THE RATIONAL
KERNEL IN THE MYTH OF THE INDIAN SACRED COW
In the Western world, which has some choice examples of its own, few myths appear more irrational than that of the Indian sacred cow. As confirmed meat-eaters in the overwhelming majority, it seems incomprehensible to Westerners that in India, where agonizing hunger is suffered chronically by tens of millions of human beings, cattle should not be regarded as food.* That they should instead be accorded almost religious respect appears even more bizarre. And strangest of all to cattle-raisers in the West is the Indian custom of apparent indifference to feeding animals that occupy such an exalted position. Westerners assume, on the face of it, that India would be much better off if the excess stray cattle were consumed or at least put out of their misery; and they marvel at the weight of a tradition that operates so strongly in the opposite direction.
This Western view is itself a myth, in the opinion of Marvin Harris, writing in the March issue of Natural History, the journal of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. He argues that the attitude of the Hindus toward cows not only had a rational kernel in the past; it still has a rational kernel. His article, "The Myth of the Sacred Cow," establishes a rather strong case and at the same time offers illumination on a very weighty problem in Indian agriculture.
First, he assembles some rather startl figures. India has a population of 79.4 million cows of which 27.2 million are either dry or have not calved. The average annual yield of whole milk per cow is around 413 pounds, which compares with 5,000 pounds in Europe and the United States. It must be admitted, says Harris, “that the Indian dairy industry is among the least efficient in the world."
Besides the 79.4 million cows, India has 96.3 million bullocks, of which 68.6 million are working animals. (He gives no figures on the nunber of bulls.)
Indian farming is based on plow agriculture. In this the working cattle provide up to 46 percent of the "labor cost, exclusive of transport and other activities."
The author points out a most surprising fact. Despite the huge number of bullocks, "India suffers from a shortage of such animals." A pair j of bullocks is the minimum unit needed for culti- so vation. "But a conservatively estimated 60 million rural households dispose of only 80 million MAN'S BEST FRIEND working cattle and buffaloes. This would mean that as many as two-thirds of India's farmers may be short of the technical minimun.
Harris notes that under the "existing property relations the bullocks cannot be shared among several households without further lowering the productivity of marginal
* It .should be noted nonetheless that few Westerners consider it acceptable to eat the animal they generally consider to be man's best friend, the dog. Further, a strong taboo is operative against indulging in the flesh of such mammals as the mouse and the rat, although this source of protein is readily available in most cities, particularly in the slums and ghettoes where hunger is not unknown. For obscure reasons, this feeling also extends to the cat, an animal rather widely venerated in the West.
farms." When the monsoon comes, sowing operations must begin with the first showers; similarly at harvest time, speed is essential. Thus it is "highly risky" for a farmer to rely on others for bullocks. He has to maintain his own pair.
The function of the cows at once becomes obvious. They are the source of the bullocks. This is in addition to milk and milk products, however low the level of productivity.
It could be argued that India does not need such a huge cow population to produce the requisite number of bullocks. However, they fit into the economy in another way. Cow dung is India's main cooking fuel and is absolutely essential in making it possible for humans to metabolize the grain crops, since coal, oil, electricity are out of reach for the peasant family.
"Of the 800 million tons annually bequeathed the Indian countryside, 300 million are consumed in cookery." This amount of dung is equivalent in energy producing value to 35 million tons of coal or 68 million tons of wood.
This is still not all. "Of the remaining 500 million tons of dung, the largest part is used for manuring." The intensive rains in India make this source of fertilizer absolutely essential. "So vital is this contribution that one scholar argues that substitutes for the manure consumed as fuel 'must be supplied, and lavishly, even at a financial loss to government.'"
It is important to note in this context, continues Harris, that in relation to fuel and manure, "old, dry, barren animals do not cease to provide dung."
The list is still not exhausted. In 1962 India produced 16 million cattle hides. Much of this output is required in manufacturing leather products required in the traditional farming technology of India. Moreover, despite the Hindu proscription, "a considerable amount of beef is eaten." Besides pagans, Moslems and Christians, there are millions who have no caste to lose and who will consume beef if given the opportunity.
"It seems likely that a high proportion of the 20 million bovines that die each year get eaten. Moreover, it is quite clear that not all these cattle die a natural death. On the contrary, the very extent of the agitation for antislaughter bills reveals how widespread the slaughter actually is."
Besides bullocks, milk, fuel, fertilizer, the cow produces meat and hides for India. And still the list is not exhausted.
One of the features that strikes foreigners most strongly when they visit India, is that cows are to be seen everywhere, wandering as they please, in the markets, on the roads, in the railway stations, along the rail lines. "Many authorities seem not to inquire why all this wandering takes place from the point of view of the cow, since presumably she has remained uninformed of her sacred privileges."
The answer is simple. The cow is hungry. She is looking for food " -- in the ditches, around the base of telegraph poles, between the railroad ties, along the hillsides, in every nook and cranny where something edible has reared its head." This food, of course, takes nothing from humans since they cannot digest chlorophyll. "The sacred cow is an exploited scavenger, a mere walking skeleton for most of the year, precisely because her ecological niche is removed from that of human food crops." Thus Harris comes to his explanation of why so many cows are kept in India.
"Each farmer needs his own pair of bullocks. Lacking cash, he cannot afford to buy these animals. Rather than risk going into debt at usurious rates, he prefers to try to breed bulls (which he will exchange later for bullocks). Since all the available land is given over to human food crops, the breeding cows must scavenge for their food. Being undernourished, they breed irregularly. The farmer refrains from culling uncalved animals since they convert grain by-products and scrub vegetation into useful dung. Meanwhile, there is always a chance that the cow will eventually conceive. If a female calf is born, the scrub and chaff are converted into milk, while the calf is gradually starved to death. In the long run, the more cows an individual farmer owns, the greater the likelihood that he can replace his bullocks without going into debt."
Ahimsa, the Hindu doctrine of the sanctity of life, consequently has a rational basis. Ahimsa is an ideological expression of the pressures generated by the human population to survive under the abysmal productive system which India has not yet transcended; "ahimsa itself derives power and sustenance from the material rewards it confers upon both men and animals."
Without some major innovations, India cannot shift from this system. "As a matter of fact, it is obvious that any large-scale drift toward animal slaughter before the traction, fuel, and manure needs of the productive cycle were met would immediately jeopardize the lives of tens of millions of Indians."
And with major innovations? But that raises the question of changed property relations and an entirely new economic system capable of lifting India out of the ancient pattern. That, of course, is something neither the author nor the editors of Natural History care to examine. They have their own sacred cows to worry about.
A CASE OF WISHFUL THINKING
Paris
If it is true that to err is human, some errors nonetheless arise not from misgauging reality in all its complexities but from a mere unhinging of the mind. Healy's Newsletter has just provided an illustration of this. In the issue dated March 11 of this newspaper printed in London, one full page plus an additional column, or more than a fourth of the paper, were devoted to the candidate run in the March 5 elections in France by the OCI [Organisation Communiste Internationaliste], the French organization associated with the Socialist Labour League in an “International Committee of the Fourth International," a sham formation.
Running a candidate like this was not in itself an error. The PCI [Parti Communiste Internationaliste, the French section of the Fourth International] decided not to run candidates only because the effort necessary to conduct a campaign in a single district, or in an inevitably limited number of districts, would not have had sufficient echo on the national scene to make it "pay off" politically.
But you leave the realm of possible differences on this and enter the world of mental aberration when you read the article signed by Peter Arnold in the Newsletter. The title itself indicates the tone of the entire article: "The OCI pose a real alternative to de Gaulle." Here are a few sentences: "The joint campaign by the OCI and 'Revoltes', whatever the number of votes received by Stephan Just in the ballot, has altered the political scene in France.... This has begun a long overdue discussion amongst rank-and-file Communist party members."
The entire article can be put under the heading of "wishful thinking." The Just candidacy did not alter the political scene in France or set off a long discussion in the PCF. At no point would a reader of the Newsletter learn that the main conflict in these elections was -- unfortunately -- between the Gaullists on the one hand, and the FGDS (Fédération de la gauche démocrate et socialiste] and the PCF on the other. Neither would he learn that the Just candidacy did not cause a ripple outside the district in which he ran, and so on.
But the article in the Newsletter is not the product of chance, even taking into account Healy's gross ignorance of everything beyond the shores of Great Britain. The article is an illustration of the sectarianism dominating these groups, which believe that our globe revolves around them and that their screaming is enough to change the world.
The next issue of the Newsletter, dated March 18, has just arrived. There is not even a mention of this candidacy and its results. Of course, in the passages cited above, there was a phrase along the lines of "whatever the number of votes received," but this number -- 227 -- out of more than 53,000 valid votes was too small to be brought to the attention of the readers of the Newsletter.*
Let us note that in a neighboring district, a Posadist candidate received more than 400 votes. However, there are not more than a dozen Posadists in all of France, while the OCI and Revoltes are real organizations, presumably.
The Just candidacy changed the political scene in France -~ in the columns of the Newsletter for exactly one issue! We are willing to wager that by way of self-criticisn, Healy will engage in new slanderous attacks against the Fourth International.
eee *(In the March 25 issue, likewise, the editor of the Newsletter seems to have been unable to screw up sufficient courage as yet to inform his readers on the facts of life concerning the Just candidacy. -- W.O.