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God, which precludes bowing before or worshipping any entity, even one’s own nation, in a manner that mimics religious devotion. For many, the first two verses are acceptable as a secular tribute to the land. But the later verses, which have now been officially mandated by government order, shift the tone from a patriotic greeting to a religious invocation. To force some citizens to recite verses that conflict with their fundamental religious tenets creates a choice between faith and state — a dilemma that a secular democracy, by definition, should seek to avoid, rather than impose.

The argument used by proponents of mandating the full song is that it is a symbol of national unity and that refusal to sing it is a sign of diminished patriotism. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that in a free society, the strength of a national symbol lies in the voluntary reverence it inspires, not the compliance it coerces. Patriotism is a sentiment of the heart; it cannot be legislated onto the tongue. When the state uses its power to demand a specific verbal performance of loyalty, it risks hollowing out the very sentiment it seeks to promote.

Story continues below this ad

At the root of the problem lies the hoary question of what Tagore called “the idea of India”. Is India an ancient palimpsest on which people of varying faiths and ethnicities have inscribed their contributions, or a glorious Hindu civilisation into which people of other faiths have interposed themselves? Our nationalist leaders chose the former idea, enshrining a civic nationalism in our Constitution that considers all citizens equal. Our present rulers implicitly hew to the latter idea, insisting that minorities have to adjust themselves to the dominant Hindu ethos.

The most elegant and constitutionally sound solution to this impasse lies in our own judicial history, specifically the landmark “Jehovah’s Witness case”. In 1986, three students were expelled from school for refusing to sing the national anthem on the grounds that it conflicted with their religious beliefs. They did not disrupt the proceedings; they stood respectfully while the anthem was played, but remained silent. The Supreme Court reinstated the students, delivering a judgment that remains a beacon of Indian pluralism. Justice Chinnappa Reddy, famously observing that our tradition, philosophy, and Constitution all preach and practice tolerance, ruled that as long as a person stands respectfully while the anthem is played, refusal to sing it does not constitute a violation of the law or a lack of patriotism.

Beef in the Vedas.

Written by Ibn Muhammad

Special thanks to Brother Neer Muhammad, who has been really helpful throughout the writing of this article and also gave valuable points.

Present day Hindu culture is pivoted solely on the cow. Its material and spiritual concepts are both engulfed in cow worship. Such an animal worship is known as zoolatry. The Hindutva brigade propaganda machinery uses the politics of cow to mobilize the blind Hindu masses and works them into a frenzy. The taboo on cow slaughter is one of the pillars of the Hindutva ideology. According to M.S.Golwalkar, a Hindutva ideologue, cow slaughter in India began with foreign domination. “The Muslims started it and the Britishers continued it” (M.S.Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Pg 496). In the past, several futile attempts have been made by proponents of Hindutva to pass a law to ban the slaughter of cows at the national level. In the NCERT school textbook for Class VI (2002) we read:

“Among the animals the cow was given the most important and sacred place. Injuring or killing of cow was prohibited in the Vedic period. The cow was called Aghnya (is not to be killed or injured). Vedas prescribe punishment for injuring or killing cow by expulsion from the kingdom or by death penalty, as the case may be”

(Social Sciences Textbook for Class VI, Pg 89.).

But the theory that the in Vedic times there was no cow slaughter is historically inaccurate. Although cow was revered and treated as sacred, it was also offered as food to guests and persons of high status. The fact remains that ancient Hindu scriptures clearly permit the consumption of meat, even of cows. True scholars, and not modern frauds, know this. For example, Swami Vivekananda who is considered as a major force in the revival of Hinduism in modern India, admitted that ancient Hindus used to eat meat. He says,

“You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.”

[The complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3, Pg 536]

In the same volume on page 174 he says,

“There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin;”

Let us now look at the evidence from Hindu texts, which proves that Hinduism not only permits beef eating but also requires its folowers to institute certain cow sacrifices. I will simultaneously refute the common arguments of Hindus.

Contents hide

1 Yajna and animal sacrifices

2 Refuting the modern Hindu polemic of ‘No violence in Yajna’

3 Animal sacrifices in Vedas, including cow sacrifice

4 The Ashwamedha Yajna

5 Refuting Hindu polemics concerning Ashwamedha

6 Meat Eating in Vedas including Cow meat

7 Goghna- the guest for whom a cow is killed

8 Refuting the Hindu polemic of cow being called ‘Aghnya’

9 Other evidences of beef eating

10 Animal Sacrifices in Mahabharata

11 The testimony of ancient Indian medical texts

12 The testimony of classical scholars

Yajna and animal sacrifices

In Hinduism, Yajna is a ritual of sacrifice derived from the practice of Vedic times. It is performed to please the gods or to attain certain wishes. A Vedic yajna is typically performed by an adhvaryu priest, with a number of additional priests such as the hotar, udgatar playing a major role, next to their dozen helpers, by reciting or singing Vedic verses. How to deal with the animal, that is to be sacrificed in the Yajna, be it a goat, a horse or a cow, is mentioned in the Aitareya Brahman of the Rigveda as follows:

3-5d8baf8705

“6. …Turn the animal’s feet northwards. Make its eyes go to the Sun, dismiss its breath to the wond, its life to the space, its hearing to the directions, its body to the earth. In this way the Hotar (priest) connets it with these world. Take of the entire skin without cutting it. Before opening the navel tear out the omentum. Stop its breathing within (by stopping its mouth). Thus the Hotar puts breath in the animals. Make of its breast a piece like an eagle, of its arms (two pieces like) two hatchets, of its forearms (two pieces like) two spikes, of its shoulders (two pieces like) two kashyapas (tortoises), its loins should be unbroken (entire); make of its thigs (two pieces like) two shields, of the two kneepans (two pieces like) two oleander leaves; take out its twenty-six ribs according to their order; preserve every limb of its in its integrity. Thus he benefits all its limbs. Dig a ditch in the earth to hide its excrements.

7. Present the evil spirits with the blood.”

[Aitareya Brahman, Book 2, para 6 and 7]

Subsequently, the same Aitareya Brahman instructing on how to distribute different parts of the sacrificial animal says,

“Now follows the division of the different parts of the sacrificial animal (among the priests). We shall describe it. The two jawbones with the tongue are to be given to the Prastotar; the breast in the form of an eagle to the Udgatar; the throat with the palate to the Pratihartar; the lower part of the right loins to the Hotar; the left to the Brahma; the right thigh to the Maitravaruna; the left to the Brahmanuchhamsi; the right side with the shoulder to the Adhvaryu; the left side to those who accompany the chants; the left shoulder to the Pratipasthatar; the lower part of the right arm to the Neshtar; the lower part of the left arm to the Potar; the upper part of the right thigh to the Achhavaka; the left to the Agnidhra; the upper part of the right arm to the Aitreya; the left to the Sadasya; the back bone and the urinal bladder to the Grihapati (sacrificer); the right feet to the Grihapati who gives a feasting; the left feet to the wife of that Grihapati who gives a feasting; the upper lip is common to both, which is to be divided by the Grihapati. They offer the tail of the animal to wives, but they should give it to a Brahmana; the fleshy processes (maanihah) on the neck and three gristles (kikasaah) to the Grahvastut; three other gristles and one half of the fleshy part on the back (vaikartta) to the Unnetar; the other half of the fleshy part on the neck and the left lobe (Kloma) to the Slaughterer (Shamita), who should present it to a Brahmana, if he himself would not happen to be a Brahmana. The head is to be given to the Subrahmanya, the skin belongs to him (the Subrahmanya), who spoke, Svaah Sutyam (to morrow at the Soma Sacriice); that part of the sacrificial animal at a Soma sacrifice which beloings to Ilaa (sacrificial food) is common to all the priests; only for the Hotar it is optional.

All these portions of the sacrificial animal amount to thirty-six single pieces, each of which represents the paada (foot) of a verse by which the sacrifice is carried up…”

“To those who divide the sacrificial animal in the way mentioned, it becomes the guide to heaven (Swarga). But those who make the division otherwise are like scoundrels and miscreants who kill an animal merely.”

“This division of the sacrificial animal was invented by Rishi Devabhaaga, a son of Srauta. When he was departing from this life, he did not entrust (the secret to anyone). But a supernatural being communicated it to Girija,the son of Babhru. Since his time men study it.”

[Aitareya Brahman, Book 7, Para 1, Translated by Martin Haug]

I have come across certain bigots among Hindus, who make the excuse that these are the translations of a non-Hindu European scholar with ‘ulterior motives’. This is a common response of half-baked Hindus, who have negligible knowledge of Hindu scriptures. To establish the authenticity of the above translations, I will produce before you passages from the ‘Purva Mimamsa Sutras’ of Jaimini, its commentary called ‘Shabarbhasya‘ and the views of renowned Arya Samaj scholar, Pandit Yudhishthira Mimamsak on them.

It must be noted that the Purva Mimamsa Sutras (compiled between 300-200 BCE), written by Rishi Jaimini is one of the most important ancient Hindu philosophical texts. It forms the basis of Mimamsa, the earliest of the six orthodox schools (darshanas) of Indian philosophy.

Commenting on Purv Mimansa Sutra Adhyaya 3, Pada 6, Sutra 18, the Shabarbhasya says,

संति च पशुधर्माः- उपाकरणं, उपानयं, अक्ष्णया बंधः, यूपे नियोजनम्, संज्ञपनं, विशसनमित्येवमादयः

There are also certain details to be performed in connection with the animals, such as (a) Upaakaranam [Touching the animal with the two mantras], (b) Upaanayanam [Bringing forward], (c) Akshanyaa-bandhah [Tying with a rope], (d) Yoope niyojanam [Fettering to the Sacrificial Post], (e) Sanjnapanam [Suffocating to death], (f) Vishasanam [Dissecting], and so forth.

[Shabhar bhashya on Mimamsa Sutra 3/6/18; translated by Ganganath Jha]

Expounding on this, Arya Samaj scholar, Pandit Yudhisthira Mimamsak writes in is ‘Mimamsa Shabar Bhashyam’

“In this case and otherwise it appears from the Jaimini Sutras that the offering of sacrificed animals is to be made in the Yajnas. It is clearly mentioned in the Mimamsa Sutrs.”

[Mimamsa Shabharbhasyam, adhyaya 3, Page 1014]

Moving on let us see Mimamsadarshan Sutra 3/7/28 which says,

शमिता च शब्दभेदात्

The ‘Shamita’ (slaughterer of the animal) is not distinct from the major priests.

Commenting on it the Shabarbhashya says,

क्लोमा चार्द्धवं वैकर्तनं च शमितुः तद् ब्राह्मणाय दद्यात् यद्य ब्राह्मणः स्यात्

“The liver and the upper quarter belongs to the Shamita Priest ; one should give it to a Brahmana if he be a non-Brahmana.”

[Shabhar bhasya on Mimamsa Sutra 3/7/28; translated by Ganganath Jha]

Notice that this is exactly the same things that we saw was said in Aitareya Brahman Book 7; Para 1 above (the highlighted part). This proves that Shabarbhashya is confirming the Aitareya Brahman and the translation is also accurate.

Pandit Yudhisthira Mimamsak also confirms this when he says,

“The division of the meat of the sacrificed animal as instructed in the Aitareya Brahman clearly proves that during the time of the writing of Aitareya Brahman and the time when it was edited by Saunaka, animals were sacrificed in the Yajnas and their meat was consumed by the Brahmins“

Some half-baked Hindus who like to play games might try to call all these references as later interpolations. However, the scholar Yudhisthir Mimamsak outrightly rejects such a bogus conclusion when he says,

“There is no strong evidence to consider these passages as later interpolations.”

[Mimamsa Shabarbhashyam by Yudhishthir Mimamsak Adhyaya 3, Page 1075]

Further in Mimamsa Sutra 3/8/43 it is mentioned,

मांसं तु सवनियानां चोदनाविशेषात

“Only the ‘Savaniya’ cakes should consist of flesh”

All these passages prove that the flesh of the sacrificed animal was consumed as per the instructions of the Hindu texts.

Refuting the modern Hindu polemic of ‘No violence in Yajna’

Hindu Argument (quoted from a Hindu apologetics website)

Yajna never meant animal sacrifice in the sense popularly understood. Yajna in the Vedas meant a noble deed or the highest purifying action.

—————————————–

Adhvara iti Yajnanaama – Dhvaratihimsaakarmaa tatpratishedhah

Nirukta 2.7

According to Yaaska Acharya, one of the synonyms of Yajna in Nirukta or the Vedic philology is Adhvara.

Dhvara means an act with himsa or violence. And therefore a-dhvara means an act involving no himsa or no violence. There are a large number of such usage of Adhvara in the Vedas.

Response

This argument is incorrect because the word ‘Adhvar’ has been misplaced and interpreted incompletely. Yaska is merely giving the etymology of the word ‘Adhvar’ and not where it is to be applied and what constitutes violence. To know the true application of the word ‘Adhvar’ we will have to turn to Shatapath Brahman, which gives the complete understanding of why ‘Yajna’ is called ‘Adhvar’. Shatapath Brahman 1/4/1/40 says,

devānha vai yajñena yajamānāṃtsapatnā

asurā dudhūrṣāṃ cakruste dudhūrṣanta eva na śekurdhūrvituṃ te

parābabhūvustasmādyajño adhvaro nāma

8-ff30ff984e

“For once when the gods were engaged in sacrificing, their rivals, the Asuras, wished to injure (dhvar) them; but, though desirous of injuring them, they were unable to injure them and were foiled: for this reason the sacrifice is called adhvara (‘not damaged, uninterrupted’).”

Thus the argument of the polemicist turns out to be a deception aimed at fooling those who have no access to the original texts. The passage of Shatapath Brahman makes it clear that ‘Adhvar’ is called so because the priests performing the Yajna did not become victims of violence. It has no connection to the violence of the animals done in the Yajna.

Renowned classical commentator of the four Vedas, Sayana Acharya, also gives the same reason for calling Yajna as ‘Adhvar’. He says in his comments on Rigveda 1/1/4,

अध्वरं हिंसारहितम् ह्वग्निना सर्वतः पालितं यज्ञं राक्षसादयो हिंसितुं प्रभवंति

“Adhvar is called ‘without violence’ because being protected by Agni on all sides it is uninterrupted by Rakshashas or violent enemies, who are unable to mar it.”

Again we see that Acharya Sayan expresses the same view as that of the Shatapath Brahman i.e the violence referred in the ‘adhvar’ is not for the sacrificial animal in the Yajna.

Renowned Hindu scholar, Swami Prabhupada explains the so-called violence in the Yajna in the following words,

“Although animal killing in a sacrifice is recommended in the Vedic literature, the animal is not considered to be killed. The sacrifice is to give a new life to the animal. Sometimes the animal is given a new animal life after being killed in the sacrifice, and sometimes the animal is promoted immediately to the human form of life.”

[Bhagavad Gita As It Is 8/13]

Even Manu Smriti echoes the same opinion in a more clear way in Chapter 5, verse 39 when it says,

9-f576746bf5

“Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).”

Again Manu Smriti Chapter 5, verse 44 says

10-c0106913d5

“Know that the injury to moving creatures and to those destitute of motion, which the Veda has prescribed for certain occasions, is no injury at all; for the sacred law shone forth from the Veda.”

Thus, this argument stands nullified. For more scholarly explanation that the violence of animals in the Yajna is actually no violence please see the last section of this article namely ‘The testimony of classical scholars’.

Animal sacrifices in Vedas, including cow sacrifice

Chapter 24 of the Shukla Yajurveda is a unique chapter that will help us throw light on the animal sacrifices in the Vedas. This chapter contains an exact enumeration of animals that are to be tied to the sacrificial stakes, with the names of the deities to which they are dedicated. Several of the animals cannot be identified. This entire chapter is a weird puzzle, which is difficult to solve for the modern vegetarian Hindus. They are simply unable to explain the coherent meaning of this chapter. You will be amazed to know that even a Vedic scholar like Swami Dayanand is unable to throw any light on it. He merely says that we should know the qualities of each animal by relating to the qualities of the deity to whom they are dedicated. This statement of the Swami is itself a puzzle, as it gives no clear beneficial knowledge to us. Even Pandit Devi Chand, an Arya Samaj scholar, who based his English translation of the Yajurveda on Swami Dayanand’s work is clueless about the exact meaning of this chapter. He says in the footnote to verse #1,

“The exact significance of these animals being attached to the forces of nature (or Deities) is not clear to me.” (words in brackets mine)

Does this mean that no Hindu scholar for thousands of years has been able to understand the meaning of this chapter? I would say that is not the case. If we go to the Brahmanas and the classical commentators of the Vedas, the puzzle is solved. According to them each animal dedicated to a particular diety in this chapter has to be sacrificed to that deity. See Shatapath Brahmana 13/2/2/1-10

If this view is not accepted as the correct one, then every verse of this chapter would be a question mark with no answer. For example, verse 1 dedicates ‘a cow that slips her calf’ to Indra. But the question is, what will Indra do with such a cow? Is Indra going to give a sermon to her? or is Indra going to punish her? Such questions require satisfactory answers which modern vegetarian Hindus are unable to provide.

In the Yajnas meant for obtaining Rice, meat of bulls was cooked and offered to the diety.

Rigveda 10/28/3 mentions this as

अद्रिणा ते मन्दिन इन्द्र तूयान सुन्वन्ति सोमान पिबसि तवमेशाम |

पचन्ति ते वर्षभानत्सि तेषां पर्क्षेण यन्मघवन हूयमानः ||

“Your worshippers express with the stone fast flowing exhilarating Soma-juices for you. You drink them. They roast bulls for you, you eat them when you are invoked, Maghavan, to the sacrificial food.”

This is interpreted by Sayana Acharya as follows:

“You (O Indra), eat the cattle offered as oblations belonging to the worshippers who cook them for you.”

Acharya Sayana explicitly mentions about sacrificing a bull in the introduction to Atharvaveda 9/4/1 as follows

12-de55437186

“The Brahman after killing the bull, offers its meat to the different deities. In this hymn, the bull is praised, detailing which parts of the bull are attached to which deity as well as the importance of sacrificing the bull and the rewards of doing the same.”

The Ashwamedha Yajna

The ‘Practical Sanskrit English Dictionary’ by V. S. Apte (1890) gives the following meaning of ‘Ashwa-medha’

अश्वः प्रधानतया मेध्यते हिंस्यते अत्र

“A Yajna in which a Horse is primarily sacrificed is called Ashwamedha. [A Horse Sacrifice]“

The dictionary further goes on to say

“In Vedic times this sacrifice was performed by kings desirous of offspring.”

This statement is right when we turn to Shatapath Brahman 13/1/9/9.

To give readers a brief idea of Ashwamedha Yajna, I will briefly mention the entire ritual based on Hindu texts like Katyayana Srauta Sutra, Apastamba Sutra, etc; but I will not mention the obscene portion of the Ashwamedha ritual as it is irrelevant with the topic at hand.

The horse to be sacrificed is sprinkled with water, and the Adhvaryu and the sacrificer whisper mantras into its ear. Anyone who should stop the horse is ritually cursed, and a dog is killed symbolic of the punishment for the sinners. The horse is then set loose towards the North-East, to roam around wherever it chooses, for the period of one year (or half a year, according to some commentators). The horse is associated with the Sun, and its yearly course. If the horse wanders into neighbouring provinces hostile to the sacrificer, they must be subjugated. The wandering horse is attended by a hundred young men, sons of princes or high court officials, charged with guarding the horse from all dangers and inconvenience. During the absence of the horse, an uninterrupted series of ceremonies is performed in the sacrificer’s home.

After the return of the horse, more ceremonies are performed. I HAVE OMITTED THE OBSCENE PORTION OF THIS YAJNA IN THIS ARTICLE. Those who wish to read them can see Shukla Yajurveda Chapter 23; verses 19-31 and the commentary of classical scholars.

After this, the horse, a hornless he-goat, a wild ox are bound to sacrificial stakes near the fire, and seventeen other animals are attached to the horse. A great number of animals, both tame and wild, are tied to other stakes, according to a commentator 609 in total (Yajurveda, chapter 24 consists of an exact enumeration).

Then the horse is slaughtered. The horse is dissected, and its fl