Pic - :: The Actual " GODISM " of the Cow : " KAAMDHENU " represented in " DEITY "
Cow : A Symbol Of
Indian “ Nationalism “ And It’s “ Importance ” In The Annals Of Indian History
July 16th
1965 : Today was the day the NDDB was founded
This article is my TRIBUTE
to Mr Varghese Kurien and the NDDB
for whetever it has done in contributing to make “ milk ” as the
national drink and one of the most important source of the revenue that
contributes to the Indian economy .
This also is my a KIND
of a INDEBTNESS that I’m
paying from my end for the cows which from generation to generation has
provided a source of food which is we call as WHOLESOME food to the human beings for their survival
The entire article is my TRIBUTE that I pay and my indebtedness to NDDB and Mr Verghese Kurien for the kind of a human endeavor
and his effort to make the COW
and the MILK as a SYMBOL of PRIDE of India
This entire article
will be spread in TWO
different articles with TWO different headlines and it will only focuss and
describe all about the COW’S
and the MILK
The Cow and Peace
It is not from this day . It is
not from the time that the Britishers introduced the system of the “ COW-CASH
” in India.It is from about 5000 years of the primitive
history, a GOLDEN history of the Hindus and Hinduism that the COW
has served the mankind and human beings and it is from those primitive days
that one calls the cow as the “ MOTHER
GODDESS ” of the humanity that has served the humanism.
The write up and the article in
the run to the study that one would do it over eher would also point out the
way that the cow serves as a useful tool and a mean for peace .
What actually is the “ COW ”-::
Well the definition could be
many and it could be defined in either the Zoological terms or even by the way
the spiritualism that defines that but the very easy meaning of the same
coupled with the definition could be as such,
“ An intact male bovine is called a bull. A young male bovine is called a bullock. A mature female
that has given birth to at least one or two calves is called a cow. A young bovine between birth and weaning
is called a calf. Two
or more of these young bovines are calfs ” .
Hinduism has a different way
and a mean to define and redefine the cow, and they attach a different meaning
to the same. I put hereby a essence of the same, “ Hindus see
the cow as a particularly generous, docile creature, one that
gives more to human beings than she takes from them. The cow, they
say, produces five things — milk,
cheese, butter (or ghee), urine and dung. ... ” .
The cow
dung is used in the villages still to sweep their floor with it in it’s raw
form and dry the dungs which is used to cook the food and also as a manure in
the paddy field.
After
the fourth century B.C., when the practice of vegetarianism
spread throughout India among Buddhists, Jains and Hindus, it was then the “ SANATANIS ” form of the
Hinduism started taking place and then the society came forward to completely
ban the practice of killing the cows and to eat the beef as well. Thus from the
start of the FOURTH century COW became a symbol of SACREDISM and the ban came
in effect to completely worship the cow
as a DEITY and not to eat it’s flesh in India.
Today being the NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DAY
( NDDB ) and the date when the NDDB was
formed I shall totally focus on the cow, the milk and the cattles that produces
the milk .
NDDB was formed on this day exactly 65 years ago by
Verghese Kurien, known as the ' Father of the
White Revolution ' in India, was a social entrepreneur whose "
billion-litre idea ", Operation Flood ” , the
world's largest agricultural dairy development program became a WORLD WIDE initiative and it
changed the lives of many a millions of those who were either the farmers or
who dealt in the business of selling the milk.
A “ NUCLEAR PHYSICT
” by education and profession to
start with, Mr Verghese Kurien completely decided to diversify laterally into
the field of WHITE REVOLUTION
and being initiated into this business
by none other than the Congress then under the stewardship of Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru he ventured into the business and now NDDB is the WORLD
LARGEST union that collects and produces all the items which are
produced and derived from the milk. It all started by bredding simultaneously
collecting the milk from the one’s who sold that in Gujarat but slowly with
it’s branches spread all across the country, this became a BUSINESS DAILIES of India.
Cattle Breeds:
Cattle breeding is a science practise of old in India. 150 years ago the East India
Company was developing sturdy bulls for drawing their gun-carriages.
Even now we find in certain Government farms the same old and obsolete policy
in vogue. At about the same period Tipu
Sultan had developed a fast running breed of bullocks which served him in the
Army. Lord Wellesley, who had used these in his army, was so impressed
by them that during his battle at Waterloo, he is said to have exclaimed at one
time when his tired horses failed to reach the goal,"Alas!had I those “ Mysore ” bullocks, they would not have
failed me".
Cattle Breeding : Intentionally and intelligently bred
Cattle Breeding : Intentionally and intelligently bred
Cattle breeding initially to start with was not an profession but
it was not also an art. People breeded that just to have a suitable number of
the species so that they could be and their milk could be a source of income to
add to their income that they generated from the field.
However with the passage of the time and the advent of the
necessity to protect it from disease and to increase the output and the productivity from the same, the science of
cattle breeding came into the picture, and cattle breeding became a science for
the people engaged in this business to adapt it and protect their cattles from
disaster .That brought about a change in the field of cattle bredding and the science
to help it add to the revenue. The intentions of the cattle breeding and the
intelligent of the same, made it more of a science first and later it became a
business for the one’s who dealt with it.
Direction
in which to proceed :
All over India we find different breeds of cattle. Many of these
have been intentionally and intelligently bred. Now we ought to
know the direction in which we are to proceed. There are a few points which may
be well kept in view when we want to breed our cattle. Firstly, each locality has got its individual requirements
according to the type of work to be done and the climate and other conditions;
over and above this, even in the same locality all people will not require the
same type of bullocks. A farmer with a small holding, with work for lesser
bullock power, would need a smaller bullock which he can maintain on the fodder
produced in his small field; whereas a bigger farmer’s requirement will be
different. Thus we shall have to provide in each locality various types of
bullocks - small, medium and big - according to the needs of the
agriculturists. Secondly A mere dual purpose cow will not do for all
time. We should not sacrifice
special qualities for greeting an average. Specialization in bullocks is a felt
need. For this purpose we may not have at present a sufficient number of stud
bull to develop different types of bullocks. If we go on as we do with scrub
bulls out stock is bound to deteriorate. It may not be possible to wait till we
get adequate numbers of good bulls. Under the circumstances we may have to
resort, for the time being, to what is called artificial insemination.
I hesitate to put these suggestions before you. But I have stated the problem
for your consideration.
Cow’s Status: It Touches the economical activities brings
MANKIND to MOORING
It has been sen
and observed and it is a very natural fact that the cow always has been the
source of the economical reinstatement of some kind of a big or a small earning
in India.
Pic - : Pics :: Lord Krishna and his " PREACHING " about Cows.
The cow
touches all our economic activities. Out of
the 10 Indians that we have more than five are from the villages and of the
five , atleast four would be the agriculturist and all the fours would not only
have the bulls, the ox and the cows but would also sell the milk derieved from
the cow to the places from where they would supplement their source of income. This had been recognised even in ancient
times. That is why sentimental,
religious and great importance had been attached to ‘ the cow ’ . Why Gandhiji took to the cow was for
reasons deeper than this- To him ‘ cow
’ symbolized all animal wealth. The service of the cow was to bring him
nearer to his goal of truth and
non-violence. All this programme
sprung from this root.
Man has utilized resources of power other than manual labour for the production of his utility articles. Prior to the discovery of coal, man in the West used horse as the main motive power. Here in the East cow ruled - cow the mother of the bullock and its progeny - the bullock. We find that as the so-called industrial era dawned the economy of the West shifted from the horse to coal and thence to petroleum. This shift meant greater and greater violence. Thus a stress on cow means bringing back mankind to its former mooring.
Man has utilized resources of power other than manual labour for the production of his utility articles. Prior to the discovery of coal, man in the West used horse as the main motive power. Here in the East cow ruled - cow the mother of the bullock and its progeny - the bullock. We find that as the so-called industrial era dawned the economy of the West shifted from the horse to coal and thence to petroleum. This shift meant greater and greater violence. Thus a stress on cow means bringing back mankind to its former mooring.
Cow is called the most “
BOWINED ” amongst all the animals be it herbivorous or a carnivorous
and it is very MEEK and very soft
behaved by nature and habit .This is the reason it was used in India as a
symbol of NON-VIOLENCE and
the most PEACEFUL animal of a
different kind to project it as the most favored animal in India as an
identity.
Causes of War:
When we use the cow and cattle wealth as helpers in our production
there is a natural limit to the quantity of production in comparison to the
state of affairs that ensues when coal or other such resources of power are
utilized, on the expenditure of which there can be no natural limit. Thus the
self-sufficiency or the measures of it which is attainable in a cow economy is
distorted and disturbed when we depart from it. When the quantity of produce
increases, markets are to be sought for it. Europe’s hunt for the markets in
the last two centuries was motivated by this economic factor; thus as soon as man changed over from
animal economy to power economy violence became necessary. They fought
with each other for markets. The result was the first World War - when the countries depending upon the coal
economy fought with each other for the market areas.
Nature of Resources : Current resources versus the
Mineral Kingdom
The race towards death did not stop here. It continued ahead. The
resources of power given by nature are of two categories, one type is perennial
in nature belonging to the vegetable and animal kingdoms. These may be called
the ‘ current resources ’ and
the other type is in short supply in nature like coal, iron, petrol and the
like belonging to the mineral kingdom.
These are not being manufactured under the bowels of the earth and their
exhaustion means lessening in the total quantity available. These limited
resources may be called the ‘reservoir’
type. It is when man depends more and more upon the latter type of resources
that violence increases. Thus whereas from cow to the coal was one stop towards
violence, coal to petrol was a leap further towards the abyss. The last conflagration got the whole world under its
sway. The Second World War was a natural corollary when exploiting
countries fought not only for their markets, but also to control the motive
power-producing areas. These petrol pockets distributed over a
dozen countries of the world, became the bone of contention over which the
whole world fought. If we want to bring about a change towards peace we should depend more and
more on the current type of resources for our motive power and ‘ the
cow ’, which provides the bullocks belonging to that type, stands
for it. Hence the cow becomes
symbolic of an economy of Peace.
It is in this respect that I would like you to view the cow and all it stands for “ Go-Seva ” is a movement for world peace. From the mad rush to exhaust the reservoir resources of nature we want to bring humanity to realize its folly and take the help of the perennial motive power available to man in the form of our friends, the cattle. We should have a whole picture of the kind of world we want. Go Seva should help us to bring it about. I wish and hope that you will have this all round attitude and try to bring it into practice. You would do nothing which goes against ‘ the cow ’. The mills and all the economy which depends upon ‘reservoir economy’ are an enemy of the cow economy and Go Sevaks will realize that Gandhiji’s cow embraces all his constructive programmes.
The Cow
It is in this respect that I would like you to view the cow and all it stands for “ Go-Seva ” is a movement for world peace. From the mad rush to exhaust the reservoir resources of nature we want to bring humanity to realize its folly and take the help of the perennial motive power available to man in the form of our friends, the cattle. We should have a whole picture of the kind of world we want. Go Seva should help us to bring it about. I wish and hope that you will have this all round attitude and try to bring it into practice. You would do nothing which goes against ‘ the cow ’. The mills and all the economy which depends upon ‘reservoir economy’ are an enemy of the cow economy and Go Sevaks will realize that Gandhiji’s cow embraces all his constructive programmes.
The Cow
The Amritsar Cow Conference : A Break To The “ CASH-COW ”
It was the Britishers who first
in 1905 laid a plan to kill the most of the cattles here at India. To
enhance their policy of extending their rule at India and to shift the paradigm
here in this country from the principles of AGRICULTURE where the
cows played an important role to the mechanical industrialization where they
wanted to lay the Railways, the electricity, the mills manufacturing clothes,
the Britishers to shift the mindet of the Indian from being the agriculturist
nation to the industrial nation first killed millions of cow in 1905.
Again between the period
between 1920 to 1925 they killed many hards that was cow as the
main slaught. The last that they did was between the period of 1939
to about 1942 when again by their watchband polices they saline
and slayed millions of cows.
Why did they do that. Well it
was SIMPLE. Just simple. The Indian and their economy completely
hinged on the agriculture and the milk. At that time when the industrial
process was not that excellent infact very poor at India, the COW, and the derivatives
produced out of tyat constituted the income for the Indians and agriculture was
the backbone of the Indian economy. The Bruisers British knew that if India has to be broken for
extending their rule, the economy of this country ought to be broken by the
backbone. Naturally their point of interest was the cows and the breeds that
came out from the cow.
They very intelligently killed
about 35 crores of cow between the period of 1905 when they started first to
kill the cows, and did that till 1942 when Britain asked the Indians Soldiers
to help them fight the World War-II . Just
imagine then the populace of India was about 40 crores and the cows were there
numbered that killed was about 35 crores.
THAT
IS THE DAMAGE THE BRITISHERS DID IT TO THE COWS . This policy of
the Britishers in the book of the Indian history was termed as CASH-COW-ERADICATION
which was completely wiped off from the books of history by the ruling party,
then .
It was then decided by the
association that was formed here at India which aimed at saving the cows as
that construed a heavy mean of revenue and the source of income. In this
context a conference ws held at Amritsar which was the FIRST of
it’s kind which was held to confere all about the policies to save the cows
from the British and give it a place in the annals of the nation as an IMPORTANT
being of national income. This is how the COW got the place and
an importance in the annals of India.
The Cow Conference, held at Amritsar, in 1946 laid great stress on the place the cow holds
in our rural economy. Apart from the programme for the preservation of the cow, as an
animal, we have also to consider the steps to be taken to build up the economy
symbolised by the cow. We cannot take up isolated items and concentrate on
those without consolidating village
life on all fronts.
From this broader approach any encouragement given to the cultivation of long staple cotton for mills is tantamount to the destruction of the cow as the seeds of long staple cotton are not available as cattle feed because of the fuzzy short staple cotton being left unlinted on the seed. Owing to this the bullocks are deprived of their oil & protein diet. Our villages are dependent on animals for the satisfactory working of their economy.
The opening of vanaspati ‘ Ghee ’ mills again cuts across this economy. It deprives people of a wholesome article of diet-vegetable oil and replaces it by indigestible hydrogenated oils. The building of expensive roads, surfaced with Asphalt, cement etc., while being wholly unnecessary for the village economy, takes away from the cultivator the part-time occupation of transport, and reduces the employment of the bullocks. Such roads encourage draining the villages of their products. They are harmful to the unshod-animals and dislocate the self- It is not necessary to multiply instances. The cow symbolises a way of economic life just as much as the internal combustion engine and the lorry typifies another way of economic life. The choice is before us. We may choose the one or the other but we cannot make a hotchpotch of it. If we decide in favour of the cow we have to take up that economy in all its aspects.
It is imperative that the Provincial Governments, that are now seriously thinking of rural development, should clear the issue and declare for a definite line of action. No haphazard attack on this problem will solve it.
From this broader approach any encouragement given to the cultivation of long staple cotton for mills is tantamount to the destruction of the cow as the seeds of long staple cotton are not available as cattle feed because of the fuzzy short staple cotton being left unlinted on the seed. Owing to this the bullocks are deprived of their oil & protein diet. Our villages are dependent on animals for the satisfactory working of their economy.
The opening of vanaspati ‘ Ghee ’ mills again cuts across this economy. It deprives people of a wholesome article of diet-vegetable oil and replaces it by indigestible hydrogenated oils. The building of expensive roads, surfaced with Asphalt, cement etc., while being wholly unnecessary for the village economy, takes away from the cultivator the part-time occupation of transport, and reduces the employment of the bullocks. Such roads encourage draining the villages of their products. They are harmful to the unshod-animals and dislocate the self- It is not necessary to multiply instances. The cow symbolises a way of economic life just as much as the internal combustion engine and the lorry typifies another way of economic life. The choice is before us. We may choose the one or the other but we cannot make a hotchpotch of it. If we decide in favour of the cow we have to take up that economy in all its aspects.
It is imperative that the Provincial Governments, that are now seriously thinking of rural development, should clear the issue and declare for a definite line of action. No haphazard attack on this problem will solve it.
Cow Protection :: It’s Place And Give It A National
Importance
There is a good deal of talk today about protecting the cow from
the slaughter-house. It is good that people are becoming conscious of the great
evil that indiscriminate slaughter of cattle has brought to our country. On the
purely shortsighted view, the need for milk in a vegetarian country being
important, it gives a premier place to the cow as a feeder of the nation. Apart
from that it also provides the bullock which is the motive power with which the
farmer produces from the land. The importance of this aspect of the question
has been fully realized in conferring divinity on the cow and
raising cow-slaughter to the level of a religious question. However, because of
fanaticism, the very same zeal on the one side has created cussedness on the
other side and we often find conflict between different sections of the
population centered around cow slaughter. Therefore it now becomes necessary to
ascertain exactly the place of the
cow in India and give it a national approach.
Pics - :: The "COW" , the national "HOLY" animal
Over the period of time that we hane not realised at all – the COW
has become an organization , a mean of national economy .It is because of the
fact that it helps in the addition of the MOST-NATURAL-TOOL-OF-FARM-IMPLEMEMTATION
Though no serious attention and thoughts has ever been added to
the same or given, I add here and try to raise the national importance of the
same. I have my own theory to it and this adds the nicety and the glaring
necessity to the same.
With an artisan the tool that he uses becomes almost an object of worship. In fact, in India we have a definite festival ‘ Shastra Pooja ’ devoted to this ceremony. Man recognises his economic dependence on the means of production. Just as an artisan depends on his tools, similarly the farmer depends on the cow and if we extend the economic sphere, we may say the cow, being the means of producing food, becomes the centre of the economic organisation of man, especially in an agricultural country like India.
Apart from this aspect, when we look upon the cow as the producer of the bullock, the importance of the cow is enhanced. She now represents the centre of our economy. We may call our “ economic organization ”, where the cow contributed towards motive power, transport, food production, etc, as a ‘ Cow-centred economy ’ in the same manner as England and other European countries were, not long ago, horse centred economies.
During the last century England drifted from being a horse-centred economy into a coal-centred economy and from being a coal-centred economy she is fast moving into an oil-centred economy. These stages are very important to notice as the fate of the world itself depends on the source from which we obtain our power.
With an artisan the tool that he uses becomes almost an object of worship. In fact, in India we have a definite festival ‘ Shastra Pooja ’ devoted to this ceremony. Man recognises his economic dependence on the means of production. Just as an artisan depends on his tools, similarly the farmer depends on the cow and if we extend the economic sphere, we may say the cow, being the means of producing food, becomes the centre of the economic organisation of man, especially in an agricultural country like India.
Apart from this aspect, when we look upon the cow as the producer of the bullock, the importance of the cow is enhanced. She now represents the centre of our economy. We may call our “ economic organization ”, where the cow contributed towards motive power, transport, food production, etc, as a ‘ Cow-centred economy ’ in the same manner as England and other European countries were, not long ago, horse centred economies.
During the last century England drifted from being a horse-centred economy into a coal-centred economy and from being a coal-centred economy she is fast moving into an oil-centred economy. These stages are very important to notice as the fate of the world itself depends on the source from which we obtain our power.
PEACE : The Coal-Oil centered versus the “ Cow-Horse” centered
economy
It is just to make a small study and a comparism that the PEACE which a combination of a
horse and a cow can produce as compared the the WAR that the COAL
and the OIL produces. This
might sense and serve as a piece of LAUGHTER
in this so called the INDUSTRIALISED
economy but the reason of so many a war and so many as we call it DISTURBANCE that has been caused
by the oil and the coal can be nullified by the cow- horse which could be
termed as “ CH” economy . The
measure cannot be equilivalent at all if it could be compared with the coal and
the oil but there in all the villages at all over the world the “CH” economy can still bring
about a lot of means of revenue earning beside the peace that can hold the
villages all over .The villages are distinct and are dying in a great manner
everywhere in the world and the “CH”
formulae can reestablish the same.
In the cow and the horse-centered economies we have unlimited sources as we could breed as many bullocks and horses as we needed and, therefore, there being no restriction on the amount available, it does not arouse anybody’s greed or jealousy; but coal and petrol being limited in their supply and quantity, uses of such sources of power lead to friction amongst nations as the source dries up. It is now well recognised that these global wars are in no small measure due to different nations seeking to get control over oil fields. Hence the coal and oil economies lead to conflict amongst nations. Unlike these two, the cow and horse economies are, comparatively, peaceful economies. Therefore, in a wider sense we may say that when we break through a cow-centered economy we are really causing cow slaughter, i.e. in other words when our actions are inimical to the existence of the cow-centered economy, we are not in the company of the protectors of the cow. For example, when we use coal and oil as our source of motive power we are really banning the cow from our economy. When we are making asphalted roads, which are not in the interests of animal traction, we are also guilty of breaking through the cow-centered organisation. This aspect of the question is much more vital to us than the mere slaughter of the four-legged and two-horned animal.
We wonder how many of our friends who stand up against cow slaughter can show their hands clean of bovine blood from this higher interpretation of cow protection. The ‘ Cow ’ like Khadi, is symbolic of a way of life. ‘Cow Slaughter,’ therefore, would signify making impossible that way of life. We hope that those who stand for cow protection will realise the extensiveness of the cause which they stand for, and will whole-heartedly support this wider application of the principle.
In the cow and the horse-centered economies we have unlimited sources as we could breed as many bullocks and horses as we needed and, therefore, there being no restriction on the amount available, it does not arouse anybody’s greed or jealousy; but coal and petrol being limited in their supply and quantity, uses of such sources of power lead to friction amongst nations as the source dries up. It is now well recognised that these global wars are in no small measure due to different nations seeking to get control over oil fields. Hence the coal and oil economies lead to conflict amongst nations. Unlike these two, the cow and horse economies are, comparatively, peaceful economies. Therefore, in a wider sense we may say that when we break through a cow-centered economy we are really causing cow slaughter, i.e. in other words when our actions are inimical to the existence of the cow-centered economy, we are not in the company of the protectors of the cow. For example, when we use coal and oil as our source of motive power we are really banning the cow from our economy. When we are making asphalted roads, which are not in the interests of animal traction, we are also guilty of breaking through the cow-centered organisation. This aspect of the question is much more vital to us than the mere slaughter of the four-legged and two-horned animal.
We wonder how many of our friends who stand up against cow slaughter can show their hands clean of bovine blood from this higher interpretation of cow protection. The ‘ Cow ’ like Khadi, is symbolic of a way of life. ‘Cow Slaughter,’ therefore, would signify making impossible that way of life. We hope that those who stand for cow protection will realise the extensiveness of the cause which they stand for, and will whole-heartedly support this wider application of the principle.
-
The
Cow and Peace
Cattle Breeds:
Cattle breeding is a science practice and was ractised in the
primitive stage to the stage of old in
India. 150 years ago, the East India Company was developing sturdy bulls for
drawing their gun-carriages. Even now we find in certain Government farms the
same old and obsolete policy in vogue well it could be in vague as well . At
about the same period
All over India we find different breeds of cattle. Many of these have been intentionally and intelligently bred. Now we ought to know the direction in which we are to proceed. There are a few points which may be well kept in view when we want to breed our cattle. Firstly, each locality has got its individual requirements according to the type of work to be done and the climate and other conditions; over and above this, even in the same locality all people will not require the same type of bullocks. A farmer with a small holding, with work for lesser bullock power, would need a smaller bullock which he can maintain on the fodder produced in his small field; whereas a bigger farmer’s requirement will be different. Thus we shall have to provide in each locality various types of bullocks - small, medium and big - according to the needs of the agriculturists. A mere dual purpose cow will not do for all time. We should not sacrifice special qualities for greeting an average. Specialization in bullocks is a felt need. For this purpose we may not have at present a sufficient number of stud bull to develop different types of bullocks. If we go on as we do with scrub bulls out stock is bound to deteriorate. It may not be possible to wait till we get adequate numbers of good bulls. Under the circumstances we may have to resort, for the time being, to what is called artificial insemination. I hesitate to put these suggestions before you. But I have stated the problem for your consideration.
All over India we find different breeds of cattle. Many of these have been intentionally and intelligently bred. Now we ought to know the direction in which we are to proceed. There are a few points which may be well kept in view when we want to breed our cattle. Firstly, each locality has got its individual requirements according to the type of work to be done and the climate and other conditions; over and above this, even in the same locality all people will not require the same type of bullocks. A farmer with a small holding, with work for lesser bullock power, would need a smaller bullock which he can maintain on the fodder produced in his small field; whereas a bigger farmer’s requirement will be different. Thus we shall have to provide in each locality various types of bullocks - small, medium and big - according to the needs of the agriculturists. A mere dual purpose cow will not do for all time. We should not sacrifice special qualities for greeting an average. Specialization in bullocks is a felt need. For this purpose we may not have at present a sufficient number of stud bull to develop different types of bullocks. If we go on as we do with scrub bulls out stock is bound to deteriorate. It may not be possible to wait till we get adequate numbers of good bulls. Under the circumstances we may have to resort, for the time being, to what is called artificial insemination. I hesitate to put these suggestions before you. But I have stated the problem for your consideration.
WHY GANDHIJI FUSSES OVER THE COW
This portion of the article WHY GANDHIJI FUSSES OVER THE COW is a
complete write up by the author whose name I have proposed here and these are
NEVER my words for the same.
I’m purposely putting it here just to draw the attention of those
who are running the country as to ascribe the importance and describe Mr
Ganghi’s view about the importance in terms of the place that the COW holds for
one and sundry and for the nation as well as a very useful tool and a mean for
national economy ?
Pic - : Mahatma Gandhi and his "FUSS" about the cows petting it for "NATIONAL" identity
Once Smt. Aruna Asaf Ali raised a question which no doubt evoked
sympathy in the minds of many. It was as to why we should trouble ourselves
about the cow, when we have enough problems to tackle relating to man.
Gandhiji’s brief reply was that if he bothered about the cow, it was because he
saw that many problems relating to man in our country could not be solved except
with reference to the cow. This answer deserve to be expanded and explained, if
we are gain an understanding of the issue involve.
India is an agricultural country, with about 300 millions of its population
depending on agriculture for their livelihood. For them the cow is more than
their right hand, since without the aid of bullocks which the cow provides,
ploughing, irrigating, weeding, harvesting, threshing, carting and marketing
will be next to impossible. Bullocks are necessary for carrying on village
industries like oil-pressing, At present these animals, which provide the
motive power in agriculture and village industries, are weak, starved and
diseased. How can people in our villages become prosperous so long as they have
to depend on such a feeble instrument for eking out a livelihood ? The bullock
is the villager’s machine. If a man is struggling with an inefficient machine
which requires repairing and overhauling, who would say, "Why bother with
the machine ? Help the man". The best way of helping him is to provide him
with an efficient machine .
To this our city-educated youth may reply- "If the bullock is inefficient, scrap it, and use the tractor and other modern devices." The only difficulty about accepting this advice is that it is impracticable under present conditions. It is of no use telling us what should be done at some future date. We have to face the problems of our people today, and suggest means of improving their condition under present circumstance and within the resources now available to them. Which villager can afford a tractor and other modern agricultural machinery ? The bulk of them can hardly obtain a meal a day. It is like asking a clerk earning Rs.25/- a month to go to his office in a Rolls Royce. Marvelous idea, only it is unworkable. But it may be thought that though the average cultivator in India cannot afford tractors, a Zamindar can, and the peasant can use the Zamindar’s tractors. This, however, would mean, so far as the peasant goes, a condition ten times worse than at present, for at least now he is to a limited extent independent to till the soil as best as he can. But if he has to do away with his bullocks and use the Zamindar’s tractor he can do so only by becoming even more dependent than at present on the Zamindar for his instruments of production, and this means for him a step nearer to slavery. If, on the other hand, it is thought that peasants can pool their financial resources and by modern agricultural machinery co-operatively and use them co-operatively, then the difficulty is that today the co-operative movement is not being run by the villagers themselves, and the people have neither the capacity nor only in regard to the needed capital, but also in order to pool their land resources together, for their land is at present in tiny fragments, which are far too small for a tractor. Modern agricultural machinery is useful where there are hundreds of acres to be cultivated at a stretch. The peasant has very often only one or two acres in his ownership or control. To pool all these fragments together and to work them co-operatively is beyond his powers today.
Even later, it may not be wise for him to adopt tractors and mechanical devices in agriculture. They are useful in countries with a small population and vast areas to be cultivated. The situation in India is just the reverse. If we adopt machines to replace human beings in agriculture, where shall our people go for employment ? As it is, large scale industries are not able to absorb more than about two million and people are therefore even more increasingly being driven to agriculture for a live hood. But if agriculture also is mechanised, it too will not be able to provide work except for a few millions, and what is to happen to the rest of our 400 million people ?
Besides, mechanization involves fuel, of which we have only a limited supply in our country.
Further, it is said that artificial, manures like Chemicals, which we shall have to resort to, if in the place of bullocks we took to tractors and other machinery, are definitely injurious to the soil. They stimulate the soil and make it produce much for the time being, but only to leave it in the end exhausted and impoverished. They are also said to cause disease in crops and in animals. This is the experience of Sir Albert Howard, formerly Economic Botanist to the Govt. of India. He is definitely of the opinion, elaborated in his book called As Agricultural Testament that the only manure which can permanently enrich the soil and help healthy growth in plants and animals is organic, i.e. the cattle dung and urine, human excreta, and waste vegetable matter. If this is so, then cattle will be required in agriculture, not only for labour but also for the valuable manure they provide.
For these reasons, then it would seem best for us not to be allured into following the way of mechanised agriculture but to fall back on the bullock for motive power. If we do so, the cow which provides the bullock must occupy a central place in our national economy.
Consider further, many of us, whether for religious other reasons, are vegetarians, and do not wish to be a party slaughter of animals for food. Being vegetarians, we require milk and milk products to supplement the deficiencies of an exclusively vegetarian diet. We must therefore have some animals which will provide us milk. What is better than the cow, the mother of the bullock which we need for our agriculture? If we look after it well, it will provide us milk for our sustenance and bullocks for doing our work.
Instead of this, the modern tendency in India is to depend on the buffalo for milk. But the he-buffalo is comparatively useless for work in the fields. So it is slaughtered. Similarly, since the cow is wanted only for the sake of its bullocks, it is sent off to the slaughter-house no sooner then it has calved, and the calf has been weaned, for it is too expensive to feed the cow till its next calving. Thus under this method both the buffalo and the cow are slaughtered.
This can be avoided if we maintain only the cow, and obtain both our milk and our bullock from it. To do this will also be cheaper from the national view point, for we shall then have to maintain only one animal for both the purposes instead of two as at present.
Further, the bullock which we want from the cow will be stronger and of a better quality, for the cow will be better looked after and fed when we depend on it for milk.
Other reasons which may be given in favour of the cow for supply of milk as against the buffalo are(a) that cow’s milk is more conducive to health than buffalo’s as it has more vitamin B, and has in addition vitamin E which is absent in buffalo milk, (b) that the Carotene (vitamin A) value of cow’s ghee is ten times as high as that of buffalo ghee, (c) that the cow is less liable to disease than the buffalo, (d) that it matures a year earlier, (e) that its dry period, i.e. from the time it ceases to give milk to the time it calves again, is three times shorter than that of the buffalo, (f) that its milk yield is not affected adversely by heat and cold as the buffalo’s and (g) that the cow does not require as much grazing ground, feeding and water
The deterioration in the cow and its bullock is precisely because we have departed from the old practice of looking to the cow as giver of plenty. Even with all its deterioration, the Indian cow, through centuries of careful breeding, is any day superior to its Western counterpart. The fat content of the milk of the Indian cow is rarely less than 4.5 per cent while British cows yield milk of 3.5 per cent fat content only. Besides, the Indian cow can live on lithe meager fodder locally available, can resist disease and withstand the tropical heat much better than the British cow. The solution therefore to the question of improving the present condition of our cattle is not to cross the local cow with foreign breeds which, as a matter of fact, has proved disastrous, for the mixed breeds cannot stand the poor feeding and the climate, nor can they provide us bullocks capable of doing hard work -but to restore the cow to the central place it once held, as the giver of milk and the mother of the bullock.
It is calculated that through its milk, bullocks, manure, hide and bone, the contribution of the cow to the wealth of India is over Rs. 1,000/- crores annually, an amount which no other industry in India except agriculture can be equal. Gandhiji has therefore established the Go Seva Sangh (association for looking after the cow ) to devote its attention on a countrywide scale to the improvement of the condition of cattle in India. Is Gandhiji wrong then to draw our attention to this most important national industry, and to show us the way to make it yield better results ?
To this our city-educated youth may reply- "If the bullock is inefficient, scrap it, and use the tractor and other modern devices." The only difficulty about accepting this advice is that it is impracticable under present conditions. It is of no use telling us what should be done at some future date. We have to face the problems of our people today, and suggest means of improving their condition under present circumstance and within the resources now available to them. Which villager can afford a tractor and other modern agricultural machinery ? The bulk of them can hardly obtain a meal a day. It is like asking a clerk earning Rs.25/- a month to go to his office in a Rolls Royce. Marvelous idea, only it is unworkable. But it may be thought that though the average cultivator in India cannot afford tractors, a Zamindar can, and the peasant can use the Zamindar’s tractors. This, however, would mean, so far as the peasant goes, a condition ten times worse than at present, for at least now he is to a limited extent independent to till the soil as best as he can. But if he has to do away with his bullocks and use the Zamindar’s tractor he can do so only by becoming even more dependent than at present on the Zamindar for his instruments of production, and this means for him a step nearer to slavery. If, on the other hand, it is thought that peasants can pool their financial resources and by modern agricultural machinery co-operatively and use them co-operatively, then the difficulty is that today the co-operative movement is not being run by the villagers themselves, and the people have neither the capacity nor only in regard to the needed capital, but also in order to pool their land resources together, for their land is at present in tiny fragments, which are far too small for a tractor. Modern agricultural machinery is useful where there are hundreds of acres to be cultivated at a stretch. The peasant has very often only one or two acres in his ownership or control. To pool all these fragments together and to work them co-operatively is beyond his powers today.
Even later, it may not be wise for him to adopt tractors and mechanical devices in agriculture. They are useful in countries with a small population and vast areas to be cultivated. The situation in India is just the reverse. If we adopt machines to replace human beings in agriculture, where shall our people go for employment ? As it is, large scale industries are not able to absorb more than about two million and people are therefore even more increasingly being driven to agriculture for a live hood. But if agriculture also is mechanised, it too will not be able to provide work except for a few millions, and what is to happen to the rest of our 400 million people ?
Besides, mechanization involves fuel, of which we have only a limited supply in our country.
Further, it is said that artificial, manures like Chemicals, which we shall have to resort to, if in the place of bullocks we took to tractors and other machinery, are definitely injurious to the soil. They stimulate the soil and make it produce much for the time being, but only to leave it in the end exhausted and impoverished. They are also said to cause disease in crops and in animals. This is the experience of Sir Albert Howard, formerly Economic Botanist to the Govt. of India. He is definitely of the opinion, elaborated in his book called As Agricultural Testament that the only manure which can permanently enrich the soil and help healthy growth in plants and animals is organic, i.e. the cattle dung and urine, human excreta, and waste vegetable matter. If this is so, then cattle will be required in agriculture, not only for labour but also for the valuable manure they provide.
For these reasons, then it would seem best for us not to be allured into following the way of mechanised agriculture but to fall back on the bullock for motive power. If we do so, the cow which provides the bullock must occupy a central place in our national economy.
Consider further, many of us, whether for religious other reasons, are vegetarians, and do not wish to be a party slaughter of animals for food. Being vegetarians, we require milk and milk products to supplement the deficiencies of an exclusively vegetarian diet. We must therefore have some animals which will provide us milk. What is better than the cow, the mother of the bullock which we need for our agriculture? If we look after it well, it will provide us milk for our sustenance and bullocks for doing our work.
Instead of this, the modern tendency in India is to depend on the buffalo for milk. But the he-buffalo is comparatively useless for work in the fields. So it is slaughtered. Similarly, since the cow is wanted only for the sake of its bullocks, it is sent off to the slaughter-house no sooner then it has calved, and the calf has been weaned, for it is too expensive to feed the cow till its next calving. Thus under this method both the buffalo and the cow are slaughtered.
This can be avoided if we maintain only the cow, and obtain both our milk and our bullock from it. To do this will also be cheaper from the national view point, for we shall then have to maintain only one animal for both the purposes instead of two as at present.
Further, the bullock which we want from the cow will be stronger and of a better quality, for the cow will be better looked after and fed when we depend on it for milk.
Other reasons which may be given in favour of the cow for supply of milk as against the buffalo are(a) that cow’s milk is more conducive to health than buffalo’s as it has more vitamin B, and has in addition vitamin E which is absent in buffalo milk, (b) that the Carotene (vitamin A) value of cow’s ghee is ten times as high as that of buffalo ghee, (c) that the cow is less liable to disease than the buffalo, (d) that it matures a year earlier, (e) that its dry period, i.e. from the time it ceases to give milk to the time it calves again, is three times shorter than that of the buffalo, (f) that its milk yield is not affected adversely by heat and cold as the buffalo’s and (g) that the cow does not require as much grazing ground, feeding and water
The deterioration in the cow and its bullock is precisely because we have departed from the old practice of looking to the cow as giver of plenty. Even with all its deterioration, the Indian cow, through centuries of careful breeding, is any day superior to its Western counterpart. The fat content of the milk of the Indian cow is rarely less than 4.5 per cent while British cows yield milk of 3.5 per cent fat content only. Besides, the Indian cow can live on lithe meager fodder locally available, can resist disease and withstand the tropical heat much better than the British cow. The solution therefore to the question of improving the present condition of our cattle is not to cross the local cow with foreign breeds which, as a matter of fact, has proved disastrous, for the mixed breeds cannot stand the poor feeding and the climate, nor can they provide us bullocks capable of doing hard work -but to restore the cow to the central place it once held, as the giver of milk and the mother of the bullock.
It is calculated that through its milk, bullocks, manure, hide and bone, the contribution of the cow to the wealth of India is over Rs. 1,000/- crores annually, an amount which no other industry in India except agriculture can be equal. Gandhiji has therefore established the Go Seva Sangh (association for looking after the cow ) to devote its attention on a countrywide scale to the improvement of the condition of cattle in India. Is Gandhiji wrong then to draw our attention to this most important national industry, and to show us the way to make it yield better results ?
The last question is - CAN THERE BE A NEW NATIONAL ANIMAL THE COW WHICH COULD BE TERMED AS " NATIONAL HOLY ANIMAL "
RegardsShyamal Bhattacharjee
Pic
Mr Shyamal Bhattacharjee, the author was born at West Chirimiri Colliery at District Surguja, Chattisgarh on July 6th 1959 He received his early education at Carmel Convent School Bishrampur and later at Christ Church Boys' Higher Secondary School at Jabalpur. He later joined Hislop College at Nagpur and completed his graduation in Science and he also added a degree in B A thereafter. He joined the HITAVADA, a leading dailies of Central India at Nagpur as a Sub-Editor ( Sports ) but gave up to complete his MBA in 1984 He thereafter added a Diploma In Export Management. He has authored THREE books namely Notable Quotes and Noble Thought published by Pustak Mahal in 2001 Indian Cricket : Faces That Changed It published by Manas Publications in 2009 and Essential Of Office Management published by NBCA, Kolkatta in 2012. He has a experience of about 35 years in Marketing
Shyamal Bhattacharjee
Signature Of Shyamal Bhattacharjee
Comments
Post a Comment