?

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Vol. 20, No. 3, September1979

forAnthropological 0011-3204/79/2003-0002$03.25 Foundation Research 1979by The Wenner-Gren

Questions in the Sacred-CowControversy

byFrederick J. Simoons

(1966-67), and the Universityof Texas, Austin (1967-69). His are culturalgeography, research interests cultureand foodhabits, domesticatedanimals and human culture,NortheastAfrica,and South Asia. Amonghis publicationsare Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances of Wisconsin in theOld World (Madison: University Press, 1961), A Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Culture,and History(Madison: Universityof WisconsinPress, 1968), Northwest Ethiopia: Peoples and Economy (Madison: Universityof Wisconsin Press, 1960), and "The Geographic and Lactose Malabsorption:Review of the Evidence" Hypothesis (American JournalofDigestive Diseases, November,1978). The presentpaper was submitted in finalform5 x 78.

of Marx's that Harris's interpretation sonal communication) in the Marx havingcontended is a "grossdistortion," remark concerning that men debate and conflict bulk of his writings the practical world,not that the resultis always profitable. religion Marxismin ignoring Thus, says Diener,Harrismisuses and in controversy forcein the sacred-cow MARSHALL SAHLINS, "Culture and Environment" as a sociopolitical factors"behindsacredon a search for the "profit focussing forces'which cow beliefs,"the 'marketforces/environmental Harris (1966:51; 1978a:28) has incorrectly ascribedto me the have led the invisiblehand to throwup this custom." Like statement that "irrationalideologies"oftencompel men "to Paul and Rabinow(1976), Diener sees Harris's technoenvironoverlook foods that are abundant locally and are of high solution, marketplace mentalapproach as an "environmental nutritive value,and to utilizeotherscarcer foodsofless value." rationalism." a bourgeois My actual wordswere "it is not rareforthefoodways to lead As for Gandhi, he and other Hindus committedto cow men to overlook foods that are abundant locally . . ." (Simoons statecontradictory, have made many,sometimes protection 1961:3, italics added). Nowhereon the page cited or in my theirpositions.(For a broad and justifying mentsexplaining subsequentsectionon beefeatingin India do the words"iderangeof Indian views on the cow, see A. B. Shah 1967,Lall ologies" or "irrationalideologies"appear. This, however, has 1973.) Some are in the spiritof that cited by Harris; most, not deterred Azzi (1974:319), apparently expanding on by Gandhi and statements Harris'serror, from citing thesamepage ofmybook as reading however,are not. Representative ofeconomic blending reveala morecomplex one ofhis followers that "irrationalideologies" cause an inefficient surplus of commitment: concerns and religious cattle in India. Azzi cannot have seen the page he cites,for thereis no consideration of surplusIndian cattleon thatpage. to Cow protection is cowprotection. factofHinduism The central It evolution. Nor is the questionofsurpluscattlediscussedanywhere in human in my phenomena wonderful meis oneofthemost the The cowtomemeans hisspecies. beyond being takesthehuman book. All this could be ignoredif these were the only halfto realize Man through thecowis enjoined subhuman world. entire truthsor outright errorsthat can be traced to Harris in his his identitywith all that lives. . . . The motive that actuates cow crusadeoverthesacredcow. Unfortunately, theyare not.This unselfish consideration though selfish," is not"purely protection to help set the record paper is an effort right. thecowwouldbe selfish, purely intoit. If it were enters doubtedly hisfirst Harrisbegins ofthesacredcow" articleon "themyth it has ceased to give fulluse. after as in othercountries, killed, withtwo quotations, one fromMarx, the otherfromGandhi 1954:3,5] [Gandhi (Harris 1965:217). Marx is quoted as sayingthat social lifeis different is essentially idealsetup by Hinduism The cowprotection basicallypracticaland Gandhi that Hindu cow protection is is based idealoftheWest.The latter thedairy and transcends from based on the economicusefulness of the cow. It is not my theeconomic dulyrecognizing while theformer, values, on economic purposehere to evaluate Harris's "Marxist" theoretical posiaspectviz.theideaof on thespiritual aspectofthecase,laysstress tion. I would,however, note Paul Diener's observation(perwhich innocence ofmartyred fortherelief andself-sacrifice penance Undera dairyideal,meansdo not count,even cow it embodies. and getting cheapmilksupply is resorted to forinsuring slaughter cattle. and superfluous to be uneconomic ridofwhatare supposed FREDERICK J. SIMOONS is Professor ofGeography at theUniverthing-infact ideal,meansare the principal Underthe religious sity of California,Davis (Davis, Calif. 95616, U.S.A.). Born in to Hinduism according of cow protection The essence everything. 1922, he was educated at Rutgers University(B.A., 1949) and per act of"saving"theanimal thusdoesnotlie in themechanical the University of California, Berkeley(M.A., 1952; Ph.D., 1956). theact."P." behind and penance se, ... butin theself-purification He has taughtat Ohio State University (1956-57), the University 1954:85-86] [Gandhi of Wisconsin,Madison (1957-66), Louisiana State University
The trialoftheecological perspective must, and will,bein theempirical arena. The decisionrests on its successin handling the factsofthiscase and that.... An adaptive perspective, goesthemoral, mustnotpresume thatwhatever is there is good,rational, useful,or advantageous. Lots of things peopledo are truly stupid, if understandable, and manycultures havegoneto thewall.

the one selected from differ significantly These two statements seeingtheircowfarfrom by Harris.Gandhiand his followers, economic from and directly simply ideal as deriving protection the "dairyideal from view it as a notabledeparture concerns, a blendingof religious of the West." Their views constitute primary. with religiouscommitment and economicconcerns, as basically Most secularIndiansalso see Hindu cowprotection in motivation. religious Harris (1965:218-20) proceeds to describe "the standard 467

Vol. 20

No. 3

September 1979

case forthegreatcattlebungle" :' that India's "dairyindustry in the world"; that thereare many is one of the least efficient old and "useless"cattlein India whichwanderabout, "impeding traffic and damagingthe crops"; that thereare homesfor aged and infirm cattle; that thereare surpluscattle in India; value otherthan thatmanycattlein India have no commercial theirhides and represent a liability, not an asset. Countering this"standardcase," Harris arguesthat what is involvedis a "mythof the sacred cow" and raises two "basic" questions: between man and cattle for whetherthere is competition scarce resourcesand whethereliminating the ban on cow slaughter would "substantially modify the ecologyof Indian His answerto the first foodproduction." questionis that man in India, not a comand cattle have a symbiotic relationship workanimalsin petitiveone; that bullocksare indispensable India's plow agriculture;that cows produce over 45% of as bearersof India's milksupplyand are even moreimportant bullocksand providersof dung; that cows and other cattle provide leather and, to low-caste Hindus and to pagans, of cattle, and Moslems,also beef.The wandering Christians, use of plants that otherwise is seen as an efficient moreover, to religious conwould be wasted. One does not need to refer cepts to explain the large numberof cattle in India, says Harris. Rather,the religious conceptof ahimsa (nonviolence) of ecological is "an ideological Thus it is expression" pressures. In answerto his not negative-functioned. positive-functioned, second question,Harris argues that eliminating the ban on wouldthreaten humanwell-being. cow slaughter What Harris has done in his early articlesis assemble a melangeof opinionson the sacred cow to create an unreal compositeview, a straw man to be ridiculedfor failingto appreciate the economicimportanceof the cow. Almost all Pakistan expertsrecognizethat in India, as in its neighbors common cattle and waterbuffalo are of vital and Bangladesh, to human livelihood.Despite this,many experts importance certainHindu viewsand actionson behalfof the sacred insist, and changeswould cow are, on balance, negative-functioned, benefit. be to India's ecological, and nutritional economic, The case of the Shin,a Moslempeople of Dardistan,clearly how negative-functioned-how detrimentalto demonstrates group well-being-viewsof the cow can be. Though they possess cattle and depend on them forplowingmuch as do other Indians and Pakistanis,the Shin look on the cow as otherMoslemsdo the pig, withabhorrence: theyavoid direct contact with cows, refuseto drinkcows' milk or burn cow dung,and rejectbeefas food (Drew 1875:428; Shaw 1878:29, 6v; 34-35; Biddulph1880:37, 112-13; Leitner1893: Appendix Durand 1900:202-3, 210; Muhammad 1905:94, 111; Francke 1907:36; ImperialGazetteer of India 1909:108; Rose 1911-19: 406; Schomberg1935:165, 167, 209; Lorimer 1935-38:257a; Simoons 1970:558-61). The Shin case seems to fitHallpike's society and its (1974:488) suggestionthat an "inefficient in manynatural institutions are perfectly capable of surviving with and human environments," dependingon competition othergroups. in whichto place My positionis that the properframework is one whichpermitstraitsto be the sacred-cow controversy or both and which positive-functioned, negative-functioned, cattlepoliciesand allows forhumanchoiceamongalternative It is withthisin mindthatI consider specific questions systems. raisedby Harris and others.My concernis withthe originof the sacred-cowconcept and with whether,in one way or in presentto wasteand destructiveness it contributes another, day India.
1 As Hoffpauirhas observed (1977:111, 127-30), the attention given to India's sacred cows has obscuredthe important role of its morethan halfof India's 51,000,000water buffalo, whichcontribute milk supply. The "bad press" of the water buffaloderives in part fromits lack of religiousstatus and fromconcernthat in economic competition it is a threatto the sacred cow. 468

IS HARRIS'S HYPOTHESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SACRED-COW CONCEPT REASONABLE? concept(1965, 1966), In his initialarticleson the sacred-cow Harris ignoredthe historicalrecord bearing on its origins. he has dealt with that record,advancinga Lately, however, According to hypothesis in the spiritof Ellsworth Huntington. Harris'shypothesis (1977a:145-47),populationincreasefollowing 1000 B.C. in the Ganges Valley was accompaniedby deFarms grewsmaller, forestation, floods, and lengthy droughts. important to and cattle,as plow animals,became increasingly peasant survival.As a result, cattlebecamethe main object of the religious ban on meat eating.To kill cattle fortheirflesh livelihood. wouldhave endangered a farmer's Therefore, Harris contends(p. 146), "beefwas tabooedforthe same reasonthat porkwas tabooedin the Middle East: to removetemptation."2 In his opinion(p. 147), the ban on beefeatingoriginated as a practical matter, "the cumulative result of the individual ofmillions ofindividual decisions and millions farmers." Those theircattle were "more likelyto hold who did not slaughter onto theirfarms, and to pass themon to theirchildren." Harris's argument has what appear to be fatal flaws.Most evidenceforcow sanctity indicatesthat the damaging, literary by "millions of concept was not developed independently but imposedfromabove and at variance individualfarmers," withcommon considerapractice(Brown1957:37-39). Further tion of Harris'shypothesis revealsotherseriousshortcomings. The Rajasthan Desert, whichis part of the same belt of arid and semiaridlands as the upper Ganges Valley to which he alludes and whichis spreadingat the rate of a half-mile per year,is considered to be largelyman-made(Whyte1964:274; Brysonand Baerreis1967:141; Bryson1972:142; Brysonand Murray 1977:107-14). The air over the Rajasthan Desert containsabundant water vapor, fourtimes as much as that over mostdesertsand about as muchas that over some quite rainytropicalforests (Bryson 1972:141; Brysonand Murray 1977:111). Where plots in the desert are protectedagainst man and animals,a richgrasslanddevelops(Whyte1964:274; Bryson 1972:142; Bryson and Murray 1977:114). A major factorin desertification in Rajasthan has been overgrazing and Murray1977:113-14),especially (Whyte1964:275; Bryson by 13,000,000cattle, 7,000,000sheep, and 8,000,000 goats (1961 figures). Thus man and his animals are the principal the villains.If one worksthesefactsinto Harris's hypothesis, results are these: India following 1000 B.C. Human population grewin western on in largemeasure This, coupledwith desertification brought led to smalleragricultural plots.Withneed for by overgrazing, plotsweresmaller?), plow animalsmorecritical(because farm millionsof farmersstopped slaughtering cattle and eating beef. This, in turn, increased cattle numbers,accelerated environmental and leftless feedand weakeroxen destruction, with reduced ability to plow. People were also deprivedof status and theirnutritional beef,a valuable sourceof protein, human was lowered.All of the above worsenedstill further chancesof survival. in modern India and elsewhere, Of course, manypastoralists, of severe do keep large numbers of animals under conditions droughtin the hope that at least some will survive.In this not pastoralists. case, however,we are dealing with farmers, be making They would, under the conditionshypothesized, decisionsunsound in both individual economicand broader environmental terms.The farmer's "temptation"would have been to destroyhis most valuable assets, plow oxen. What
2 In the case of pigs, in Harris's view, the temptation was to keep them under changed ecological conditionsto which they were unsuited. Wagner (1978) has rightlyasked why, if pigs could not a ban would have been necessary.For a rebuttalof Harris's flourish, on pork avoidance, see Diener and Robkin (1978). argument

CURRENsT

ANTHROPOLOGY

farmerwould have eliminatedthe basis of his livelihood, except in the finalthroesof starvation?And why would he have had to ban theslaughter and eatingofall cattle,including to save thosecapable ofworking, theold and infirm, breeding, and milking? were valid, one might If, nevertheless, Harris's hypothesis Moslem farmersin arid, expect that, since independence, from overpopulated Pakistan,who are not protected "temptation" by the sacred-cow so concept,would have slaughtered This has not happened. many cattle as to ruin themselves. One mightalso expectto findthe strongest supportfora ban on cow slaughterin those Indian states suffering fromthe greatesthuman populationpressure.The reverseis the case. Kerala is India's mostdensely populatedstate and amongthe lowestin averagedailyintakeofprotein and calories(Gopalan et al. 1971:45,47, 94). It is also one of the fewstatesthathas not passed legislationagainst cow slaughter, and in 1974 it even announced plans forbuilding India's first beef-processing plant (Drummond1974). West Bengal is India's second most densely populatedstateand is also amongthelowestin protein and calorie intake. West Bengal "adamantly resisted the of a ban on cow slaughter"(Ravenholt 1966:11) imposition and today has only a partial ban. West Bengal's resistance, says Ravenholt, makesgood sense,"forwereall uselesscattle also retained forsentimental foranimals reasons,the nutrition and humansalike wouldfurther decline."In view of all these observations,I conclude that Indian farmersbanned cow slaughter and beefeatingforreasonsotherthan the need "to removetemptation." There are two principalalternatives to Harris's hypothesis. Each sees thebans on cow slaughter and beefeatingas imposed fromabove. One is being pursued by Diener, Nonini, and Robkin (1978), who take what theycall "a new evolutionary on the economic viewpoint" focussing and politicalconstraints that operatedin India in thepast. Theirsuggestion is that the of beef in India derivesnot fromtechnoenvironprohibition mental pressures,but fromdeliberateaction taken by the their earlyIndian statesto further ends. politicaland economic of agriculture, They note a large-scale sedentarization expansionoftrade,and riseofurbanstates,such as Magadha, at the very time the sacred-cow conceptwas graduallybeing established.They argue that those states fostered the ban on beef to provide effort as partofa broader forthepolitically surpluses dominanturban elites. Accordingto their hypothesis, cow veneration did notdevelopbecauseit was beneficial to peasants or as a reflection ofan ecological adaptationfavorable to them. Instead, it was a state policy imposedon peasants,one that may have had a quite detrimental ecologicalimpact.That the took a religiousformthey view as reflecting prohibition the close links betweenthe urban elite, the state, and emerging ideas and movements. religious The secondalternative hypothesis places theimpetus forthe of the sacred-cowconcept and the ban on beef development realm.The Sanskritist eatingwithinthe socioreligious Brown (1957:35) demonstrates that the doctrineof the sacred cow gainedgroundgradually duringtheperiodfrom about the 5th B.C. to the4th century century turmoil. A.D., a timeofreligious Whereasbeforethat time even members of the priestly jatis, the Brahmins, cattle and ate beef,following slaughtered that timeBrahmins notonlyabandonedthosepractices, but became leading proponentsof the position that society in general shouldabandon them. In the view of manyotherscholarswho have weighedthe documents,the rise of the sacred-cowconcept was indeed linkedto continuing religious controversy (Crooke 1912:3016; Sundara Ram 1927:62-74, 160-202; Hutton 1933:395-97; Kosambi 1946:45-48; Ambedkar1948:116-21; Alsdorf1961; Dumont 1966:187-93; Dutt 1967; Lal 1967; Roy 1967:19-20; Lodrick1977:78-86; Diener,Nonini,and Robkin 1978). Early Vol. 20 * No. 3 * September 1979

Simoons:QUESTIONS

IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

Jainsand Buddhists arguedforahimsaand againsttakinglife, althoughtheydid not focussolelyon the cow. Buddhistsdid, however, object to indiscriminate slaughter of cows,especially for sacrifice.Brahminswere affected by Buddhist and Jain and went beyondit in raisingthe cow to a special thinking one buttressed ofsanctity, position by laterstrife withMoslems to thishypothesis, and British.According the sacred-cow concept and the bans on cow slaughterand beef eating derive mainlyfrom religious controversy. To weigh the meritsof these two alternativehypotheses wouldrequire muchadditionalcollecting, and weighing sifting, of data. What evidence is at hand, however,suggests that Harris's is highly unlikely. ARE WANDERING CATTLE A PROBLEM FOR INDIAN FARMERS? Late in the 19thcentury, invited John Voelcker, by thegovernmentof BritishIndia to suggestimprovements in agriculture, was impressedby the large numbersof "Brahmani bulls" about and describedthemas a "standingreligious wandering menace" to crops (Mishra 1973:298). His impressionwas subsequentlysupported by quantitative data: in the first livestock census, in 1919-20, India had 5,100,000 breeding bulls in a total cattle populationof 113,000,000. By contrast, in 1966 there were only 400,000 breedingbulls in a cattle populationof 176,000,000. Mishra suggests that the extremely bulls at the turnof the century large populationof breeding needs and seems to have derivedpartly was beyondbreeding from religious views,whichsince that timehave givenground to economic pressures. As the present-day travellerto India observes,however, in the landscape. In his cattle are still prominent wandering discussion of this phenomenon(1965:223-24; 1966:54-56), Harris focusseson its advantages.Allowingcattle to wander does indeedfreethe ownerfrom the need to providefeedand permitthe use of vegetation that mightotherwise be wasted. sensein a broadrangeofecosystems That it makeseconomic is of "free-ranging" affirmed not by the widespreadoccurrence in the Old World (Simoons and only in India but elsewhere Simoons1968:242,268-69; Palmieri1976:81-83). Not properly is the damage that wandering emphasized by Harris,however, on crops.Nor does he make clear that not all cattlecan inflict cattle are usefulor potentially usefulforbreeding, wandering traction,or milkingand that some are "stray" and others "wild" (feral). In rural India, many wanderingcattle are old cows past who cannotafford releasedby farmers to feedthem usefulness, but are unwilling, because ofreligious to sell them sensibilities, forslaughter. An informant fromthe Hissar region,Punjab, told me that weak and old oxen are sold at cattle fairsheld outside Hissar every three months (Romesh Chandna, personal communication). Farmers will not sell an ox knowing thatit is to be killed, are Moslemsfrom distant yetsometraders be slaughtered. areas,and animalssold to themmay ultimately are usuallytakenoutsidetownto a wooded Old cows,however, area and released,to feedas best theycan in the countryside. he drivesthemaway but Whensuchcowsraid a farmer's fields, does not kill them. of wild and There are no reliableestimates of the numbers stray cattle in India. Stray cattle would be expectedto be in areas wherefeedshortages most numerous are most acute. This fits withBansil's (1975:501) observation that straycattle seem to be far morenumerous in urban than in rural India. Wild cattle would be expectedto be most numerous in areas 469

of the cow is moststrongly wherethe sanctity supported. This fitswiththe results ofone survey(AnimalHusbandry Department,Himachal Pradesh 1963:2-3), whichfound50,000wild cattlein UttarPradeshand 30,000in Punjab, farmorethanin any otherstate considered. Even if wild and stray cattle are old and infirm, Harris might properly insist, theyare not "useless,"sincetheirdung some carcasses as food. may be used as fuel and eventually be balancedagainstthe damage These benefits must,however, is done to crops.That such damage is serious,even alarming, clearly indicated by published statements,both general Production (Mayadas 1954:29; Ford FoundationAgricultural Court Team 1959:225-26; Supreme Reports 1959:676; Bellerby and Majumdar 1961:91; Whyte 1964:28; U.S. AID Mission to India 1964:13, 21; U.S. News and World Report1966; Dutt 1967:36) and forspecific areas of India (Darling 1930:19-20; TimesofIndia 1962;AnimalHusbandry Himachal Department, has Pradesh 1963:4-5). The Food Grain Enquiry Committee noted that wild and stray cattle cause such enormouscrop damage that "large blocks of valuable cropland in certain areas have been abandoned by cultivatorsbecause of this menace" (Whyte1964:28). Understandably, rounding up and wild and straycattle is a matterof official removing concern and action (Gosamvardhana 1960:20-21; Whyte1964:28; Dutt 1967:36).3 It can also result in controversy, as is illustrated by an in 1961 and 1962 (TimesofIndia 1962). episodethat occurred Farmersof Ghogavillage,Bihar,wereset uponby a "ferocious herd of 60 wild cows," whichmade repeatedraids into their first kharif crops.The villagers approachedtheUnionMinistry of Agriculture forhelp,but its Wild Cattle CatchingDepartmentsuggestedthat the municipalcorporation pay the estimated 3,000 rupees necessaryto capture and ship away the ofcropswas insisted thatprotection animals.The municipality not its responsibility-that paymentshould come fromthe or from The Ministry then the villagers. nationalgovernment wrote the Directorof Animal Husbandryin New Delhi for funds,and he, in turn,asked the municipality to share the The cost.That is where, sevenmonths rested. later,thematter villagersby that time were afraidthat theirrabi crops,too, mightbe destroyed. About two yearsbefore, a similarrequest had been made by villagersfrom the Ghoga area, but at that time public opinion had been divided. Thus, when a cowout of crewhad arrived, almosthalfof the villagers, catching "religioussentiment," had obstructedthem, and some had even chased them with weapons. By 1961, following "bitter experience of what wild cows can do to crops,"thesevillagers apparently had had a changeof heart. Mayadas (1954:29) says that theproblem has becomeworse since independence. Formerlyit was possible to dispose of surplus cattle,but nowfarmers are "constantly beingharassed day and nightby herdswhichmusteitherfeedon one's green cannotbear the cost crops,or starve,"and the averagefarmer of fencing and watchmen. Writing of the East Punjab, Randhawa and Nath (1959:50) say that the numbers and destructiveness ofaged and infirm bovineshave increased enormously sincepartition, withthe establishment of a strictban on cow killing.On the other hand, the problemended in the West Punjab, nowpartofPakistan,whenHindusand Sikhsmigrated to India and pressure againstcowkilling ceased.In Lahore,the problemof stray cattle was once a serious one, but since Moslemshave simply th-e partition pickedup and slaughtered strays(Rashid Malik, personalcommunication).
I A deer called nilgai,"blue cow," also causes much crop damage. Because of its name, many Hindus are unwillingto kill it. In the hope of weakening public objections to killing this destructive animal, in Uttar Pradesh its name has been officially changed to nilghora, "blue horse" (Mayadas 1954:32-33).

IS MUCH BEEF WASTED BECAUSE OF THE SACRED-COW CONCEPT? Harris,in dealingwith this question(1965:222-23), observes and many tribal that Indian Moslems, Christians, correctly peoples do eat beef. Even certainlow-casteHindus, such as concept may consumeit, and the sacred-cow leatherworkers, in makingbeef available for such imis positive-functioned groups. Strangelyignoredby Harris, however,is poverished of the cow (von spread of the inviolability the continuing declinein 1963:149) and the considerable Fuirer-Haimendorf of Food and Agriculture, (Ministry beefeatingsincepartition of Marketing and Inspection1955:47, 156). Much Directorate ofMoslemsto Pakistan themigration from ofthisdeclinestems is the abandonment and Bangladesh.Also involved,however, and sectionsof of beefeatingby some Hindus,leatherworkers otherlow castes,in an attemptto improvetheirsocial status (M. Singh1947:116; Gondal 1948:22,25; Fuchs 1950:357-58; 1963:7, of Home Affairs 1960:69-70; Dube 1951:vi; Ministry 10, 24, 59).4 Alreadyin the mid-1940sit was noted that in UttarPradeshonlya verysmallproportion Punjab and western scavengers) and Bhangis(sweepers, ofChamars(leatherworkers) ate carrion(M. Singh 1947:116), theirmain source of beef. of There is also abundant evidencethat as the acculturation many of them tribal people to Hindu ways has progressed, and/orbeef eating (Dalton have also givenup cow slaughter 1906: 1872:54; Thurston1903:49; Gurdon1904:58; Sherring 292-94; Majumdar 1937:26; Roy 1937:9-10, 88; Elwin 1955: 522-23; Nakao 1956:105; Johri 1962:122; Hoffpauir1978: thatin Nepal theTamang, forexample, reports 234). Hoffpauir, though not Hindu, have taken over certain views of their about the sanctityof the cow; today they Hindu neighbors refuseto slaughtercattle, though they will eat beef from animalsthat have not died at humanhands. Some Himalayan by Hindu views of the sacred cow have groups influenced even given up eating yakflesh(Palmieri 1976:128-30). In in thesouth,tribals'abandonment Madhya Pradesh,especially of beefhas becomequite general(National CouncilofApplied EconomicResearch 1963:31, 32, 111). Carcassesof dead cattle are disposedof in variousways by wereresponsible leatherworkers Traditionally, Hindu farmers. for removing dead cattle fromthe village. They flayedthe carcassesand mighttheneat the flesh.They were sometimes killingcows to obtain meat, and in suspectedof deliberately to a low ritual and any case their beef eating contributed some of them today refuseeven to social status. Therefore thevillage(Randhawaand Nath 1959: remove dead cattlefrom themselves is present, farmers may 50-51). If no leatherworker bury a dead animal or drag it to a particularplace in the village to be left for vulturesand other scavengers.In the cityof Varanasi(Benares),Deryck Lodrickreports pilgrimage to see a dead it is not uncommon (personalcommunication), withheavy stones, cow or ox hauled to the Ganges,weighted this in and throwninto the river.Nambiar (1975) confirms of cattle "cast in the Ganges" each year. of hundreds writing and withritualpurity thatconcern The above demonstrates conceptis leading social status,and the sacred-cow pollution, many groupsto abandon beef eating. It also showsthat the fleshof many dead cattle is not eaten. It does not, however, howmuchbeefis goingto waste answerthe questionofexactly concept.There are no hard in India because of the sacred-cow
IJudging from Moffatt's (1975:117) study in a Tamil village, among themjatis explain status differences some beef-consuming selves in termsof the recencyof the practiceand the sourceof their beef. Highest among the untouchablejdtis in the village are the ago did not eat beef.Intermediate Talaiyaaris,who untila generation are the PaNNaikkaars, who admit that theymay eat beefbut brag that"it is not predeceased."Lowest are the VeTTiyans, who eat the carcasses of dead cattle. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

470

data on this question.It is clear that thoughmost goatflesh and mutton comefrom slaughtered animals,onlya verysmall percentage of the beefconsumed becomesavailable by slaughter.5That percentage,moreover, has progressively declined becauseofprohibitions in variousstates(Ministry ofFond and Agriculture, Directorate of Marketing and Inspection1967:7), dropping from to 5% in recent independence years 50% before (Nambiar 1975). Almostall beef now becomes available for when animals "fall,"-die from starvationor consumption other"naturalcauses,"without thedirect, immediate interventionof man. One may get a hintofhow muchof this"fallenbeef" is not utilizedby considering the percentage of fallencattle that go unflayed. One survey, forPunjab in 1954-55,foundthat 30but wereburiedor 40% of all bovineanimalswerenot flayed, leftto vultures or dogs (Bhalla 1955:58).6 With an estimated 950,000common cattledyingin Punjab in 1961,7 thisamounts to roughly 280,000-380,000 unflayed and uneatenanimals in that state alone. One cannot legitimately extendthe Punjab estimateto India as a whole,but if the all-India averagehad been half that of Punjab, the total loss of hides and fleshin 1961 would have amounted to that of 4,200,000-5,600,000 cattle. The number offlayedand unflayed cattle cannot,of course, give an accurateidea of how muchbeefgoes uneaten,norcan it reveal the contribution of the sacred-cowconcept. Many cattle remainunflayed for reasons that have nothingto do with cow-slaughter and beef-eating concerns,for example, or dyingin a distantplace where they cannot be drowning reachedby a leatherworker ofFood and Agriculture, (Ministry Directorateof Marketingand Inspection1967:5-6). On the otherhand, even if an animal is flayed, its fleshmay not be eaten. In any case, the scantydata available suggestthat we are dealing with a substantialwaste of beef broughton by religious sensibilities. The ban on cow slaughter has also had a on the leatherindustry negativeeffect in reducing the availabilityofhides (Sen 1967:30-31; Nambiar 1975). Turning to the broader question of cow slaughter,food Mishra's (1966) economic availability,and human nutrition, analysis demonstrates that legalizationof cow slaughterin India would resultin an increasein foodavailable to all conbothvegetarians sumers, and beefeaters,which, in turn, would benefit India's public nutrition and health.Hindu rejection of cow slaughter therefore does not makegood sensenutritionally and is "negative-functioned" in this regard. As Schwabe (1978a:274)notes, thereis a certainparallelism between Hindu views of cattle and Americanattitudestoward dogs, which lead Americans to pass up the "120,000,000 pounds of edible meat represented by 13,000,000 unwanteddogs 'put to sleep' in American dog poundseach year." One can onlyadd thatfor India the problemof nutritional is farmoreserious deficiency thanforthe UnitedStates. Despairingof bringing about much domesticexpansionin beef productionand marketing,secularistsin India have weighedthe possibilities of export.Shipping live cattle abroad is uneconomicbecause of transportation costs. Exports to Burma of driedbeef (biltong) did occur beforeWorldWar II
I Accordingto the livestock census of 1961, only 4% of all kips came fromslaughteredcattle (Ministryof Food and Agriculture, Directorateof Marketingand Inspection1967:7). 6This is the onlypostindependence surveyI have uncovered.One does read in a later publication (Ministryof Food and Agriculture, DirectorateofMarketing and Inspection1967:6) that thepercentage of unflayed fallenhides (of commoncattle and water buffalo)ranges from4 to 10 in various parts of India, but this estimateseems to have been carrieddown fromthe colonialperiod. 7Estimate made using total populationfromthe livestockcensus of 1961 and Bansil's (1959:283-84) figure of 16% annual mortality amongIndia's cattle.

Simoons: QUESTIONS IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

but ceased withindependence and cannotbe revivedbecause of antislaughter feelings(Ministryof Food and Agriculture, Directorateof Marketing and Inspection1955:42). Export of othertypesofbeefcontinues, but on a smallscale. In the mid1970s, the Governmentof India considereda beef-for-oil exchangewith Arabs of the Persian Gulf states. The latter offered to build slaughterhouses in Delhi and even lookedinto the matterof air-freighting the meat (Drummond1974). In Kerala, whichhas no ban on cattleslaughter, the stategovernmentin 1974 announceda plan to build a $2,000,000packing plant,India's first, to supplybeefforexport(Drummond 1974). It was estimatedby the Union Ministryof Commercethat beef could be India's most valuable export, earning more foreign exchangethan jute, tea, textiles, and marineproducts combined (Nambiar 1975). This could amountto $700,000,000 of India's bill for importedcrude oil annually, two-thirds (Drummond 1974). Even in developing such progressive schemes as thesethereis a powerful deterrent: the ban on cow slaughter (Nambiar 1975). HAS HINDU RELIGIOUS BELIEF LED TO INEFFICIENCIES IN CATTLE BREEDING? Most Indian animal-husbandry specialists and economists are on cow slaughter thatreligious and legal restrictions concerned in the quality create inefficiencies whichhinderimprovement of India's cattle population(P. Bhattacharya, personalcommunication;Balasubramanian 1960:387-88; Khurody 1963: 317-18; Whyte 1964:25-29; 1968:38-39, 193; Dutt 1967:36). As Dandekar (1964:355; 1973:21) notes, India's cows are culled largely by neglect and starvation,and those which survive may not be the best ones. He argues that without of cattle,of whatever sex or age, therecan selectiveslaughter of cattlein India. be no efficient management Almostall veterinary ofspecialists in officials and a majority in India agreethat slaughter is the mosteffective relatedfields substandardstock, a procedurewhich is way of eliminating essential if breeds are to be improved (P. Bhattacharya, Ford FoundationAgricultural personalcommunication; Production Team 1959:225; Whyte 1964:25-26; 1968:38-39, 168-69). Indeed, Whyte (1968:38-39) describespresent-day in India as "geneticalhypocrisy" forits lack cattle breeding of one element basic to all successful breeding efforts-culling of inferior Yet manyofficials animalsby slaughter. hesitateto is againstcommunity makepublicstatements becauseslaughter sentiment (P. Bhattacharya, personalco"mmunication; Whyte in the early 1960smade 1968:173-74).8 Whenone highofficial in favorof cow slaughter, a publicstatement manyfelthe did so becausehe was about to retire from government serviceand In private,officials was therefore freeof thefearof retaliation. may assert that "educationis necessary"and that "in time, the Indian people willabandon theiropposition to cow slaughon extending ter." Yet organized tendto center the campaigns not on eliminating it. ban on cow slaughter, At a meetingof animal-husbandry specialistsin Bangalore in 1964,a resolution was passed urging"effective disposal of The uneconomic cattle" (K. K. Iya, personalcommunication). that reference was beingmade to slaughterminology suggests No moredirect ter,and thiswas in themindsofmanypresent. statement was made because manyfeltit wouldnot be proper to for the group, consisting largelyof government officials, issue a policy statement to a constitutional ban on contrary
8 Nor can theybe certainthat their statements will be printedby Indian newspapers.Dandekar was unable to get his articlefavoring slaughter publishedin an English-language daily newspaperin India because editorsfearedadversepublic reaction(A.B. Shah 1967:12).

Vol. 20

N 3 * September 1979 No.

471

slaughter. A strong bodyofopinion existed in favorofslaughter and completeeconomicuse of beef,but this was not incorporatedin the resolution. The opinionof mostknowledgeable specialists,however,remainsthat Hindu oppositionto cow slaughter hinders improvement of cattlequalityin India. ARE INDIAN HOMES FOR OLD COWS ECONOMIC OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS? Harr's (1966:58-59) describes homesforaged and infirm cattle as "among the more obscureaspects of the cattle complex." He acknowledges that someof themare charitable institutions whichprovideforaged and derelict animalsuntiltheydie. In keepingwithhis view that the sacred-cow conceptis positivefunctioned, however,he stressesthe economicrole of such homesand suggeststhat theyare "perhaps not as quaint as usuallyimplied." With the recentcompletionof Lodrick's (1977) excellent studyofanimalhomesin India, thematter is no longer obscure. There are two traditional forms of animal home: pinjrapoles, whichadmit creaturesof various sorts,including cattle, and for cattle. In Gandhi's words, goshalas,homes specifically pinjrapolesare "an answer to our instinctfor mercy" and forall wornoutand maimed goshalas"a refuge cattle" (Lodrick 1977:23). In addition,thereis the modern gosadan,a government institution included in India's firstfive-year plan to solve the problem"of unproductive cattle and theiradverse on the economy"(p. 321). It is not on the latterthat I effect focushere,forgosadans have not been successful in meeting theirgoals and have receivedscant attentionin later plans (pp. 324-25). Instead, I am concernedwith goshalas and institutions estimatedto number3,000,involving pinjrapoles, nearly600,000head of cattle (p. 20). The geographicdistribution of pinjrapolesclearly reflects their in Gujarat,wherethe religious affiliations; 97% are found Jains are concentrated, and within Gujarat pinjrapolesare in areas withthe highest morenumerous of Jains percentages (pp. 52-54). One typeofgoshala,theVania goshala,moreover, is closely linkedwiththeMarwariVania community, has which spreadthis type of institution as it has migrated across India (pp. 56-57). Pinjrapolesseem to go back at least to Moka's time, the middleof the 3d century B.C., though theymay have existed among Jains even earlier (pp. 88, 90). They are open to a broad rangeof animals,wild and domestic, and are based on the concept-centralto theJainreligion but also prominent in Hinduism-of ahimsa. Goshalas, homes for cattle, seem to the earliestreferences have had later origins, to themdating from the end of the 12thto the beginning of the 13thcentury A.D. There was, moreover, an earlylinkbetweengoshalasand and between temples goshalasand theworship of Krishna,god of cowherds (p. 93). Withinroadsby Islam in India, however, thesanctity of thecow becamea rallying pointforHindusand the issue of cow slaughter a matterof tension betweenHindu and Moslem.As Shivaji (A.D. 1627-80),leaderofthe Mahratta of a Hindu state,noted: "We are Hindus revivaland founder lordsof the realm.It is not properforus to and the rightful witnesscow slaughterand the oppressionof the Brahmans" (p. 99). The growingpopular support for cow protection and 20th-century among19thHindusLodrickascribes(p. 107) mainly to yet another confrontation with an alien culture, this timethe British,and along withthis confrontation there was an increasein numbers ofgoshalasand pinjrapoles. Lodrick notes that goshalas and pinjrapolesin India today are basicallyreligious in nature,charitableinstitutions reflecting the conceptsof ahimsa and the sanctity of the cow. They do, it is true,play an economicrole, especiallyin preserving
472

cattle at times of drought, and this role is increasing with government and other encouragement (pp. 298-300). They operate,however, at a considerable financial deficit made up by charitablecontributions, rentfromproperties owned,and other funds available to them (pp. 337-39). What are the elements that contribute to such a deficit operation?For one thing, 30% of the cattle in such homes,or nearly174,000for India as a whole, are nonproductive, kept with little or no return(p. 336). Yet such animalseat muchfoddereach year, and, duringtimesof shortage, goshalas and pinjrapoles, with their greater financialresources,are able to outbid local farmersseeking to keep their working,breeding,milking animals alive. As Lodrick notes (p. 339), "useless" animals may surviveat the expenseof usefulones. The dungand hides of nonproductive animalshave value, but whereasmost dung is usedorsold,only5% ofall reporting institutions sellcarcasses to tanneries forprocessing (pp. 285-87). The conclusion seems inescapable that goshalas and pinjrapoles are essentially religiousinstitutions that to some extentdivert fundsfrom projects more beneficialto national well-being. As Lodrick concludes(pp. 341-42), where"religion, economy, and society are inseparably it is improper to "interpret intertwined," the of the sacred cow conceptsolelyin termsof ecofunctioning or culturalecology." nomicmaterialism

DO INDIA'S CATTLE COMPETE WITH MAN FOR FOOD? that manyIndian cattleare not fed, Harrisobservescorrectly but scrounge fortheir food,and thatcattlefeedin India comes of cultivationthat humans cannot mostlyfromby-products consume.He reachesthe curiousconclusion(1966:55), however,that "in India men and bovinecattledo not competefor existence."Heston (1971:192), contradicting Harris, points out that substantial amountsoflivestock feed(49% ofall feed, by value, in 1958-59) are "foddercrops,cereals,pulses, and that directly use land that could be planted to concentrates Fodder crops alone account crops for human consumption." for5% of all cultivated land in India (Heston 1971:192), and in some regions,notably in the north and northwest, the riseas highas 10-20%. Most feedunquestionably figures goes to workingor milkinganimals,9but, in the view of most experts,there is an intense competitionbetween men and cattle for subsistence(Schneider 1948:89; Randhawa and Nath 1959:50-51; U.S. AID Missionto India 1964:21; Whyte 1964:22-24; Ravenholt1966:11; M. M. Shah 1967:44; Whyte 1968:13; San FranciscoChronicle 1972). Like Heston (1971: 192) and the AgriculturalProduction Team of the Ford Foundation (1959:223), these experts insist that if cattle werereduced, moreland wouldbe available to provide numbers foodforhumans. On a local level, Freed and Freed (1972:406-7) foundclear in a Hindu village near Delhi. evidencesof such competition Cattle there compete with man in consuming wheat, gram and gur (chickpeas and certainotherpulsesor grainlegumes), In addition, (unrefined sugar)thatcouldbe utilized by humans. also buy muchacreageis set aside forfodder crops,and farmers supplementary feeds,such as oil cake and cottonseed.Even thoughthe latterare not human foods,the Freeds note that theycost moneythat humanscould use otherwise. between In his effort a symbiotic to demonstrate relationship his men and cattle in India, Harris seems to have overstated case and failed to appreciatethe competitive aspects of the relationship.
9 The estimateby one official in New Delhi that old, economically uselesscows consumethe" output of40 millionofIndia's 300 million cultivatedacres" (Time 1961:28) may be an exaggeration.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

DOES RELIGIOUS BELIEF CONTRIBUTE SURPLUS OF COWS?

TO A

Simoons:QUESTIONS

IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

thatcow slaughter and Hindus,Sikhs,and Jainsare convinced of the word"beef" while Even mention beefeatingare wrong. Hindusare eatingis said to cause themto stop and traditional get up (Bose 1929:103). Hindusofstatuswhohave eatenbeef, been expelledfromtheir have sometimes even accidentally, for responsible caste (Fuchs 1950:252). A Hindu inadvertently the death of a cow becomes rituallypolluted and may be him to variousacts of penance to return requiredto perform a stateof ritualpurity.10 Natural calamitieshave also been believed to occur as a resultof cow slaughter and beefeating.In 1817,forexample, a cow near campaignslaughtered Britishtroopson a military over the objectionsof the priestin residence. a Hindu shrine, that veryday, it is said, therewas an outbreakof Beginning therethe disease spread cholerain the Britishcamp,and from India. People believedthat the spiritof the saint throughout thecholeraepidemic was directing whowas buriedat theshrine and to make and thisled manyto erecttemples as punishment, to him (Sleeman 1915:162-64). Again, in 1829 and offerings therewas a blightthat destroyed forseveralyears thereafter most of the wheat crop along the sacred Nerbudda River. A the cause of the blight devout Brahminsoughtto determine threedays and nights offasting and prayer, received and, after that the blighthad been caused by the a visionto the effect of cows, whichhad been forbidden in the area by slaughter Followingthe advice of the vision,the previousgovernments. to join in petitioning the Brahmin persuadedmanylandowners to ban beefeatingin theregion. The request British authorities was denied,but even afterthe blightended some remained thatcow slaughter and beefeatingso nearthesacred convinced forreducing riverwereresponsible crop yieldsand would lead to more such blightas well as other calamitiesand disease (Sleeman 1915:193-95,202-4). It is understandable that such feelings have led to constant agitation,both past and present,against cow slaughterand beef eating (Sleeman 1915:163; Crooke 1926:363-64; Chandulal 1966; Ravenholt1966:2-8; U.S. News and WorldReport 1966; K. Singh 1967; Whyte 1968:170-74; Lall 1973:229315). Such agitationhas pitted Hindus against Moslems and This, in British, amongwhomthe practicesare commonplace. symbolicof Hinduism. turn,has made the cow increasingly In Kutch,wheretheJadeja rulers werededicatedto protecting theirrealm,it becamepart ofthe state emblem the cow within (Pannu 1956:21), a symbolicuse paralleled in present-day Indian politics."Moslem armies,fortheirpart, werereported cows afterconqueringdistrictsinas regularly slaughtering and as an of theirvictory habitedby Hindus,in confirmation of theirscornfor Hindu beliefs(Monier-Williams expression 1885:173).12
10 Among these are bathing in the Ganges (Das 1953:233) or consumingthe pafichagavya, "the fiveproductsof the cow"-cow's milk, curd, ghi, urine, and dung (Kipling 1892:107). For more detail on theroleofthepanchagavya in ritualpurification, see Simoons (1974). 11 The continuing effectiveness of the cow symbolis revealed by the 1978 controversy betweenthe official CongressParty and Indira Gandhi'sbreakawayparty.A ruling by India's electioncommissioner that the cow and calfsymbolbelongsto the official partyis regarded as a major setback to Mrs. Gandhi's groupand is being appealed to the SupremeCourt (Times [Londonl 1978a, b). 12 Such acts could have direresults.Certain 19th-century Pathans, apparentlythinking themselves safe froma Sikh armyfacingthem across the swift-flowing Indus River,"slaughteredcows,and insulted the Sikhs in the most aggravated manner." Angered, the Sikh Maharaja, Ranjit Singh,ordered his troopsto crossthe river.Despite considerable loss of life,many Sikhs reached the opposite bank and began an indiscriminate slaughter of men, women, and children thatlasted fordays. So infuriated werethe Sikhsthat theyrefused to spare even those Pathans who, in a way effective with orthodox

In somecases,efforts or eliminating at reducing cowslaughter and beef eating by persuasionhave met with some success. One readsthat,following appeals by certainlocal congressmen, theMoslemsofDinaporeresolved not to sacrifice cowsat their annual Bakr-ld festival(Hindu 1949:5); that in the village of Shamirpet, Hyderabad,Moslemsavoidedslaughtering cows out of respect forHindu sentiments and concern withavoiding trouble(Dube 1955:67); that some Moslem rulersin the past tookactionagainstcow slaughter (Sundara Ram 1927:122-23; Lal 1967:32-33; The roleof livestock n.d.:8); and that certain Moslem Indians have even organizedcow-protection societies. Most Moslems,however, in slaughtering have persisted cows and eatingbeef,and theiropponents have takenactionto stop them.The recordcontainsmanyexamplesof violenceagainst Moslems guiltyof cow slaughter.It also contains abundant to legal action againstthe practice,sometimes references with quite severepunishment. For example, variousprincely states, in this regardfromthe British,made whichenjoyedfreedom cow killing a cow forslaughter or,in somecases,selling punishable by life imprisonment (Emerson 1944:110) or death (O'Malley 1941:26). Such penalties were institutedeven in Moslem areas, among them Kashmir,where one Sikh ruler establishedthe death penaltyforcow killing(Moorcroft and Trebeck 1841:132)13-a punishment in keepingwiththe Sikh view that killingof a cow is the vilest of crimes (MonierWilliams 1885:172-73). This action made beef virtuallyunobtainablein Kashmir. fromBritain,moreover, With independence a weak ban on cow slaughter was includedin the "Directivesof State Policy" of India, and laws were passed at sectionof the Constitution to reduce or eliminate cow various levels of government This has led to legal challenges Moslemsand slaughter. pitting secularistsagainst traditionalHindus and to rulingsby the SupremeCourt of India (Sathe 1967,Simoons 1973). In 1959 that Court ruled constitutional any legislation by states that bans the slaughterof all cows, regardlessof age or state of of all calves,male or female;and of breeding usefulness; bulls bullocks.Otherbulls and bullockscan be slaughand working orworking. tered iftheyare past breeding Today, cow-slaughter in almostall of India's are in force bans of one sortor another ofcows; othersare states.Some are totalbans on theslaughter clear evidencethat a large partial ones. There is, moreover, that bodyofthepublicfavors legislation againstcow slaughter, existsfor and thatsubstantial laws are beingenforced, pressure ban. a nationwide is not totally effective, and illegal slaughter Enforcement does occur. Certain farmersand butchersare reportedas deliberately maiminganimals or otherwise cheatingto make themlegallyeligibleforslaughter (Mukherji 1957:3; Supreme of Court Reports 1959:686). There are also cases of the driving is bannedto a place where cattlefrom an area whereslaughter of Food and Agriculture, it is permitted Directorate (Ministry ofMarketing and Inspection 1967:137). Yet one mustconclude in India, todayand that,on balance,social and legal pressures to a largepopulation favorable in thepast, do createconditions of cows and perhapsof othertypesof cattle. Analysisof the available data suggeststhat the numbers, of India's cattle populationare and composition distribution, not by religionbut by geographicand mainly determined economicfactors.Raj (1969:78) notes that in regionswhere
Hindus, threw themselvesdown, put grass in their mouths, and shouted"I am yourcow" (Masson 1842:140-41). 13There are also reports(Cunningham1854:306; Sherring1906: 1966:144-45; Palmieri 1976:128-30) of 294; von Fuirer-Haimendorf the applicationof the conceptof the sanctityof the cow and the ban on cow slaughter to yak or yak hybridsby certain Tibetan and Nepali groups.

Vol. 20

No. 3

September 1979

473

humanpopulation pressure on land resources is great,thereis both a lowerproportion of bovineto humanpopulationand a higherproportion of adult to young animals. Sopher (1975: 184-85) observesthat the proportion of "non-working, nonbreeding, adult male bovines" is much higherin peripheral oflowpopulation districts and incertain density tribaldistricts, whereplowingand milkuse decreasein importance. He also presents data to supportthe view that wherebuffalo are the main suppliersof milk,the proportion of cows in the total common-cattle populationis much smaller.There are additionaleconomic and geographic determinants as well (Ellefsen 1968:64-71), but identifying themseemsunnecessary in view of agreement that theseare theprimary ones. Disagreement on whether exists,however, Hindu and other religious sensibilitiesalso have a significant influenceon numbersand composition of the cattle population,especially whetherthev have contributed to a surplus of cows. That religion can have an impacton thenumbers ofdomestic animals in India has been demonstrated by Debysingh(1970:12-18, 154-60), who found a significant correlationbetween the number of chickens keptin ruraldistricts and the proportions ofBrahmins and othersocial and religious The religious groups. conceptsdeterring Hindus and Jainsfrom keepingand eating chickens are nonviolence, whichacts to preserve all animallife, and ritualpurityand pollution, whichmakesscavengers such as the chickenunclean. Whetherreligiousbeliefhas had a similarimpacton cattlenumbers, leadingto a surplusof cows in India, remains, however, morecontroversial than any other questionraisedabout the sacredcow. Mishra's (1973:298-301) review shows that concernwith surplus bovinesin India datesback at least to the 19thcentury. Studies fromthe 1920s throughthe 1940s were principally concerned with possible improvements in the productive efficiency of cows and oxen and with whetherbovines were surpluswithreference to available feed supply.With respect to thelatterquestion, a consensus developedthatbovineswere indeed surplusin relationto feed supply.By the early 1960s that consensuswas "fairlyincontestable," and even today it wouldbe difficult to findsomeoneseriously to argueagainstit (Mishra 1973:301). Dandekar (1964) added a new dimensionto the surplusbovine question by asking whetherthe numberof cows in India was greater thanneededto reproduce theexisting bullock population.Bullocksare essentialplow animalsin India, and themostimportant economic function ofcowsis to providefor bullockreplacement. Much recent controversy has centered on Dandekar's question, especially amongeconomists (see Dandekar 1964, 1969a, b, 1970; Raj 1969, 1970; HanumanthaRao 1969; Heston 1971; Mishra 1973). Calculations made by Dandekar (1964) led to theconclusion thatIndia in 1961had a 43-50% surplusof cows in termsof needsforbullockreplacement(Mishra 1973:301-2),a figure close to thatarrivedat by Heston (1971:194). Mishra (1973:305), using somewhat different concludesthat, in bullock-replacement assumptions, terms,19% of India's cows were surplusin 1961. Raj (1970) admits that surpluscattle may exist in India, but he insists that "no dramaticchangescan be expectedin regardto the of cattlein India unlesssubstitutes holdings can be offered for the various goods and services which cattle now provide directly and indirectly"(Mishra 1973:304-5). The model used by Raj in reaching thoseconclusions, however, has been criticizedby both Dandekar (1969a:1268-69) and Mishra (1973:304) as failing to approximate the real Indian livestock situation. Various writers have observedthat with betternutrition, cattle in India would greatlyincreasetheirper capita goods and services. Burns (1944:108-9), forone,notesthat adequate feeding of ordinary village cows raises milkyieldsper animal by 50%^; he contendsthat, with improvement in breeding, management, and diseasecontrol, theincrease in yieldcouldin
474

timereach75%. Burnsalso argues(p. 110) that,withadequate husbandry, bullockscould cultivate60% more area if there werea "consolidation ofholdings or somesystem ofcooperative farming." Heston (1971:194) adds the suggestion that surplus Indian cows could be eliminated "without reducing the output of milkand otherproducts, forone cow fed on the feed that wouldkeep two cows alive producesmorethantwicethe milk, morethan twicethe dung,and probablya hide of morevalue than the hidesof twopoorlyfedcows." Mishra (1973:305-6), in a similarvein, demonstrates that elimination of a certain number of cows wouldprovidemorefeedforthoseremaining and wouldnotonlyincreasetotalmilkoutputby 3%, but raise breeding efficiency by 3.6%. He concludes that "theredoes not seem to be any economicrationality in maintaining this surplus" of cows. Thus the majority view of theseeconomists is that India has surplus cowsbothwithrespect to available feed and in termsof bullock-replacement needs,thoughtheydiffer on the size of the surplus.The majorityalso agrees that if surpluscowswereeliminated, thosesurviving wouldprovidea substantially greaterper capita outputof goods and services. The further is made that total outputof goods,or suggestion of certaingoods,might also be increased. A secondapproachto the questionof surpluscows is to ask whether the proportions of animals in states or districts that are predominantly Hindu are greaterthan in those that are mainlynon-Hindu. Efforts ofthissorthave been made by Raj (1969), Heston (1971), and Sopher (1975). Raj (1969:81-82) found Kashmir, with a predominantly Moslem population, and Kerala, witha large Christian and Moslempopulation, to have higher proportions ofadultfemale cattlethanthenational average,whereas Biharand Orissa,centers ofHinduorthodoxy, have lowerthan average proportions. His further analysisof in UttarPradesh,sometraditionally eightdistricts Hindu and othersMoslem, foundlittle difference in the proportions of adult femaleand male cattle.His conclusion was that religion is unimportant in determining the numbers and proportion of cattle in India. Sopher (1975), givinglittle detail about the basis of his conclusion,supports Raj. Heston (1971:196), however, arguesthat Raj's samplesare not representative and that his analysis is faultyin various ways. Indeed, in an in Uttar PradeshHeston foundthe analysisof all 54 districts opposite:higher of cows in highly proportions Hindu districts than in Moslem ones. He also compared predominantly Moslemdistricts in West Pakistanwithbordering Hindu/Sikh of East Punjab and foundthat the former districts have only .33 adult femalecattleforeach adult male,whereasthe latter have .76 (p. 196). Similarresults wereobtainedby comparing Moslemdistricts of the Sind in West Pakistanand equivalent Hindu districts of Rajasthan and Gujarat. His conclusionis that "the Hindu religion does lead to unusually largeholdings offemalecattle" (p. 197). Of specialnoteis the survey done in 1975byLodrick(1979a) in Varanasi. This is the only surveyI know of the relative numbers of common cattleand waterbuffalo keptby Moslem and Hindu householders living at comparablesocioeconomic levels in an urban settingin India. Included were two highone entirelyHindu and the other density neighborhoods, Moslem. Of the 209 Moslem households, predominantly only 8(4%) possessed bovine animals, and all 12 animals were female waterbuffalo keptformilking. Ofthe300 Hindu householdsotherthanthoseofdairymen, 42(14%) possessed bovines, withmilking cows farin the majority, 62 as comparedto only 17 waterbuffalo. Thus Moslem householders kept no cows at all, whereas among Hindu householders cows outnumbered water buffaloby nearly4 to 1. Lodrick concludesthat the predominance of the cow amongHindus appears to reflect a religious preference forthecow,whereas theMoslempreference for the buffalo is based on economic considerations-the superiority of the buffalo as a milkanimal underlocal conditions.This conclusion is supported by theobservation thatthe4
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

households (not enumerated above) of practicing Hindu but only3 cows and that of (Ahirs)kept 13 buffalo dairymen who owned cows about twothe other Hindu householders important for whomthecowis especially wereBrahmins, thirds observances. in religious to the surplus-cow question,one notestwo local Returning one by Odend'hal (1972) settings, studiesdone in agricultural in West Bengal and the otherby Freed and Freed (1972) near in criticalways. Of all Indian Delhi. The two areas differ West Bengal has among the states and union territories, smallestpercentagesof fodderacreage to gross area sown (0.03 in 1959), whereas Delhi has among the highest (9.7) (Whyte 1964:36-37). West Bengal has one of the largest of bovines(2,974 in 1959) per acre of foddercrops, numbers whereasDelhi has among the lowest (fewerthan 8) (Whyte 1964:36-37). In West Bengal, dietary deficiencyis very common(44% of the rural populationhave an inadequate intake of calories [1961-62]) (Dandekar and Rath 1971:29). are notedfortheir laxity;thepercentage Its Hindus,moreover, of vegetariansis low, only 5% of the population in 1962 (Gopalan et al. 1971:49), and the state has only a partial Delhi is located in northwestern India, ban on cow slaughter. a regionin whicha smallerpercentage(13-18%) of the rural populationhas an inadequate caloric intake,in whichHindu orthodoxy prevails,and in which thereis a high percentage Delhi also has a complete (about 50% in 1962) of vegetarians. ban on cow slaughter. of feedconsumption and productivity, Usingmeasurements balance sheetforhis Odend'halpreparedan annual energetic that competition betweencattleand studyarea and concluded man was virtuallynonexistent-thatcattle consumedlittle, exceptmustardoil cake and wheat bran, that man could eat directly.There was also a quite completeutilizationof the Odend'of cattle,amongthemdung,milk,and beef.'4 products surpluscattle of any sortand concluded hal did not mention seemed appropriateto existingecothat cattle management logicalconditions. The Freedsfoundthat in the Hindu villageof ShantiNagar the bullock population was in balance and farmerschose or not to own bullocksmainlyby theirjudgmentof whether of possessing plow animals. The the costs versusthe benefits for cows. If one followed situationappeared to be different (1971:193) that, at most,a ratio of one Heston's suggestion cow to threebullocksis needed to maintaina stable bullock population,villagerswould be judged to have had a 47% excessofcowsforvillageneeds(Freed and Freed 1972:404-5), similarto that reached by Heston in his all-India a figure milkand Whileit is truethat"excess" cowsprovided estimate. of as superior producers waterbuffalo regarded dung,villagers milk(yields twice as high)and dung (pp. 404-5). Why,then, did they keep excess cows? In part to provide bullocksfor trade. Questioning, however,also revealed that substantial of villagerslooked on the cow as "the best thing percentages in Hindu religion"and that improperselling of cows, for exampleto Moslems,was punished(pp. 405-6). The Freeds to the sacred-cow seem to implythat villagers'commitment to a surplusofcows. conceptdid contribute Most Indian and Westernexpertsremainconvincedthat, though more workingbullocks may be needed, India has surpluscattle of othertypes.The gosadan schemementioned intendedto remove old and useless earlier was specifically cattle to camps in ruralareas wheretheywould be cared for, at a per capita annual cost estimatedat more than three foreducation times greater thanthetotalpercapitaexpenditure in India (SupremeCourtReports1959:678). There have also beenattempts theincreasein thebovinepopulation. at slowing
14 Despite its low nutritional standingamongIndia's states, West Bengal is second onlyto Kerala in averageper capita daily intake of meat, fish, and eggs (Gopalan et al. 1971:38).

Simoons:QUESTIONS

IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

The Indian Veterinary ResearchInstitute has longbeen active cows. in developing drugsand surgicalmethods forsterilizing In the mid-1960s attemptswere made, with the cooperation of the animal-husbandry programs in fivestates,to introduce a contraceptive device,the intrauterine loop. The plan was to for each cow fitted pay farmers an inducement with a loop. Even Hindu leaders of the anti-cow-slaughter movement recognize a problem and have suggested solutions, one of them that cattlebe segregated by sex (Lelyveld 1967). A definitive to thequestion ofsurplus answer awaitsfurther, cows,however, morecareful and moresophisticated economic and geographic study,involvingcomparisonof districtsas well as a much is broadersampleof Indian villages.The question,moreover, morethanone ofsurplus cows.As Dandekar pointsout (1969a: 1271),theright question is whether "the size,age-sexcomposition and quality of Indian cattle are the most economicin relationto India's resources and needs. If not, is the Hindu sentiment orthodox about the cow responsible?" Harris(1978a:31) ignores thefactthatsomeIndian cows are also used forplowingand otherdraftpurposesand that this is one area of possible improvement in the cattle system. of working cows Admittedly, forIndia as a wholethe number is quite low,in 1956amounting to less than3% of all working cattle and 4% of all female cattle over three years of age (Rajapurohit and Muranjan 1965:122). Workingcows accountedfor28% of all working cattle in Manipur,however, and for 12% in Madras State. A surveyin a Madras village foundthat thoughcows weighedonly two-thirds as much as bullocksand allowanceshad to be made at times of calving, villagersdid not regardcows as inferior plow animals.Those who made the survey suggest (Rajapurohit and Muranjan 1965:129) that small farmers in otherparts of India take up the use of cows fordraftpurposesif soil and otherconditions are suitable; that at least they could be used, along with bullocks,at timesof peak demand; and that on large farms wherebullocks are neededforheavywork,cowscould displace and bullocksforlighter such as harrowing, operations sowing, The suggestion had been made by Pepperall intercultivation. in 1948 (Whyte 1964:20) that all-purposecows, both for draftand milk,be developed.Why are morecows not used as bias draftanimalsin India? The authorssuggest"ignorance, and social inhibitions" (Rajapurohitand Muranjan 1965:121). CONCLUSION As Schwabe(1978a:258-59)properly muchinvestigaobserves, tionis stillrequired ifwe are to understand and appreciatethe role of cattle in India; one cannot merelylook on cattle in Western terms, mainlyas sourcesof meat and milk.In India, in providing even irreplaceable, traction theyare important, in India, and fuel.These are factslong knownto researchers but one mustacknowledge a certain thatHarrishas performed ofAmericans unfamiliar service in callingthemto theattention withthe Indian scene.It is unfortunate, that Harris however, failsto stresssufficiently thenegative impactofthesacred-cow from hisapproachto theproblemThisfailure derives concept. his commitment in whichthe Hindu ban on to a determinism cow slaughterand beef eating is expectedto be a positivefunctioned reflection of technoenvironmental pressures. Of particular concernto India today are mattersthat tend to be obscuredby Harris's emphasison the functioning cattle can feedonlyabout 60% thatthenation'svegetation economy: of its cattle and that seriousovergrazing and soil erosionare Such environmental occurring. damage, indeed,is viewed by some investigators as the "most serious problemin India" (San FranciscoChronicle 1972). Four decades ago Jacks and 475

Vol. 20

No. 3

September 1979

threelitresof milk). Landownerswere willingto sell at this and deforestation as Whyte (1939:77-78) linkedovergrazing cattle capacityformaintaining pricebecause theyhad a fixed themostpowerful causesofsoil erosion in India; theyobserved and the had fodderconstraints stock. The small landowners have disappearedin muchof the land that naturalgrasslands because of the and buffaloes, timeconstraints, theresult- big landowners and thatvillageherdslive on bushand treegrowth, thehighest received milk, and bullocks oftheir highfatcontent ingerosion beingso severethatitmust"be seento be believed." could have earned much moreby These landowners humanpopulation, priority. Behindall oftheabove is India's increasing the but theypreferred to Muslimbutchers, theseheifers selling a situationso serious,Whyteinsists(1971:119), that unless meant forslaughter loss because the sale of heifers monetary has no the demographic problemis eased animal husbandry future. fearofhell afterdeath,eighty-seven long-term Whyteand otherssee a nationexperiencing displeasing Lord Krishna, and suggestwhat seemsa of the soul, and lowersocial status withinthe seriousenvironmental deterioration transmigrations to people they in quality and to sell heifers modest but reasonablepolicy: improvement village. Farmerswere reluctant them; reductionin numbersof cattle throughslaughter.Harris did not knowor people theysuspectedwould slaughter of or othercategories ofpeasantsifslaughter is givenpreceabout buffaloes sees a threatto millions theywereless particular of cattle,but this is not what the of cash was an attemptto compromise dence over otherfunctions cattle. This sacrifice These households interests. experts propose. betweenmaterialand nonmaterial forsale at maturity Bennett (1967:251-52) describesHarris's approach to the because the price did not rear the heifers systemof cattle keepingin India as a "classic functionalist of an adult cow (Rs.300-400) was muchless than the cost of is overstressed one in which"functionality" it forthreeyears.On theotherhand,theydid not and reification," maintaining were a inefficiencies played down. The model followedby Harris rear them to breed bullocksbecause if the offspring derivesfromSteward,who foundit well suited to ultimately theywould have to maintainit foranotherone to two heifer, a bullock. explainingthe patternof life of such hunting-and-gathering yearson the chanceofgetting on pasture theseheifers maintained groupsas the Paiute of the Great Basin. Bennettargues,howThe landlesshouseholds foran entire died complex and somecropresidues obtainedas wages.If theseheifers ever,thatsucha modelis notappropriate such as that of India (1971:197). To under- of malnutrition, nationaleconomy little was lost. If they survived,the housemilk, after calving of consuming Bennettnotes,requires a different sort standsuchan economy, holds got an opportunity otherwise. If thecowdelivered of ecology, resource utilization and withattention to economic which theywereunableto afford development theory.Harris, he observes,seems guilty of a a male calf,thisgave themsubstantialcash along withmilk. oftheexperts" Woulda deliberate whovisualizea moreefficient WouldSimoons thesecowssurplus? "cavalierdismissal consider system and seek constructivechange. A furtherBennett slaughterof these cows improve human nutritionthrough as criticism increased milk production?How would one procure these (1971:197) is that Harrisdoes not look on religion base The landowners have the resource ofaction"or "becomeinvolved in thereligiopolitical heifers forslaughter? a "strategy and the procureformilk consumption, question,"althoughreligion plays a major role in the Indian to maintainbuffaloes cattle situation.The resultis that, forHarris, "men do not ment of these cows for slaughter(which would be difficult) of theselandlesshouseto the nutrition formsome seem to use resources;rather,men and resources would be detrimental of otherlandowners. the nutrition kind of mechanical system." These criticismsof Harris's holdswithout improving approach to the sacred cow are similarto those of Friedman conceptin India, the of thesacred-cow the origin Regarding levelledby Hallpike (1974:458-59). They also recallcriticisms observationof Simoonsappears correct.The ancient Hindu of primitive warfare literature In ancientIndia, (1973, 1974) againstVayda's explanation forces. indicatestwo contradictory and by Newcomer(1972) against environmental but at the same time explanations the cow was held in great reverence, of thehistorical betweenthe Nuer and the Dinka. relationship to certaindeitiesand the eatingof theirflesh animal sacrifice of beefeating They suggestthat,if theyare to avoid the oversimplification on certainoccasionswerepermitted. Restriction and error that seems inherentin Harris's technoenviron- and animal sacrificeto certain occasions probably had the mentalism,cultural ecologists should consider alternative purposeof permitting cattle by the a cullingof unnecessary approaches(Bennett1976:231-34,243-76). may be drawnfrom nomadicAryantribes.This interpretation I am forcedto conclude,on the groundsthat Harris has the practice among Africantribes of killingcattle only on dismissed evidencecontrary ceremonialoccasions. The presentvenerationof cows came repeatedlv ignoredor summarily to his views, that his work on the sacred cow is seriously after ofpoliticscombined and theinjection revivalism Brahmin flawed and thathis version of the ecologicalapproachfailsthe Muslims and British rulers.At with hatred for beef-eating testset forth the facts. by Sahlins-success in handling presentthesevalues are so strongthat theystand in the way cattledevelopment policy.This is apparentfrom ofan efficient withthe body of the interference to mechanical the opposition the riotsof thepre-and insemination, sacredcow forartificial in heavy loss of life and period, resulting post-independence Comments successof theJana Sanghparty, and thespectacular property, from14 to 35 in Parliamentand whichincreasedits strength thefourth byS. M. BATRA general during 116to 245 in sixstateassemblies from issue of the sensitive Department of Sociology, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, its skillful exploitation through elections India. 28 ii 79 of cow-slaughter. I agree withSimoonsthat the sanctityof the cow in India is influenced by the sociopoliticalsystem and that economic about materialism is insufficient to explainit. His observations byA. K. CHAKRAVARTI surplus cows,however, raisea fundamental question:whoowns Departmentof Geography,Universityof Saskatchewan, surpluscows?In the villageof Dikadla in NorthIndia, where Canada S7N OWO.15 II 79 Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, I did fieldwork in 1974,I foundthat,of276 households owning and exhaustive analysis offers Simoons's well-documented milchcattle,24 ownedonly cows formilkproduction, and of issues but reachesfew many controversial into insight deeper ownedboth these 22 were landless;the remaining households is Indeed, he concedesthat "much investigation conclusions. buffaloes and cows.The households withonlycows purchased and appreciatetheroleof ifwe are to understand stillrequired of thevillageat cow-heifers from otherlandowning households a nominal price ranging from Rs.2 to Rs.5 (the price oftwo to cattlein India."
476 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

to is difficult The questionin the sacred-cowcontroversy resolvefortwo main reasons: 1. Any theoryon the originof the sacred-cowconcept is of the past but also based not only on inadequateknowledge on overlappingissues of religiouspractices and economic to separate. For behaviour, whichare in some cases difficult example, Simoons speculates that, according to Harris's in arid,overpopulated Pakistan, "Moslem farmers hypothesis, who are not protectedfrom'temptation'by the sacred-cow so many cattle as to ruin concept,would have slaughtered This has not happened." It can be argued,howthemselves. conby the sacred-cow ever,that since thereis no protection has actually banned the cept, the Pakistani government of livestock, including cattle, for two days a week slaughter (called "meatless days") in order to conservelivestock refrom sources (personal experiencein 1959 and information been observed(Platt visitors to Pakistan).It has further recent is interested in his cattle 1961:127) that "the Pakistanifarmer as draftanimals ratherthan as producersof meat and milk, and meat rarelyappears in his diet excepton festaloccasions or buy,a goat or two." whenhe may slaughter, ofsurplusor uselesscattle cannotbe deter2. The existence theagricultural system in India ofwhich from minedseparately they forman integralpart, providingmost of the draught and foodto thefarming and contributing population power, fuel, about 50% of the total incomefromagriculture (Randhawa 1962:259). Because of the poor and small farmsand the subin mostparts ofIndia,cattleare fed sistence natureoffarming duringploughing and/or poorly, withsome concerngenerally wornout. and are usedtilltheyare completely milking seasons, such aged and emaciatedcattle are useful, To many farmers though useless by Western standards. Thus a measure of surpluscattleis not onlyseasonal,but also relative. Simoons points out a substantial waste of beef brought of Hindus and the conabout by the religioussensibilities in India. Approximately of proteindeficiency sequentproblem 65% of Hindus have been estimatedto be nonvegetarians howdeficiency problem, (Chakravarti1974:403). The protein ever,is moreprevalentin South India, not because of Hindu on accountofthepredominantly rice but rather vegetarianism, to mixedcerealand pulse diet in NorthIndia diet as compared (Gopalan and Raghavan 1969:56-57). Jammuand Kashmir nonvegetarhand,which has a predominantly state,on theother has one ofthelowestper capita intakes ian Moslempopulation, ofmeat,fish, percapitaintakeofanimal and eggsand thelowest of all the statesin India (Gopalan et al. 1971:118-19). protein If thereare surplusor uselesscattlein India, beefconsumption by Moslems,at least in thosestates witha partial or no shouldbe higherthan it is. Even Mosban on cow slaughter, lems, however,eat little beef, for two reasons: First, beef, fromdecrepitcattle,is the least expensivemeat in generally who could afford India. Many Moslemfamilies it wouldprefer or mutton, sincebeefis toughand fibrous chicken and does not modeofmeatconsumption makea goodcurry-thecommonest in India. Second, meat, includingbeef, where available, is forthe millions ofpoor Moslemswho expensive comparatively with cereals,pulses, and can satisfytheirfood requirements vegetables. No agricultural can be system, developedor underdeveloped, The Indian agricultural system, efficient and wasteproof. fully ofsubmarginal withmillions and smallfarms and equallypoor and inefficient cattle, is certainlywastefulin many areas. Leon (1975:38-40) has estimatedthat "Indian Nevertheless, for cattleare farmoreefficient Indiansociety thanare American cattle. In the U.S. the amount of edible food consumedby cattleis nearlysix timestheamountoffoodthecattleproduce. This heavy subsidizationof cattle does not exist in India, where the food produced by cattle exceeds the amount of ediblefoodconsumed." 1979 Vol. 20 * No. 3 - September

Simoons:QUESTIONS

IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

byPAUL DIENER SouthernIllinois University, of AntWropology, Department Ill. 62901,U.S.A. 19 III 79 Carbondale, of India's sacred-cattle complexis Simoons'sreconsideration and impressive. noted Othershave recently timely, important, in Harris's work (e.g., Hirschfeld, Howe, and shortcomings Levin 1978,Norton 1978,Sahlins 1978, Diener and Robkin 1978,Diener,Nonini,and Robkin 1978,Chagnonand Hames 1979). Some (Coe 1978, Leeds 1978) find Htrris's general in effort valuable, while admittingshortcomings theoretical cases. Others(Friedman1974,Paul and Rabinow 1976, specific Sahlins 1978) suggestthat the generaltheoryitselfis faulty. I share the latterview. However,as Simoonsnotes,Harris's be judged in termsof its "success approach must ultimately the facts." in handling I findSimoons'scritiqueof Harris's ecologicalanalysisconecological couldbe noted.For example, Other vincing. problems levels of factors upon peasants at the microecological impinge notacrossbiomes and theagro-community, thefarm enterprise Also, peasants weigh and value many and even continents. to comeup withan appropriate cropand animal combinations Hence, to constraints. locale, given existing mix fora specific is a isolate out onlycattle,and across an entiresubcontinent, dubious business.In fact,it is the culturalunity of India whichmakessuch an approachpossible.Rather than environment's determiningculture, the culture has determined Harris's ecologicalunit of analysis.On the supposedbeneficial the nutritive of heavy grazingin agrarianecosystems, effects of diets forcattle,the "positivefunction" value of high-fiber organicmaterialfromthe burningdung and thus removing of large animal populationson soil comsoil cycle,the effects the the roleof cattlein desertification, pactionand waterflow, disease vectorsopened by overlyclose associationof human and bovine populations,and other ecological issues, Harris eitheris in erroror is silent(see Diener, Nonini,and Robkin 1978). ofHarris's disnot the specifics Even ifwe agreeto consider whichlies behindit, problems cussion,but the generaltheory remain. For example,Harris argues that fieldinvasionsby and serveto redistribute wealth; cattleare positive-functioned here is that "viable systems may be regarded the assumption traits, since the as consisting largely of positive-functioned contraryassumptionwould lead us to expect the system's documents that however, failure"(Harris 1975:153). Simoons, in humandeprivation result and involvea great cropinvasions bothbetween deal ofconflict, cattleand menand betweenmen of various classes and groups over cattle. Are we willingto view that most traitsare positiveaccept Harris's theoretical and dialecticalmodelsare "vague," and thatconflict functioned "superfluous,""inconsequential,"and "nonsense" (Harris 1968:230; 1978b:516)?I preferSimoons'ssuggestionthat we or allow traitsto be positive-functioned, negative-functioned, context. upon the social and historical both,depending In Guatemala,elitesallow the cattle theyown to invadethe surpluses fieldsof others. Such invasions serve to transfer and also act as threatsand hence operate as a mechadirectly from surplus nismofsocialcontrol. A ritualsystem whichdirects the poor to the rich is buttressedby such cattle invasions role (Diener 1978). In India, cattlemay also play an important in the conflicts whichdividethe villageand in the distribution of resources(Diener, Nonini, and Robkin 1978). Simoons's discussionof Ghoga,in whichsome of the villagerssoughtto tookup weapons whileothers have marauding cattlecontrolled, to preventthis action, is of great interest.Freed and Freed and contradictions (1972) and Lewis (1965:71) also see conflicts patterns in Indian aspectofanimalhusbandry as an important 477

villages.In Kanjhawla, 19 milesfromNew Delhi, at present largelyofpositive-functioned note we might traits."Similarly, Tribune1978): (Chiicago hang unicamps prisonerssometimes that in concentration fencesto dry, or pick and eat weeds The landis theissue-120 acresofcommunal grazing ground given formson barbed-wire or that fencesin concentration in 1970by thegovernment, withapproval by thehead of village whichgrowalong such fences, then, to 120landless families.... Tensions heightened thissummer. camps break up the populationinto smallerunits and thus An Untouchable's hutwasburned down in July. A month later, Jats benefit inmatesand limitfeuds.But do fencesoverall integrate ranseveral hundred headofcattle through theUntouchable's fields, prisoners? Harris proposesno samplingmethodby whichthe 35 acres ofnewly trampling planted corn. Fighting ensued.... practicesmightbe of Indian cattle husbandry overall effects sound. is thusnotinductively argument His selective The relationship between conflict, cattle,and peasantagronomy measured. Nor does Harris's conclusionfollowfromhis evidence.As in villages such as Ghoga and Kanjhawla remains to be of beef conSimoons notes, Harris explains the prohibition studied. What has been demonstrated in Guatemala, and notby ecological consumption) (as opposedto limited sumption Latin Americagenerally (Feder 1971), is not necessarily true Harris's "key factors, but by a "need to controltemptation." forIndia, but thehypothesis deservestesting. assumption"that "people are too stupid or weak to do anyHarris'smodelalso failsto tie Indian husbandry practicesto on them" divinesanctions'beingforced without thingsensible the larger regional, national, and internationaleconomic one supportedby no (Anderson1978:509) is a psychological of whichtheyare part. Patternsof dependency, systems the evidenceat all. "developmentof underdevelopment," and regional systems was theprimary peasant"temptations" The desireto control all go unnoted. theory Simoonsfeelsthatleatherexports could edicts of Asoka and has been a major goal of the regulatory to maintainor pay formuchof India's oil imports;pressures up to the presentday. As Sahlins forall governments alter husbandry patternsare tied to such issues. The connec- interest too oftenexplain and othershave noted,Harris's speculations tions,however,flowthroughmany levels; interrelations are away political and economic policy as ecological necessity. not alwaysdirector causalitycomplete;strategic decisions are That an analysis so faultycould be so widelyaccepted may markedby conflict, error,and chance as well as by positive is functions. It not clear how a theoryemphasizingstrict indeed be related to the role of Harris's thoughtas social ratherthan social science.Howeverthat may be, the ideology and environmental determinism constraints whichoperate at and practical is oftheoretical of India's cattlecomplex ecology level us in thelocal can aid relating the villageto the encapsua great serviceby his and Simoonshas rendered importance, latingsocial field. careful reappraisalof the factsof the case. Harris'sspeculations about origins are moreseriously flawed; the attempt to explain originby reference to operationis fallacious in its very form (Hempel 1959). Simoons is too byGABRIELLA EICHINGER FERRO-LUZZI whenhe credits of generous Harriswitha recent consideration 67, 00136 Rome,Italy. 12 ii 79 Via Mario Fascetti, historical process; Harris has merelyadded a few references I appreciateSimoons's carefulweighingof the positive and and given a date to his functional explanationof originsfor and wholly of cattle in the Indian economy negativefunctions sacred cattle. Harris sees ecologicaloperationsas solvingthe in India cannot be agree with him that cattle management but the'biologicalphysicist Pattee (1973:43) originproblem, as and adaptive utility, notes,"The problemof the originof controlis quite distinct explainedonlyin termsof rationality of a well-defined fromthe problemof the operation control Harris claims. I should have like him to apply the same theoryprojudgmentto the political appropriation betweenthe originand operation rigorous system.... This distinction posed by Diener, Nonini, and Robkin (1978), whichappears of controls holdsat all evolutionary levels." than Harris's technoenvironmental even more unsatisfactory The rise of sacred-cattle beliefsin classical India is part of one; Simoons's leather argument,for instance,might have frompre-stateto state polity.In this process, the transition served as a partial invalidationof one of their assertions conductwhich "Magadhan theoreticians proposeda relentless mighthave caused any Borgia to blench; but their openly (p. 230). refuted I think, have convincingly Simoonsand othercritics, declaredprincipalaim was to change the face of the land" however, argument, mostof Harris'sclaims.His "temptation" (Kosambi 1965:127). From the earlierVedic stage, in which thoughit is based on two unproven has hardlybeen criticized, cattle were widelykept and beef ofteneaten, we pass to a that thereis such a thing and veryunlikely first, assumptions: periodin whichthe state maintains"a complete record... of as meat addictionand, second,that, even if it existedsomethe entirecattle wealth in the state" (Kangle 1965:175-76) and in whichdecreesof the state regulatebeef consumption wherein the world,it could be expectedto be foundin India. a total whereaddictionis frequent, theritualconsumption In the case of intoxicants, from (Gokhale1966:121).The tfansition may have its wisdomand has been imposed by ofsacredanimalsto state religious prohibitions upon consump- prohibition times. What, however,is the peoples at different how ritualconsumption or divineprohibi- different tionis one problem; evidence for meat addiction?What peasants are known to in any given settingis a distinct, tionfunctions but related, the survivalof theirlivestockby theirunwe mustconsider laterchangesand different have endangered problem. Further, desireformeat? In assumingthat Indians would Simoonssuggests of the cow controllable uses; for example, major revisions be temptedto eat too muchbeef,Harris projectsthe modern underbothIslamic and Britishinfluence. complex Americanattitude towardsmeat, and in particularbeef,on Thus, althoughHarris (1978a:36) suggeststhat the "elimiattitudetowardsmeat is positive; The Western Indian culture. nationofmeat eatingcame about in a slow,practicalmanner" tendsto increase meat is a statussymboland its consumption as a resultof ecologicaloperations,we have foundthat its appearance was associated with rapid political and religious with income. On the contrary,the Hindu attitude towards also involvemacroevolu- meat (and not just towardsbeef) is negative.Whereas most change.Later major reformulations events.We require a theory of "punctuated Westernfestivities presupposea rich meat dish, most Hindu tionary equilibria" even among meat eaters,requirepurelyvegetarian (see Gould and Eldredge 1977) capable of dealingwithfunc- festivals, observed and voluntarily prescribed tional-ecological operation duringthoserelatively food; thereare countless long periods with meatlessdays; and a rise in status,usually concomitant when social systemsare in dynamicstability, but also with evolutionary originduringthoserelatively briefperiodswhen increasedincome,tendsto bringa decreasein meat consumpmany new traits and institutions appear or old traits and evenifthecow werenot sacred,Hinduswould tion.Therefore, unlikely institutions undergo dramatic restructuring. hardly desire theirdaily steak, and it is extremely Harris notessomeways in whichIndian peasantsmake the that peasants had to declare the cow sacred in orderto keep best ofbad conditions and concludes that the system "consists in check. theirbeefhunger
478 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

rationaland No doubt some thingspeople do are perfectly and possiblematerialbenefit, aimed at achievingthe greatest people do may be trulystupid (to use Sahlins's a lot of things probably the bulk of human actions,however, terminology); Cattle management in betweentheseextremes. lies somewhere in India forme clearlybelongsto this middlecategory.It is enough to enneithereconomicallyoptimal nor inefficient its economic dangerthesurvivalofIndia's population;besides, While I drawbacksmay be compensatedby other benefits. on of religion agree withSimoonsthat in India the influence I disagreewithhim cannotbe overlooked, cattlemanagement only the negativeeconomicside of whenhe seemsto consider excluDo we have to imposeour ethnocentric, that influence. viewof cattleon Indians and lamentthe loss sivelyutilitarian a bovinedies without being eaten? Simoons of beefwhenever Western mentionsSchwabe's observationconcerning himself for the dog, but thereare many more species which feelings of animal protein. thinkof as providers we do not normally to recall the angryprotestsnorthof the Alps It is sufficient birds as a succulentside dish when Italians treat migratory forpolenta. The slaughterof "surplus" cows without qualms would probably bring some economicbenefitbut by itselfwould theabolition Conversely, solvetheIndianfoodproblem. hardly ofthecowwouldbring an enormous in thesanctity ofthebelief suggestthat the loss. Would anybodyseriously psychological thejoy ofhavinga livinggoddess outweigh tasteofbeefmight in the hourofdeath? she offers in one's houseand the comfort in my opinion,has the one great advantage Harris's theory, of not telling the Indians to slaughtertheir cattle freely fortheirsentiments). of course,not out of respect (though, oftheIndian radicalsolution Nobodywouldadvocatea truly populationproblem;the best one can do is try to persuade contramethods.Similarly, people to adopt family-planning of cattle by sex, as some Indian ceptives and segregation authorities cited by Simoons have suggested,are probably the best way to reducethe numberof cattle in India and to willbe slowerthana radical bettertheirbreed.Such measures harm to but theywill avoid doing unnecessary intervention, peopleand cows. byMARVIN HARRIS New York, ColumbiaUniversity, ofAnthropology, Department N.Y. 10027,U.S.A. 23 iii 79 or outrighterror. He Simoons accuses me of "half-truth" claimsthatI ascribeto himin twoofmyarticles(1966:51 and "statement": " 'irrationalideologies' 1978:28) the following foodsthatare abundantlocally often compelmen'to overlook and are of high nutritive value, and to utilize otherscarcer foodsof less value.' " This claim is itselfless than half true. the ascribed "stateIn Harris (1978:28) nothingresembling ment" appears. This is what one finds:"Specialists in food habits around the world like Fred Simoons. . . consider that compelspeople to overHinduisman irrational ideology look abundant, nutritiousfoods for scarcer, less healthful not an is a paraphraseor a summary, foods."This obviously ascribed "statement";therefore it is not a misquoteand, as remains we shall see, no error, sincewhat was and apparently is fairly Simoons'sposition represented. I do accept responsibility for a stylisticerrorin Harris theimpression placed,giving is incorrectly (1966:51). A citation that the phrase "irrationalideologies"appears on page 3 of Simoons'sbook. The citationshouldhave been placed at the I apologize. of the sentence. end ratherthan at the beginning only told half the truth, However,Simoonsagain has himself was a "sampleopinion" thatwhatI was ascribing I indicated for Here is what the articlesaid: form. in "summarized" to According is heresummarized: on thissubject A sample opinion men"to compel frequently ideologies" Simoons (1961:3),"irrational Vol. 20 - No. 3 - September 1979

Simoons: QUESTIONS IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

overlook foodsthatare abundant locally and are ofhighnutritive value, and to utilize other scarcer foods oflessvalue"[here is where thecitation should havebeenplaced]. The Hindubeef-eating taboo is oneofSimoons' most important cases. As longas I am compelled to waste precioustimeand journal space on trivia,I willpointout that Simoonshas substituted the word"often"for"frequently." Perhaps I shouldsue him. Of course,the onlyissue worththe reader'sconcernhere is whetherI have fairlyrepresented Simoons's position (and whetherhe fairlyrepresents mine). Anyone who has read Simoons's(1961) book mustagree that I sulamarized his position accurately. I substituted my paraphase "irrational ideologies"for his "foodways"because Simoonsconsistently attributedthe originof "foodways"to ideologies:to "holy qualitiesassociated with deities" (p. 86), to "the beliefthat thedog is unclean"to "the dog'sbeinga holyanimal" (p. 105), in thecase oftheHindufoodways, and, specifically to "feelings . . . that derivefromthe sacred characterof cattle" (p. 63). Sincethesebeliefs and feelings are religious in nature, and since is commonly religion recognized as a part of a culture'sideolto writethat Simoonssaw ideologies ogy,it was correct as the cause of Hindu food taboos. Does he not in this new opus again favor the theorythat the beef and slaughtertaboos developed from the "socioreligiousrealm" and "religious controversy"? What about the word "irrational"?Did Simoons see the causative ideologiesas irrational? Yes. The main concluding paragraph of his book repeatedlyinvokes the rational-irrationaldistinction (p. 106): Manypeople... tendto assume thatman'sselection offoodis deforhuman Whatthepreceding have shown consumption. chapters of thisassumption....Western ... exposestheinadequacy man, hisfrequent hisfoodways to claimthat arebased despite temptation on rational is no morerational in thisthanother considerations, for it makes no better senseto reject horsenutritious men, dogflesh, andtermites beef orchicken as food than toreject flesh, grasshoppers, flesh. committed was Simoons to the basic irraIndeed, so firmly tionalityof his "foodways" that he even suggestedthat role in theirorigin:"One of the madmenplayed a prominent is theroleofthementally mostinteresting linesofinvestigation disturbed" (p. 120). My summaryof his positiontherefore if I erred seriouslyit was only in the was not a half-truth; of failingto conveythe fullmeasureof his eclectic direction and idealist theoreticalconfusionsabout socioculturaland ecological processes. Simoonsclaims that "Harris misusesMarxismin ignoring on ... the forceand in focusing religionas a sociopolitical beliefs."Perhaps I misuse 'profitfactors'behind sacred-cow but I do not ignorereligion force. as a sociopolitical Marxism, My explanationof the origin of the ecumenical religions, includingHinduism,is that they embodied the ideological states and that they exerted needs of successful expansionist an enormous forceon behalfof the creationof sociopolitical archaicempires (see below).Nor I do focuson "profit factors"; rather,I focus on costs and benefitsmeasured as energy, of resources, protein, depletion production inputsand outputs, and humanlives lost and saved. Simoonssurelywishesto join me in such concerns,which alone justifyour use of public funds(cf. Harris 1979a). in my interSimoonsnextindictsme for"grossdistortion" pretationof Marx's "remark" that "social life is basically practical."The "remark"in questionis the eighthof Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach": "All social lifeis essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theories to mysticism find their rational solutionin humanpracticeand in the comprehension of this 479
termined of the materialavailable by . . . reasonable consideration

his charge. nothingto substantiate practice." Simoonsoffers to whatI imputed Marx's viewofthisissueclearlycorresponds in volume2 in quotingthe above thesis.This is whatone finds 236-37): of Capital (1967[1887]:160,

into converted ofanimalflesh was gradually and redistribution slaughter, but ceased an imperialcult that not onlyprohibited any materialwealthat all (whileit continued to redistribute from dairying): to assureits eliteof adequate proteins

fortherulers ofIndia,Islam,and Rome convenience he no longer it was a great capital.If he is eaten, As a beastoftoilan ox is fixed of labour,nor as fixed imporcapitaleither. to humble heaven was more as an instrument godsto whom themselves before functions willperish byhunger thanthis besidea fatbullock. tantthan more important peasant orfuture life ... The Hindoo anda former earth, grew larger andlarger, ofsuperstition which oftheOldWorld systems cruel totheindividual, one.As theimperial appear Theprescriptions and the preservation of the scale.When forthe community; resources on a continental chewed up anddepleted they are conservative and the sources theglobehad filled the thepowerof cultivation, of sweating drudges, cattlesecures withtensof millions labouring generostheopen-handed were unableto act with "great providers" harsh and sad to sayso,but life andwealth. It mavsound offuture Buddhism, of yore.UnderChristianity, chiefs ityof thebarbarian a manthanan ox. in Indiait is more easyto replace and built cathedrals, and Islam theybecame"great believers" about "grossdistorOf course,now that Simoonsis concerned toeat. nothing at all wasserved where mosques, and temples tions" of Marx, he shouldbe warnedthat some Marxistswill of theoriginoftheprohibition At everypointin mydiscussion Marx. distorted tellhimthat even Marx grossly on cattle slaughter and beef eating I make it clear that this Gandhi. from my use of a quotation Simoonsnextdenounces complex cannot be understoodapart fromthe rise of the is that the quote I choseis not repreThe gistof the criticism of the and at everypoint in my discussion Gangeticempires, of Gandhi'sviewof the cow. The quote in disputeis sentative I make it clear that in stratified rise of the state and empires this: "Why the cow was selectedforapotheosisis obvious to classes to the subordinate societiesnothingthat is beneficial She was thegiver me.The cowwas in India thebestcompanion. to the that is not of equal or greaterbenefit gets instituted of plenty.Not onlydid she give milkbut she also made agrifrom rulingclasses as well. The argumentabout imposition culturepossible" (Gandhi 1954:5). To prove that Gandhidid to my abhorrent from above or below rests on a false dichotomy as "derivingsimplyand directly not see cow protection I believe to be life work and contradictory to everything two longerquotes fromthe economiccauses," Simoonsoffers same book. But who assertsthat Gandhi saw cow protection valuable in Marx. The fact that I stressthe positivefunction of of the beefand slaughter taboos for"millionsand millions causes"? Do I? and directly from economic as "deriving simply individualfarmers"says nothingabout whetherthe conseDoes Gandhi? My purpose in includingthe above quotation was simplyto indicate that practical and mundane factors quences of thesepracticeswere of even greatervalue forthe ecclesiasticaland political elites. As I emphasize,Ashoka's in Gandhi's explanation of why the cow was were important to Buddhismand cow worshipoccasionedthe rise are not counter- conversion Simoons's counterexamples apotheosized. of the greatest of all Indian imperialconquests.Simoonsdoes to the questionofwhyit was at all; theydo notrefer examples fromabove not seem to realize that the theoryof imposition the cow (and not some otherformof animal life) that was made by a ruling that everyinnovation restson the principle apotheosized. to the welfareof the subclass is necessarily contradictory Simoonscharacterizes my earlierarticlesas settingup an forfailing ordinateclasses. I wonderif Simoonsor any otherpersonof "unrealcomposite view,a strawman to be ridiculed good will reallywants to boost that point of view. The point to appreciatethe economicimportanceof the cow." It is a about "millions and millions of individual farmers"was strange"straw man" that has provokeda streamof abusive from notat thequestionofimposition above or below, for 15 years. The reason that Simoonsthinks directed counterattacks on the operating principles but at the questionofhowselective ofthe "experts"has I attackeda strawman is thattheopinion individuallevel can lead to cultural innovations.This is a for technification shifted sincethehalcyondays ofhigh-energy of the class of the inregardless problemthat one confronts (Weiss 1979). India and therestoftheless developedcountries is and prehistory unlessone believesthat all history novators, If today "almost all experts" recognizethe importanceof and cabinetsessions. a productofboard meetings to humanlivelihood, cattle and waterbuffalo very good, but Next Simoonsattempts to prove that the ecologicalcostsof nottrue 15 yearsago. That was whyI cited thatwas certainly because the benefits the beefand slaughter taboos outweighed the "experts,"including Simoons,the Ford Foundation,and and the desertithe taboos led to overstocking, overgrazing, in the 1966 article-not to ridiculethem,but to manyothers, the fact that the of Rajasthan. He does not mention fication I have had littlesuccesswith changetheirminds.Apparently between main themeof Cannibalsand Kings is the interaction Simoons. intensification, depletion,and sociopoliticaltransformations. Speakingof straw men, what is the next thingwe findin India. Unlike I too emphasizethe desertification of northern Simoons's article? The Shin of Dardistan! They abominate to I refuse ofstrategic as a matter principle however, Simoons, cows,abhor milk,and refuseto burn dung. So? Lots of other attributethis kind of ecologicaldisasterto a mysticalor innotto burndung. peoplesabhormilkand wouldbe well-advised to attribute ofcow love (just as I refuse scrutable hypertrophy Instead of tryingto findout why the Shin do what theydo, of car the depletionof America'sfreshair to a hypertrophy Simoons already thinksthat they are the victims of some it to relentless pressures reproductive irrationalreligiousquirk. Obviously,here is a group worth love). Rather,I attribute forimperialhegemony amongthe exacerbated by the struggle but I have no intention of jumping throughthat studying, India. archaicstatesof northern now. hoop right to ecologicaland Next Simoonsdeclares that my explanationfor the origin Simoons'sscenariois illogicaland contrary The totalsize ofa livestock of cow sanctity has "fatal flaws."It quicklybecomesevident, demographic population principles. to its age pyramid.If the taboos is thesource thathisunderstanding ofmyexplanation bears no strictrelationship however, increasepresof the "fatal flaws."I am supposedto hold that the beefand theydo not necessarily increasecattlelife-span, acknowltaboos were imposedonlyfrombelow and only in We know-and Simoonshimself sure on recources. slaughter with popular practice. The theoretical principles edges (see below)-that the major featuresof India's bovine conformity conditions of culturalmaterialism lead to any such could not conceivably populationsare adapted to regionalinfrastructural at one-sided view of the evolutionof sociocultural systems.My and that,taboo or no taboo, cullingtakes place. Moreover, farmoreefficient level,it is energetically any givenpopulation theoryof the originsof the beef and slaughtertaboos holds of egalitarian to employcattle for dairyingthan for meat production. that theywere embeddedin the transformation De systemsin associationwith the into stratified redistributive are recurrent progessive and defensive factobans on slaughter As proposedin Cannibalsand Kings riseofstatesand empires. wherever dairyingis an ecologically reactionsto overgrazing of the Brahminsover the slaughter viable adaptation. Finally,both archaeological (1977:179), the monopoly and historical
480 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

evidence suggeststhat the beef and slaughtertaboos were was well advanced. only afterdesertification institutionalized scenariohas littlemerit,and it Hence, Simoons'salternative thematerial untilhe considers to have littlemerit willcontinue process.Do we not forcesthat lie behindthe desertification have hereyet anotherinstanceof Simoons'sdevotionto irraas the cause ofpoverty? tionalideologies to disregardthe literature, Simoonsnext asks Continuing and "would . . . have had to ban the slaughter why farmers to save those the old and infirm, eatingof all cattle,including breeding,and milking."This kind of capable of working, in Cannibalsand Kings question is also takenup and answered systemic (pp. 196-99). As sacred precepts,taboos represent created by discrepancies beattemptsto resolveambiguities or by othercomplex cost/benefits tweenlong-and short-term of or conflicting vectors of value. The chief characteristic or digitalresponseto an analog reality. taboos is theiron/off butnotwithout This meansthattabooswillalwaysbe violated, alternatives. loweringthe rate of the interdicted effectively The taboo on nuclearfamily incest,forexample,is usuallya even thougha little bit of some formsof total interdiction, withrespectto mostof incestwouldnotmake muchdifference social or biologicalconsequences. the postulateddeleterious of India's Taboos or no taboos, the main characteristics bovinepopulation are clearlydetermined today,in thepresent, conditions(A. Vaidyaby local and regionalinfrastructural Harris nathan,K. N. Nair, and M. Harris,workin progress; what effect the prescriptions 1977a). No one knowsprecisely of old and have today. They probably shiftthe definition infirm animals to favor borderlinespecimens,especially in and famines. They are also crisissituations such as droughts form of an agribusiness the development probablypreventing market, of beef productionfor the elite and international slowingdown the conversionto a landless peasantry,and I contendthat the lowering the rate of urban unemployment. still outweighthe costs of these practicesfromthe benefits classes, althoughthey may point of view of the subordinate thepoint as theyoncewerefrom have ceased to be as desirable ofview of the elites. Simoonssays that if therewerereallyany practicalbenefit in overthe Hindu beliefs, thenthefarmers to be derivedfrom by the sacred-cow populatedPakistan,who are not protected so many cattle as to ruin concept,would have slaughtered are themselves. How does Simoonsknow that these farmers not protectedby a "sacred-cowconcept"? Moslem families in Kerala assuredme that Koranic law forbadethe shortening of thelifeof theircattle. Moreover, data suggest cattle-census Moslem that undersimilarecologicaland economic conditions withinIndia and in the borderarea of and Hindu farmers Pakistan and India treat their cattle in essentiallysimilar fashions (1961:66) (Raj 1971,Harris 1977a). Simoonshimself that therewere repeatedattemptsby the Moslem recognized rulers of India to ban cow slaughter.Althoughthese bans were never institutionalized level, this is at the ecclesiastical in India and no reasonto supposethat manyMoslemfarmers Pakistan do not have strongprejudicesagainst neighboring that some cattle. Moreover,one mustremember slaughtering Hindusas well as Moslemshave always eaten beef. no one has reallybeen able to isolatetherole Unfortunately, withrespectto variationsin bovinespecies played by religion and sex ratios. In comparing Moslems with Hindus we must controlforthe ecological,economic, and politicalnichesthat theyoccupy as well as for theirnominalreligiousstatus. If, does however, Heston (1971) is rightand "the Hindu religion lead to unusuallylarge holdings of femalecattle," this is still quite irrelevantto the main issue-which is not whether cattle-rearing practices (both Simoons Hinduism influences is deleterious theinfluence and I say that it does), but whether a forthe farmers and forIndia as a whole.Who is betteroff, with no cow? Hindu farmer with a cow or a Moslem farmer 1979 Vol. 20 - No. 3 * September

Simoons:

QUESTIONS

IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

an India dependent Whichis better off, on tractors or an India on bullocks? dependent The same kind of question applies to Lodrick's findings that urbanMoslemsprefer she-buffaloes to she-cattle. What is Simoonstrying to prove? That Moslems and Hindus exploit different urban economicniches?Who would deny that the castes and ethnic groups of India are adapted to different and ecologicalniches?The issue before economic us is whether the Hindu taboos are responsible for the mismanagement of certain notwhether Hindusand Moslemshave identical niches, subcultures. to throwup obstaclesbased on non sequiturs Continuing and misinformation, Simoonsturnsto thecase ofKerala. Since Kerala is thecountry's mostpopulousstate,it shouldhave the greatestneed to protectits cattle. Instead, it is one of the few states that is planning to expand its slaughterhouse This ignores facilities. thefactthatmostof the cattleofficially in Kerala aren'traisedin Kerala (Nair n.d.); that slaughtered is theleast common commercial slaughter form of culling;and thatKerala is uniquein India in havinga doublereversal ofits sex and species ratios: more he-buffaloes than she-buffaloes and moreshe-cattle thanhe-cattle. Kerala "protectsthe cow" morethan Uttar Pradeshand Bihar-the Hindu heartlandswhichfavorshe-buffaloes as suppliers of milkand wheremale cattle outnumberfemale cattle two to one. Does Simoons knowhow to explainthe cells in table 1? If not,he is wasting our timein writing about Kerala. There is important workto be done here,and Simoonsis not doingit. Nor can he do it as in theassumption longas he remains mired thatcattlemanagementis dominated by irrational ideologies. to tellexactlywhatSimoonsmight It is difficult proposeone shoulddo to explainthis table. As we have seen, he believes ofthebeefand slaughter thattheorigin tabooslies in "religious This is a nontheory, because it gives no nomocontroversy." theticreasonsfor the contentor resolution of the "religious Yet he later on admits that "analysis of the controversy." available data suggeststhat the numbers,distribution, and ofIndia's cattlepopulation composition are mainly determined not by religion but by geographic and economicfactors"!So what are we arguingabout? The restof Simoons'sarticlecontainssome usefulinformationbutmuchthatis irrelevant, orhearsay. poorly documented, Lodrick's study is useful,but not in the way that Simoons supposes.We learnthat the cattlehomesare runas businesses but that 30% of the cattle in them are "nonproductive." thattheyare reallynonproductive, we have a grand Assuming to Simoons, of 175,000cattle kept on charity. total,according cattle in India, we are at Since thereare about 170,000,000 of about .1%. Of best dealingwith a rate of mismanagement course, Lodrick admits that the "useless" animals did not remainconstipated duringhis studyand that theirdung was sold. The cattle homes operate at a considerablefinancial TABLE 1
BOVINE AGE AND SEX RATIOS,a ALL INDIA AND KERALA

0-1 YR.

1-3 YRs.

3+ YRS.

AllIndia (1966) Cattle ................. Buffalo ................ Kerala(1971) Cattle ................. Buffalo .77
a

101 67 67

90 39 34 79

136 32 31 145

Males per 100 females.

481

I shall confine withthispositionmethodologically, agreement and Simoons's of origins to Harris'sexplanation mycomments comments. I accept the scenariothat human populationand settled India after1000B.C. and that in northern increased agriculture increased,requiring of cultivation intensity as a consequence more draft animals. Harris suggeststhat, to accommodate fordraftanimals at a time when requirement this increasing cultivabecause of moreintensive pastureland was declining for forfewer cattleto be slaughtered tion,it was advantageous who survivedwere thosewho did food.Individualcultivators not slaughter cattle foreating,accordingto Harris,and as a evolved that were later consequencetaboos against slaughter that Harrison thegrounds Simoonscriticises ritually enforced. there is textual evidence that cow sanctitydeveloped as a above, ratherthan generated that was imposedfrom doctrine of Diener, below.Simoonsalso summarises the argument from was of cow slaughter Nonini,and Robkinthat the prohibition a way for rulersto extendpoliticalcontroland extractaddiagriculture. tionalsurplusfrom This discussion seems to assume that beef eating in Vedic and notsimply associatedwithoccasional timeswas widespread India after If no one had eaten beef in northern sacrifices. reducedthe slaughter 600 B.C., would this have substantially of cattle, as Harris, and I believe others,assume (without to be extracted Was there in factany surplus obvioussupport)? cow slaughter? by prohibiting human Even if beefhad been a major sourceof foodbefore to a movednorthern India from pastoralism growth population cattle raisingthe relativecost of feeding settledagriculture, HESTON byALAN pasture land, it would not have been because of diminished to decrease.Societycould have forcattle slaughter Departmentof Economics, Universityof Pennsylvania, necessary Pa. 19104,U.S.A. 28 ii 79 Philadelphia, devotedmoreland to fodder crops,whichwould in turnhave been justified by the factthat draftcattleweremorevaluable many his newmaterials and sharing Whilelearning muchfrom Finally,even if it is accepted that cow of his views,I would like to emphasizea somewhatdifferent in settledagriculture. became more settled,why decreasedas agriculture slaughter approach than that of Simoons. One question that Harris would this generatereligioussanctions?The highercost of is neededas a variable raised was whether religion originally cattle resultingfrom less pasture land could have led to My to account for the cattle complexin the subcontinent. other ofcattleas thepopulacesubstituted diminished slaughter is one of several variables that are approach is that religion expensive the sex ratio of cattle (one generally meatsand vegetablesin theirdietsforthe relatively candidatesforexplaining of ritual bans on slaughter. beef, withoutany development of a cattle population that may be accepted characteristic for Europe, where the relative This patternis documented by, among other factors,attitudes towards cow influenced withhumanpopulation and, inversely priceofmeat fluctuated variationsin the sex ratio of slaughter).If one is explaining in themedieval low levelsofincomeprevailing at thegenerally across the bovinesbetween, states,or provinces say, districts, per person declinedwhen human period,meat consumption there are many other ecological variables to subcontinent, was subject to introducewhich vary across even small geographicregions; populationincreased.The Indian subcontinent economic on land,so one might expectsimilar pressures like soil type and depth,whichaffect similar amongtheseare factors adjustments without the evolution of religious sanctions can be buffaloes the use of femalesas draftanimals,whether reasons,I thereThoughfordifferent and factors againstcattle slaughter. good milch animals in the local environment, fodder thecropping and therefore availability forealso share the doubts of Simoonsand othersabout the pattern affecting of cow sanctity accountoforigins suggested by Harris. areas of the suband draftrequirements. Across geographic thesevariablesmay explaina largerportionof the continent, variance in sex ratios than the religiouscomposition(and byROBERT HOFFPAUIR WhereI disagreewith fervor withrespectto cow slaughter). Departmentof Geography,California State University, Harris is in his view that, because ecologicalfactorsare imCalif. 91330, U.S.A. 26 ii 79 Northridge, portant in explaining geographic variation in sex ratios, to the sacredcontribution Simoons's paperis a mostsignificant It is not a religionis not importantto our understanding. evidenceseemingly by cow controversy. ignored By presenting and, as Simoonsrichlydocuquestionof ecologyor religion, the dismantles thispaper systematically to Harris, individual orunknown affects ofhowreligion thereis muchevidence ments, of the sacred cow. of his interpretation structure substantive decisionswith respect to cattle. Further,Simoons supplies of Harris's thesis In addition,weaknessesin the foundation thatat a local within smallecological areas suggesting evidence as his methodology is oftenthe major explanatory variable in inter- are pointedout by correctly identifying level,religion detertechnoenvironmental and narrow-minded oversimplified across such pretingthe cattle complex;in fact, comparisons lead us to the morerealisticconareas providea bettertest of the influence minism.Simoons'sfindings small geographic in India is a productof multiclusionthat the cattle situation of religion thanbroaderones. of environmental, of a broad spectrum interaction This multivariateapproach to the Indian cattle complex directional one-way factors.The restrictive and socioreligious economic, does not deal with the originsof religioussanctionsagainst formula forproblemsolvingthat Harris and cause-and-effect cow slaughter, and Harris appears to suggestthat because he (undertheguiseof othershave applied to culturalphenomena religion can be of theseorigins offers an ecologicalexplanation factor.While I am not in as an independent if any, value in the comsafelydismissed "culturalecology")has verylimited, charitableconwe are told,but theymake it up from deficit, funds. So does ColumbiaUniversity. rent, and other tributions, Simoonscites Freed and Freed's (1972) studyto show that "cattle competewithmen." This studydoes not involvethe Simoons's data of costs and benefits. all-important weighing cattleare hearsay.I neversaw a bovinein India on wandering whose activities were not closely supervisedby a nearby human,usually a young one. His sectionon the wastingof sincewe alreadyknowthat cattleare raised beefis irrelevant, as a sourceof cheap tractionand not formeat or primarily milk. Again one wonderswhat he is tryingto prove. The would improveif the ban on slaughter notionthat nutrition of the misunderstanding is based on a complete wereremoved systemby whichanimal proteinis producedand allocated in of a beef-slaughter industrywill India. Any encouragement standardsof the a seriousthreatto the nutritional represent marginalsectors now enjoyingbeef as an occasional cheap It will also raise the price of staple crops by by-product. from plantfoodsand milkto meat. diverting resources As for Simoons's final suggestionthat cultural ecologists should consider alternative approaches to mine, I agree. does not yet understand my approach or Simoons,however, Nor does Lodrick,whois quotedas admonishthealternatives. of the sacred cow the functioning ing us not to "interpret or cultural concept solely in termsof economicmaterialism ecology." I invite them to compare their eclectic strategy not as theyimagineit to be, withthatofcultural materialism, but as it reallyis (Harris 1976b).
482 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

of India. With regardto the particularly plex ecosystem perbetween economyand plexing question of the relationship religion, my own researchon India's othermajor bovine,the has led me to conclude that while economic water buffalo, bovine incentiveis a significant driving force influencing the effectiveness of the incentive and the husbandry practices, consequential realization ofeconomic successis at leastpartially controlled by the religious system. we have a largeand hardybovine In the case of the buffalo, to well adapted to the lowland tropicsand able effectively In addition, fodder. undernormal on low-grade itself maintain in India, the femalebuffalo has the abilityto local conditions producean averageofabout twiceas muchmilkwithtwicethe and evalubutterfat per unit of milkas the cow. Recognition ationby Indian peasantsof the animal'sbiologicaladvantages in lightof prevailingeconomicand ecologicalconditions has resultedin the rather high economic esteem in which the animal is generallyheld and the positionof the buffaloas milkanimal.Even though India's primary India has overtwice buffalo as manymilkcowsas milkbuffalo, produce61% ofthe while pertotal milk supply.As a work animal,the buffalo, in India's wet-rice forming does not have the superbly fields, generalversatility and speed of workcattle. Thus, cattle are fortraction generally preferred formilkproduction. and buffalo As interpreted of India's cattle is by Harris,the sacredness of theireconomic a reflection merely and was originally utility bestowed to protect If thispremise themfrom slaughter. ofthe ofreligious is extended shaping ideology by economic rationality to thebuffalo, one wouldexpectthattheideological manifestationoftheundeniable ofthisanimal,especially economic utility as a milkproducer, wouldbe a highly reveredreligious status of inviolability similarto that of the cow. Yet, thisis not the is not sacred and has a distinctly case, forthe buffalo inferior in Hinduthought, position a position characterized byplebeianand violability. There is no evidencethat it ism, profanity, enjoyeda higher position at any timein Indian history. I would argue that the lack of any rigid social or legal restrictions on buffalo slaughter has contributed significantly to thisanimal's economic success.The farmer or milkman can exercisehis own economicjudgmentin the disposal of unwanted buffalo, the accumulationof an therebypreventing excessivepopulationof "useless" buffalo who are competing withproductive ones foravailable fodder.Thus, unburdened by sanctity,the buffalohas developed into an important economicasset. Whereas religionseems to play a restrictive role with cattle,with buffalo it plays a generally permissive roleby offering-very littleresistance to the economic managementof the animal at the local level. The buffalo's enviable situationsuggestswhat mighthave happened with the husbandryof the cow had that bovinenot been so revered.

Simoons: QUESTIONS IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

byDERYCK 0. LODRICK Department Humboldt ofGeography, State University, Arcata, Calif.95521, U.S.A. 21 ii 79 Few of us who have grappledin the fieldwiththe problemof Indian cattle can fail to share Simoons'sview that thereare seriousflawsin Harris's ecologicalapproachto the sacred-cow ofIndia. Severalfeatures ofthecattleeconomy concept are not adequately explained byHarris'sfunctional model, and,furthermore,these tend to contradict his claims that there are no "useless" components in the cattle complex, that the relationship between bovinesand humansin India is symbiotic rather thancompetitive, and thattaboos on cattleslaughter and beef eatingreflect ecologicalpressures ratherthan religious values (Harris 1966: 52). Ahimsa, for instance,is presentedby Harris as deriving strength and sustenancefromthe material rewardsit supVol. 20 * No. 3 * September 1979

posedlybestowson both man and beast in India ratherthan to the principlesof nonviolence fromany deep commitment and the sanctityof life (p. 52). Yet for over two millennia and even tenetoftheJainfaith, ahimsahas beena fundamental to exerta considerable influence today the conceptcontinues envisaged the economic underpinnings in Jainsocietywithout can be derived by Harris. What possible material benefits fromsupporting the bird houses (kabutriyas and parabadis) of Gujarat or protectingaged cattle, sick cats and dogs, injured deer, and even insects in the Jain animal homes and indeed India? These institutions, (pinjrapoles)of western many otheraspects of Jain life,assume meaningonly with of to Jain views of the world and the importance reference karma (the ahimsa and related concepts of reincarnation, fromaction), and principleof universalcausality resulting jiv-daya ("life-compassion")in Jain religious philosophy (Lodrick 1979b). Jain concernfor the sanctityof life, being extendsto all philosophical ratherthan ecological in origin, both wild and domesticated. Thus, although livingcreatures, Jainsdo notviewthecow as sacred,likeHindustheyabhorits slaughter and willnot eat beef-evidencethat ahimsaremains a potent philosophyin its own right in India today, but evidencethatis paid scantattention by Harris. can influence beliefs This reluctance to accept that religious functional rationaleleads behaviorwithoutsome underlying Harristo emphasize thatgoshalasand pinjrapoles-theanimal economic homesdiscussedat some lengthby Simoons-fulfill that charitable institutions functions and maynotbe thequaint, are usually implied (1966:58-59). Even the most cursory of theirpast, however, revealsthat the economic examination activitiesof animal homes are of recentoriginand, in most to finance the upkeep weredevelopedspecifically institutions, ofuselessanimals.Maintenancecostsfornonproductive cattle exceed incomefromgoshala dairy herds,and most generally institutions operate at a considerablefinancialloss, their deficits being covered,in part, by charitabledonationsand local cesses (taxes) (Lodrick 1977:239-41). In addition,the uselesscattle is compounded cost of supporting by theirconof agriof scarce fodder resources, by the diverting sumption culturalland ownedby animal homesfromotheruses to the in methods offodder growing crops,and by thewasteinvolved of carcass disposal (pp. 286-90). Thus, despitetheireconomic ofanimalhomesin India is detrimental thepresence activities, animalto the cattle economy;and, in that theirtraditional functions originatein Hindu and Jain beliefsand protection in modern India mustbe seenas reflecting survival values,their ofreligion. the negativeinfluence ofthecattle Ahimsaand animalhomesare but twoelements that Harris's complex lending supportto Simoons'sconclusion ecological approachdoes notadequatelyexplainthefactsofthe If thisis trueofthecontemporary scene,how Indian situation. forthe originsof effective can the approachbe in accounting alterthe sacred-cow concept?There are, as Simoonssuggests, fit thefactsofbothIndianhistory thatbetter nativehypotheses of Indian society, and Indian ecology.Given the complexity to see attitudes more satisfying it is inherently moreover, ofcultural, theinterplay towards cattleas reflecting historical, control ratherthan the mechanistic and environmental forces over periodsof of ecologicaldeterminants acting persistently ofyears. thousands viewsofthesacred-cow Harris'sfunctional concept Although in theIndian cattlecomplex, have donemuchto createinterest his ecological approach is questionable on several counts. this to our Simoonsperforms a valuable servicein bringing some of the "myths"about cattle attention and in correcting in India perpetrated by Harris and his particularbrand of culturalecology. 483

byS. N. MISHRA Instituteof Economic Growth,University Enclave, Delhi 110007,India. 16 ii 79 In the limitedspace available, I shall begin by commending Simoons'sexcellent effort at an exhaustive surveyoftherecord on the sacred-cowquestion. The record is overwhelmingly Harriswillacceptit as refutaagainstHarris'sthesis.Whether The sacredcow has tionofhis thesisis, nevertheless, doubtful. byWOLFGANG E. MEY her parallel in sacred doctrines, and to the faithful contrary Seesener Str. 17, 1 Berlin31, FederalRepublicof Germany. evidenceamountsto heresyratherthan refutation. That the 27 II 79 sacred-cowcontroversy can ever be resolvedin a scientific one need onlyconsider how muchAmerican Simoonshas dealt withan aspect of anthropological tradition spiritis unlikely; it has absorbed since the conI've a particular talent and resources scientific likingfor:the demystification ofmyth.I was tookroota decade and a halfago. glad to read his articlebecause forthe mostpart it voices my troversy ofcattlein India To me thefruitful ownquestions concerning Harris'sapproach.On theother approachto theproblem hand, I am disappointed to find Simoonsplayingthegame according is one of development planning,whichis and ought to be a to Harris's rules.This remarklimitsmy critiquepartlyto a matterof pervasiveconcernforsocial sciencein present-day questionofmethodology: India. Viewed fromthis angle, it was obviousfairlyearly to Simoons'sdiscussion of the sacred-cow me (Mishra 1966),as to manyothers, thatifIndia maintained conceptin termsof Western is rigorous, economy and I agreewithits results. surplus cattle in relation to feed availability,this situation His concern is "withtheorigin ofthesacred-cow morefood(milkand meat) and greater thepotential for concept and implied in one way or another, withwhether, it contributes for the cattle economy if that surplus could be to waste efficiency and destructiveness in present-day eliminated.Soon the existenceof the surpluswas questioned India," but he later dismisses the discussionof these historicaland religiopolitical (Raj 1969). It is worthnotingat thispointthat the existence aspectsas toolengthy. This deliberate avoiding ofthediscussion of surplusis inconsistent intolerableto with and, therefore, of thehistorical aspects reducesgeneralhistorical processesto not only the cultural-symbiotic hypothesis of Harris,but also specific historical ( = present-day/economic-ecological) prothedominant neoclassical bourgeois economic theory ingeneral, cesses; it reducesthe historicaland religiopolitical aspects of the invisible,omnipotent, sacred god-the-market of which the sacred-cow conceptto aspectsofwaste and destructiveness supposedlynever leaves any surplusof anything, no matter
484 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

byS. L. MALIK Department ofAnthropology, University ofDelhi,Delhi 110007, India. 14 II 79 This articleis primarily an exercisein intellectual bickering overHarris'scontentions. WhileHarrispointedout the utility of cattlefortraction and fuel,Simoonsarguesthat he did not stress sufficiently thenegative impactofthesacred-cow concept and emphasized only its positiveones. Simoons,on the other hand,elucidatesthe negative impact,forexample, soil erosion due to overgrazing. The basic assumption in the hypotheses of both Harris and Simoons-that the cow in India is merely an economicentity-fallsshortof reality.Systematic analysisof the conceptof the sacred cow in India would have provided in Hindu cultureapart from evidencethat the cow is esteemed its economic advantages(as delineated by Harris) and/ordisadvantages (as shown by Simoons). Whetheror not cows shouldbe slaughtered therefore dependsnot on theireconomic but on their sacredness.Moreover,this latter importance, beliefs whichare generally arisesfrom not explainable in terms of the simple scientific or rational logic to which we are accustomed. The theorythat all culturalidiomshave theirbasis in the ofthesociety economic and its technoenvironmental experience characteristics situation.This is may not fitthe present-day not to suggestthat thesefactorsmightnot have been responsible for the originof the sacred-cowconcept,which is an issue. At present, different the sacred-cow altogether however, conceptexistsin India mainlybecause ofritualbeliefs and not variables.In traditional becauseofeconomic Hindumythology, as recordedin the Vedas, the Puranas, the Ramayana,the books, the cow is Bhagavad-Gita,and other mythological To return as mother. to a state of ritualpurityfrom regarded Hindus take a mixture pollution(forexample,childbearing), ofcow'smilk, curd,ghee,dung,and urine.It is further believed that the cow has 330 milliongods and goddessesin her body and thatserving and praying to heralone willlead to Nirvana to come. for21 generations Simoons's failure to understandthe sacred-cowconcept theimprovement in qualityand reduction leads himto suggest in numbers of cattle through I specifically slaughter. call it a to understand failure and notignorance, sincehe has discussed thebeliefs ofHindusin reference at length to thecow. The cow cannot be allowed to become merely an economic animal because ofits highritualpositionin Hindu culture.In view of the cow's being regardedas mother,it mighteven be said his motherbecause she was not that no one would slaughter economically important.

in present-day India-to an ecologicalproblem. It is precisely thisexclusion of dialecticswhichpaves the way forSimoons's rather formalistic arguments. On the otherhand,Simoonsagreesthat "one cannotmerely look on cattle in Westernterms,"thus referring to a second frameof reference, as he does repeatedly(see the quotations fromGandhi to prove that the sacred-cow conceptreveals a ''more complexblendingof economicconcernsand religious commitment" than Harris thoughtof, the allusion to the conceptofahimsain theHarrisquotation, and theuse of Buddhistand Jain conceptsin the contextof politicalcentralization). This constantminglingof Westernand non-Western conceptsdoes injusticeto both. Though the importance of a non-Western frameof reference has been establishedand its fromWesternconceptshas been acknowledged difference by he deals withthe sacred-cow Simoons, conceptonlyin terms of Western economy (see the discussions ofwandering cattle,the wasteof beef,theinefficiency in cattlebreeding, the homesfor aged cows, cows' competition withhumansforfood,and the contribution of religious beliefs to a surplusofcows). Ultimatelythe question originally phrased as one of the originand effects of the sacred-cowconceptends in the discussionof the profitability of sacred cows underconditions of I'm verymuchafraidthat Bennett's generalscarcity. criticism of Harris,to whichSimoonsrefers ("that Harris does not look on religion as a 'strategy of action' or 'becomeinvolvedin the religiopolitical question' ") applies equally to Simoons: Religion,the otherframeof reference, is beingconsidered not as a "strategy of action" in the Hindus' attempt to interpret nature,but as the background forprofitability calculations. The integration of the dialecticalrelationship betweenthe sacred-cow conceptand processesof politicalcentralization in ancientIndia (religion as strategy of action) as wellas theuse of the sacred-cowconcept in the dominationby Hindus of marginalgroups both withinand outside the caste system couldhave beenhelpful in overcoming thelimitations to which the sacred-cowcontroversy has once again been subjected. I cannothelp feeling that the sacred cows of the Hindus have becomethe sacred cows of anthropologists.

byRICHARD P. PALMIERI Mary Washington College,FredDepartment of Geography, ericksburg, Va. 22401, U.S.A. 27 II 79 The controversy over India's sacred cattle has attractedthe attentionof numerous scholars,many of whomhave chosen the arena of this journal to air theirviews. One of the most in these battles has been Marvin Harris. forceful contenders Since his original article on the subject appeared almost the fifteen years ago (Harris 1965), Harris has transformed contestinto a jihad, a crusadeforpositive-functioned technoIn that light,Simoons'sreviewof environmental determinism. the historical evidencebearingon what he calls and empirical overthesacredcow is a refresh"questions"in thecontroversy ing and bracingintellectual challengeto consideralternative by STEWART ODEND'HAL to Harris'sseductiveconstructs. of Veterinary explanations College of Anatomy and Radiology, Department Keen observers economy, oftheroleofcattleinIndiansociety, Ga. 30602, U.S.A. Athens, of Georgia, Medicine,University and ecologymust agree with Simoonsthat Harris's positive5 iII 79 is too determinants functioned modelof technoenvironmental In his desire In general, Simoons'sarticleis a disappointment. Harris's thesis, he has helpedto perpetuate simple-not sophisticated enough-to embrace the broad to counterbalance and behavior which are-or range of realities,perceptions, about Indian cattle. Afterreading his past misconceptions ofnegativewere-foundin India. To these, Simoons's weighing articleI wouldnotbe surprised ifone wouldthink thatIndians but traits of sacred cattle is not only justified, functioned who own cattleare not verybright. welcome. Harris (1965:223-24; 1966:54-56) argues, for exSimoons presentsno original data which he himselfhas ample, the advantages of freeingcattle to wander without in India. His references to newspapers and magazines gathered supervision.Simoons, accepting certain advantages, details and stateauthenticity) (as if theywereparagonsof scientific and describeshow certainmaladaptivequalitiesof wandering ments like "the traveller to India observes,""an informant ... of one official" are very discon- these have been translatedinto serious social and economic told me," and "the estimates in thefield, amongagropastoralproblems. My ownexperiences His presentation of my workalso leaves something to certing. ists in the Nepal Himalaya,suggest that,in fact,local peoples be desired.He impliesthat I "concluded" in my study that nature of ranging appreciate fully the counterproductive "cattle consumedlittle, except mustardoil cake and wheat cattle. To cope with wandering cattle, they have adopted a I knowof no one who has bran,that man could eat directly." variety of control mechanisms,both technical and socioever eaten mustard oil cake or wheat bran directly.This and malpolitical,raisingstill more questionsof dysfunction inaccurateappraisal of my articlemakes me suspiciousof his adaptation. evaluationsof the workof others. to my workin the Himalaya, including Simoonsrefers my I would like to offer based on a fewcontrary observations the conthat, among non-Hindus, observation (1976:128-30) in India over a period of threeyears, during my experience in certain evendisappeared, has declined, ofyakflesh sumption whichI came intodirectcontactwithcattleon a daily basis as be worthIt influence. Hindu of because may regions spreading a veterinarian and as an investigative population quantitative of Hindu influence diffusion whileto note that the northward ecologist. Tibetan and in thisregardis feltin different ways by different I suspectthat if a total ban on cow slaughter wereimposed forthe Himalayangroups.Some abstain out of consideration therewouldbe verylittleimpactat the villagelevel. There is their to transferred who have Hindus of local convictions yak no way that Muslims can be preventedfromkillingcattle beliefsconcerning commoncattle. Others,the Thakali of the withinthe confines of theirown villages.Many Hindus know Kali Gandaki, for example, have given up yakfleshin an this,and it is acceptable as long as they can sell theircows attempt to elevate their caste status and to facilitatethe whentheyneed moneyfora dowryor some otherpurpose. of social relationswith dominantmembersof Never have I seen wanderingcows feedingon cultivated establishment of the younger Nepal's ruling elite (von Furer-Haimendorf cattle are the responsibility 1966:144-45). crops.Untethered members of the family, and theyknow betterthan to allow Still othershave been so affected by Hinduismthat,like some operatedbig this. The goshalas I have visitedare efficiently Tamang (Hoffpauir1978:234) and some Gurung (personal Vol. 20 No. 3
*

or otherwise, the forcesof opposition, religious how powerful it meetson the way. Once the surpluswas denied,it became imperative,nevertheless,to examine it empirically.The were circulatedin mimeographed resultsof this examination back in formamong Indian participantsin the controversy was subpart of this examination 1973. The general-survey the sequently published(Mishra 1973),but themodelderiving surplusonly appeared fiveyears later formula forcomputing as part of my book on livestockplanning (Mishra 1978). timehas elapsed,but my modeland estimateof the Sufficient cow surplus(19.37% of the cow stockin 1961) have not been in India. One of the particpants, HanumanthaRao, contested who had denied the surplus(HanumanthaRao 1969), has in of his my criticism fact accepted (personal communication) it difficult In viewofall thisI find to accept Simoons's position. that "a definitive answer to the questionof cow contention surplus"is stillawaited. because of Estimatesof the surplusmay reasonablydiffer of the relevantvariables and paramerrorsof measurement of the adult cow stock and the efficiency eters-the breeding mortality rate of theyoungmale stock-but all such estimates variational must lie withina narrowrange. In a parametric the exerciseover reasonablerangesof these two parameters, surplus for1961was in no case lowerthan 19.37% of the adult Simoons's cow stock (Mishra 1978:81-85). This shouldsatisfy answer.As I wrote earlier,the only requestfor a definitive of this surplusis the sanctityof the cow possibleexplanation as a reflection in India. This shouldnot,however, be construed on the economicrationality of the average Indian cultivator. To him the cow has both use value and sacred value. She belongs to the economicbasis and the ideosimultaneously of the social order. logicaledifice

Simoons:

QUESTIONS

IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

businessescontrolling large tracts of land. They sell milk, dung, calves, and other by-products. Sometimesold, infirm, and injuredcattleare maintained to attractdonations. Heston of "surplus" (1971) and othereconomists call fora reduction herd. cattleon thebasisoftreating thecattleofIndia as a single I thinkthis is naive. Not until urban Indians and Western "experts"themselves have to dependon the rationalmanagecan theyspeak authoritamentoflimitedhousehold resources tivelyabout the villagers'situation. I firmly believe that Given the environmental constraints, the villagerin India is managinghis cattle and plots of land far more efficiently than by any means anthropologists, can suggest.It is a sociologists, geographers, or economists that the typicalIndian sourceof amusement to me to consider by whateverconclusionsare villagerwill remain unaffected thegreat"sacred-cow controversy." derivedfrom

1979 September

485

CamBaraboo/SaukCounty Center, University of Wisconsin pus, Baraboo,Wis. 53913, U.S.A. 22 iII 79 to the contribution scholarly Simoons'spaper is an outstanding byDAVID PIMENTEL continuingdiscussionsof the sacred cow in India. It adds Department of Entomology, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, N.Y. compellingevidencefor the rejectionof Harris's positionin 14853, U.S.A. 8 III 79 the sacred-cow debate. Harris mustsupplydirect,convincing views and emrepliesor his theoretical Simoons argues that the sacred-cowconcept in India was and well-documented negated. A "imposedfrom above," whereasHarris (1966, 1977a) has sugpirical claims must be regardedas permanently by Harris to the pointsraised by Simoons gested that high human populationdensitiesresultedin the polemicalresponse would be a clear indicationthat Harris's positioncannot be adoptionof a "religious dutyto protectcows." The answerto This article,taken together withthe workdone by this question,althoughlargely lost in history,is of great defended. The is a refutation of nearlyeveryaspect ofhis efforts. interest not only to anthropologists, but also to ecologists. others, structure his theoretical Harriserected base on which empirical The ecologistexaminesthe sacred-cowquestion fromthe less substantial than sand. of energetics perspective and agricultural can now be seen to be significantly ecology.In early as of Harris comes fromoutside anthrowellas modern is criticalto Simoons's criticism agriculture, the timing ofplanting mostcropproduction. Each day thatplanting is delayedwhen pology,as have others.To construethis as an attack from of the fielditself would miss the conditionsof temperature without upon the legitimacy and rainfallare favorable may are raising the criticisms Directlyor indirectly, shortenthe growingseason and reduce the capacity of the pointentirely. and epistemoresearch methodologies questions concerning crop plant to collect solar energyand convertit into food. items that mustbe addressediftheprimary logicalframework With corngrownin the United States,forexample,each day afterMay 1 that the growingseason is shortenedmeans a of interestare to be adequately understoodor the central is to be satisfied. of testablehypotheses requirement 60 kg reduction scientific in yield. ofthecow in India thediscussions It shouldbe veryclearfrom Tilling the soil of one hectareby hand requiresabout 50 will onlybe answered by meansof questions that the primary eight-hour days of labor, an input of about 200,000kcal (Pimenteland Pimentel1979). Clearly,the timing of planting a very sophisticatedecological analysis and a distinctbut analysis which include the wouldbe a real problem related historical/evolutionary if the tillagehad to be carriedout by The use of multieffects. in only fullest hand. Using a bullock,this task can be accomplished possibleaccountof social-field and 8 days withan inputof nearly300,000kcal (including human disciplinetechniquesmust be accompaniedby searching of the theoryand the practice involved criticalexamination food energy and feedenergy forthe bullock).In thisway the and Levins 1976;Rose and Rose 1976a,b;Habermas use of animalpowernot onlyreducesmanpower requirements, (Lewontin 1974; Lewontin1974; Gould and Eldredge 1977). This examibut contributes to higher cropyields.Animalslike the bullock as well as play an important role in food production both duringfield nation must encompassthe individualdisciplines, as possible; it must be as comprehensive theircombinations; If it was preparationand later in weedingand harvesting. own effecton the inquiry must be and the investigator's of past peoples to reverelife,thenit mightnot characteristic examined withgreatcare. have been a large step in humanculturalchangeforthemto is a by others The workdonehereby Simoonsand elsewhere come to considerthese essentialanimals not only important, into the sacred-cattle question.The investigation but sacred. Harris has suggested preliminary that it was probablya comand defended binationof biologicalreality(food production)and humans' natureof the way in whichHarrishas presented has made it necessaryto devote an his ecologicalexplanation desire not to harm living animals that culminatedin the unfortunate amount of time to analyses of his failure to sacred-cow concept. was naive,misconceived, accountforthecase. Harris'secology are slow and gradual. Changes in cultureand technology Many of the phenomenahe and too oftensimplyerroneous. he or she startsusinga technique Usuallysomeone individual or "adaptive" are now seen as sees as "positive-functioned" has devised,and ifit is successful it is soon adoptedby others. pressuremechanisms This occursfrequently with many kinds of agricultural and unidirectional tools deviation-amplifying to the contributing used by man. In fact, the adoptionof eitherfarmtools or of social controland social exploitation of the plant, animal, and human comecologicaldegradation technology is gradual,and so-calledimproved methodsspread
486 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Don Messerschmidt), communication, they themselvesnow to eat its flesh. viewyak as sacredand refuse In any case, to me the mostfascinating questionaddressed of religious by Simoonsis the one dealing with the influence beliefon numbers, distribution, and herdcomposition of cattle in India. Undoubtedly, empirical evidencesupporting or rejectwill emergeout of a more definitive ing such determinants studies similarto comparativeregionalliteratureembracing hereby Simoons.Moreover, thoseconsidered we needjust this kind of evidence to examine thoughtfully some theoretical implications of the ecological perspective. issues transcendeven sacred cattle. The Such theoretical ecologicalperspective, for example,must embrace dysfunctional and maladaptiveculturetraits,and it must recognize that a singletrait may be both positive-functioned and negative-functioned, depending on its temporal or regional setting. An evolutionary elementis injectedhere,one whichbalances thepurelyadaptiveimagery of functionalist In interpretation. this regard,it is difficult to considerSimoons'sreviewof the sacred-cow controversy-and the theoretical caveats imbedded withinit-without recallingand reflecting upon Diener and Robkin's (1978) recentpublicationon pigs in the Near East. For thoseof us convinced of the utilityof a properly applied ecological perspective, thesetwo articlesshouldserveas blazes to help keep us from losingour way.

until theyappear community the agricultural slowlythrough to be the standardpractice. whenviewedin by a culture, The adoptionof a technology an ecological context,always has benefitsand costs, as is of the sacred cow in India. indicatedby Simoons'sassessment powerand cowsprovidemilkand replacement Bullocksprovide bullocks. Labor (manpower) is required to manage these and some conand theymustbe fedforage animals,however, These are significant hardin thefields. whenworking centrate to cattlegain entrance costs.The costsincreasewhenhungry fields and devourthe crops. Simoons links overgrazingto the sacred-cow concept. Althoughtheremay be some association,both seriousoverin the world grazingand soil erosionare problemselsewhere conceptdoes notexist.Simoonsis correct where thesacred-cow in sayingthatthe sacredcow costssocietyin land degradation ofsomefoodmeant and in its consumption due to overgrazing animals as draught ofcattle,however, for The benefits humans. and as providersof milk far outweightheir costs. These exist in India today, and, as Harris has suggested, benefits theyhave existedforcenturies.
by EUGENE E. ROBKIN

have led to These mechanisms of the subcontinent. munities the progressivedestructionof India's primary production and the loss of agricultural procapacity-to desertification balanced or posiIndia is far from homeostatically ductivity. India is the resultof centuries tivelyadapted; contemporary have only obscured of misuse.Harris's fallaciousspeculations inand confusedthe issues and have delayed the definitive intoIndia's ecologyand the sacred-cattle question vestigations that stillremainto be done. As Simoonsobserves,much expertopinionassertsthat the rapidly spreadingRajasthan Desert is "largely man-made" that produceand maintainthe desertto and tracesthe forces in that regionby the actions of man and the dust generated his animals on the plant cover and the soils (Hora 1952; Drysonand Barreis 1967; Bryson1972, 1974; UnitedNations of the crowded 1977; Brysonand Murray 1977). The effects animals on the soils of India have oftenbeen dramatically erosionhas notesthat the resulting Simoonsrightly described. as so severe that "it must be seen to be been characterized believed."In emphasizing the roleof dungas fuel,Harris has soil tilth,whichis quite its value in promoting simply ignored The use of dung as fueland its value as fertilizer. apart from fromthe "stray" cows for every the enormouscompetition is seenby Harrisas evidence organic material scrapofingestible in but in factresults fora vast technoenvironmental efficiency to soil the removalof organicmatterthat would contribute in the soil's grain structure quality.The quality is expressed determine the absorpand its humuscontent, whichtogether of animalsand the of water.The trampling tionand retention of the soil and removal of organicmateriallead to compaction and thus to reducedplant increasedwater runoff drastically and erosion.One consequenceof this cycle has productivity been describedas "concrete-like grazing grounds" (Whyte 1968:8). grazingis oftenaccompaniedby changesin High-intensity thespeciesmixture thatmakeup thepastureplantcommunity. thepasturesunderheavyuse The plantsthattendto dominate are oftenthosethat have reducedgrowthrates,have reduced nutritional levels,are unpalatableto animals,or are directly toxic (Odum 1971; Whyte 1974; Dabadghao and Shankarand Payne 1965). Detailed examinarayan 1973; Williamson nation of the situationby expertsin the fieldleads to very different from "positive Harris'sconcerning conclusions general and "adaptability" (Dabadghao and Shankarfunctioning" narayan1973:1): ... thenatural of theancient landofIndia has formilvegetation ofunplanned, lenniabeenexposed to a steady increase in intensity and therefore use ofland;whatwe are deuncontrolled destructive here ofgrass cover could be again, in terms is what was,what scribing day.... we generally butcertainly notwhatis there at thepresent community know what should be donetoraise a degraded [ecological] to a higher leveland to maintain parts it there, but,as in so many of the tropics into and subtropics, we cannotput thatknowledge ofhuman, beyond ourconeffect because factors socialandpolitical trol. ofanimalsintotheavailable space contributes The crowding to the development of disease fromnutritional deprivation or fromspecific loss of Here too thereis progressive organisms. animal productivity as soils lose their available nutrient change,disease infection content, pasture plant communities pathways become more highly connected,and the overall nutritional and healthstatus of the cattle becomesdepressed (Williamsonand Payne 1965; Rise et al. 1967; Snapp and Neumann 1960). Harris has argued that maintaining large numbers ofcattleis necessary in orderto producean occasional calf.Reproduction variationin cattleis muchmoredependent on environmental than on geneticfactors(Rice et al. 1967: cattle have much higherreproduction 283). Well-maintained may rates and may calve yearly;in India calving frequency is of thispotential.Since reproduction fall to a small fraction Vol. 20 * No. 3 * September 1979

Simoons: QUESTIONS IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

levels,the reproductive rate may be so sensitive to nutritional by decreasing cow numbers (Snapp and substantially increased Neumann 1960, Rouse 1970). What Harris attemptedto exfrom resulting ecologicalconditions plain away as an efficiency fromsocial and political resulting is in fact an inefficiency Epidemiologicalstudies reveal conflicts and contradictions. that crowdedcattle have higherdisease rates than animals kept under less dense conditions (Williamson and Payne to eat materialscon1965:27). Crowdedcattle may be forced taminatedwith dung and thus serve as their own disease disease is a cattle maladytransmitted vectors(p. 31); Johne's in this way (Snapp and Neumann 1960:621). Calf mortality in the tropicsis oftenas highas 50% as a consequenceof the and the depressed conditions healthstates in the poor feeding in general(Williamson and Payne 1965:171). cattlepopulations to themif "The ecologyof ticksmakescattle verysusceptible crowdedinto natural grazingareas" (p. 42). The high-fiber and low-qualitydiet of Indian cattle, touted by Harris as not only increasesdisease risksthrough ecologically efficient, ofprotein and micronutrient theinteractive effects deficiencies, food but also depressesthe value of whateverhigh-quality theseanimals mightobtain. The feeding of large amountsof fibrous food depressesthe digestionof all otherfoodconstituents (Williamsonand Payne 1965:55; see also Snapp and Neumann 1960:135-42; Rice et al. 1967:66-69). Harris has "principally[upon] rice describedIndian cattle as subsisting wheatbran,and ricehusks" (1974:24); but "the energy straw, foodsmay involvemore expense requiredto consumefibrous its digestion, or its verybulk of nutrients thanis derivedfrom forthe animal to eat enoughto meet may make it impossible needs" (Williamsonand Payne 1965:54-55). its nutritional Starvingcattle, like starvingpeople, are poor evidence for "positivefunctions." ofcattleand the centralrole Simoonsdiscussesthe breeding The productivity ofthemilking in it ofselective cow slaughter. to selection is muchmoresensitive pressures applied to its sire the requiredslaughter for than to its dam. As a consequence, selectioncan be greatlyreducedat the local level and concentratedon farmsspecialized for the purpose. The contrihas been estimated for butionto theimprovement by selection at 6%. These are the the dams of futureherd replacements youngsires local cows in the villages.For the dams of future herd replacements it is 33%, forsiresof future 18%, and for sires of future youngsires43% (Rice et al. 1967:291). Thus of the local forselectiveimprovement 94% of the opportunity milkcow comesfrom that does not need geneticmanipulation the6% effect of the to be carriedout locally,and, ifnecessary, to Otherfactors that can contribute local cowscan be ignored. of productivityare crossbreeding the rapid improvement use oftemperate-zone (Trenkleand Willham1977),thecareful geneticmaterial(Rice et al. 1967,Singh 1966), and the interofimproved nutrition and healthas thelocal herd activeeffects size diminishes and local pasture productivity increases. It shouldbe notedthattheSanta Gertrudis cattlebreeddeveloped on the King Ranch in Texas is widelyknownforits resistance in its to heat and disease and is 3/8 zebu and 5/8 shorthorn geneticmakeup. It would be quite wrongto inferfromthese observations in India are primarily technical. thattheagricultural problems of technological From comparisonof the relative simplicity and convolutions factors as describedabove withthe extreme of the actual problems,some insightcan be intractability web ofsocialforces at play. The nature gainedintothecomplex of theforces thathave led to and maintain and themagnitude the status of the sacred-cattle complexin India can be fully of the ecological an understanding appreciatedonly through Pressedintoa corner, and social injurytheyhave engendered. theIndianfarmer does thebesthe can underthecircumstances 487

withtheresources allowedto him,but,likea manpinneddown by a high-pressure streamof water froma firehose, he can scarcelybe describedas being "positivelyadapted" to his environment. Harris has claimed evidenceof "positive-funcin the tionedand probablyadaptive" traits and institutions Indian conditionsof hunger,crowding, illness,exploitation, and ecological destruction. His naive and uninformed culis focused on a worldthatneverwas and distracts turalecology fromthe worldthat actually was, is, and could be. attention Harris (1964:vii) assertsthat the culturalmaterialist "lacks to provethistheory; onlytime, money and staff givensufficient we could developintersubjectively resources valid and cultureofcultural This goal is chimerical free descriptions things." and dangerous; knowledgethat attempts to be "culture-free" It would would be, by its nature,inhumanand antiscientific. makeclaimsofabsolutecertainty thathave longbeen rejected by thephysicalscientists Harrisseeksto emulate."Sciencehas progressed step by step ... because it has understood that the betweenman and nature,and man exchangeof information and man,can onlytake place with a certaintolerance"(Bronowski1973:365). "There is much in the social habits of a people which is dispersedand distortedby the mere act of makinginquiriesabout it" (Wiener1948:164). In a veryreal we can achieve is the resultof sense,whatever understanding an intense withourselves(Lewontin and Levins 1976; struggle Gould 1978; Diener and Robkin 1978). It was observedlong nor are there ago that thereare no royal roads to geometry; etic roads,paved withmoneyor not, to an any transcendent ofhumanproblems. understanding

preconceptions. their balancedview; forsome,it onlyconfirms contents in thefactual differences I see fewreallysubstantive oftheseveralarticlesthathave appeared.Mostlytheysupport opinionswith opinions,as Simoonshas so clearlyperceived. of our readings (exceptfrom New to me as a naturalscientist the so hard through are this working literature) 19th-century polemical a fewfactsand theunnecessarily to extract literature of muchof the discussion. pedantry of causes, up to now in this discussion The main omissions are (1) acknowlratherthan of causes in relationto remedies, edgmentof the dearth of real data on the presentsituation vis-a-viscattle ownershipand cattle utilityin India and in countries in themanynon-Hindu withthesituation comparison in whichcattle or otheranimalsare the main sourcesof rural that of fuel,and (2) recognition draftpower and sometimes been too valuable for cattle-like horses-have historically formeat (and,similarly, otherpurposesto be raised primarily is surelynot a uniquelyIndian idea [von that cow protection 1955]).Even in Europe'sfuture, and vonLengerken Lengerken of the dairy to be a by-product willcontinue "beefproduction as industry"(Trenkleand Willham 1977), while,as recently when Europe was as dependent the 18thand 19thcenturies, are uponcattleforruralpoweras manyThirdWorldcountries regard Williamof Prussiacould rightly today,King Frederick (cattle plague's) invasionof Europe fromRussia rinderpest's "the ruinof the land" (Schwabe 1978b). as threatening I find that Simoons (with therefore, Not unexpectedly, the whose otherwork I am very familiar)has put together accountof the Indian mostdetailed,balanced,and perceptive cattle situationand its originsso far. While his reactionto personal and a few of his Harris seems to me unnecessarily byCALVIN W. SCHWABE and careful points "picky," Simoons'sbroad fieldexperience School and Preventive Department of Epidemiology Medicine, give forceto his main points: generally approachto problems of Veterinary Medicine,University ofCalifornia, Davis, Calif. (1) that "there are no reliable estimatesof the numbersof 95616, U.S.A. 27 II 79 wild and straycattle in India," (2) that therehas been only As a medicaland agricultural with15years'off-and-on one survey "of the relative numbersof commoncattle and biologist living kept by Moslemand Hindu householders of India, I cannothelp but view thisextended conexperience waterbuffalo in which levels" underconditions socioeconomic troversy about the holy cow (or is it about Marvin Harris?) at comparable usesand bullocktradeare reasonably to draft than any of the social scientists so far somewhatdifferently variablesrelating involved. The requestformycomments apparently stemsfrom controlled, and (3) that there have been only "two local settings"in India on the inputs to print(Schwabe 1978a), but an opinionrecently committed studiesdone in agricultural i.e., cattle'soverallutility. stated orally for a decade, that Marvin Harris performed and outputsof cattleraising, a as Harris also holds,that "analyconcludes, veryvaluable servicein his 1966article(and indirectly Simoonsrightly by the distribuit has stimulated).The chiefvalue of sis of the available data suggeststhat the numbers, pro and con rejoinders of India's cattle populationare mainly Harris's papers, to me, is that he has exposed to view, and tion,and composition and economic not by religionbut by geographic determined obviouslyto discussion,the very importantpoint that, in is a significant complicating look on cattle [in India] Simoons'swords,"one cannotmerely factors."In otherwords,religion not in India, maybea crucialone,but in manyrespects in Western terms, mainly as sources ofmeatand milk.In India factor even irreplaceable, in providing they are important, traction widelyappreciatedIndia's dependenceon, and relationsto, of other thoseof a number from markedly and fuel."In my opinionthisexposure has been a good thing, cattle do not differ countries.The reasons I think these points need repeated and we surelyneed some people like Harris, who are not so that to make them despiteHarris'sapparentfeeling emphasis, on somepointsthattheyneverdare cast a new afraidoferring he must deny the additionaland peculiarlyIndian relgious perspectiveon importantand timelyquestions.Reasonable that do go beyondrationaland ecologicalcauses, is influences little scholarsare always willing to stand corrected and suffer irraor largely that to regardIndian cattle usage as entirely in the processif theirefforts are honestones. While Simoons tional gives importantfuel to ill-advised and dangerously adds that "theseare facts[abouttraction and fuel] longknown animal agrinow underway to downgrade efforts uninformed to researchers in India," he acknowledges Harris's "servicein (e.g.,Dumont[1975]:"By notonlyin India but globally culture withthe callingthemto theattention ofAmericans unfamiliar Indian scene." In this qualifierI think Simoons allows his meat,whichwastesthegrainthatcouldhave saved consuming of the Sahel. Ethiopia and reactionsto Harris's ideologicalpreconceptions and factual them,last year we ate the children to Schwabe omissions to cause him to understate a real problem.Among Bangladesh"; in rebuttal,see the introduction these Americans(and Europeans) now "unfamiliar with the [1979]). as a Indian scene" are persons influential in the formulation of Using this questionof cattle use in India and elsewhere focusforsome of my overallconcernsin the foodand health agricultural, food,economic, and otherpolicies that bear, at least indirectly, upon India's and the world'sfuture. Some of planningareas, I have recentlyurged (Schwabe 1978a) the cooperationin thesepersons do see India's possession ofone-fifth oftheworld's need for the same degreeof multidisciplinary like this-involvingnot only social and cattle and its widespread beef aversion entirely through researchon problems also-as we naturalscientists "Western-colored glasses"as an unmitigated disaster and India but humanists naturalscientists begunto realizeamongourrecently as a hopeless case insofaras "development"is concerned. have onlycomparatively Furthermore. of India" is no guarantor of a more selves. "experience
488 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

(1971:191). His "cavalier dismissalof made pointedreference experts,"noted by Simoons,quoting Bennett (1971), might have been excusable in an early speculative article but is hardlyso aftermore than a decade of debate. If anything, getworsewiththepassage of time.At first, Harris'sarguments and Kings they were merelyahistorical,but in Cantnibals (1977a) they have become a travestyof history.There his with bristles of the Sacred Cow" fairly chapteron "The Origin about India's past. and misconceptions inaccuracies On the whole Simoonsgives Harris his due, acknowledging on correctly, valid pointswheretheyare made,yetconcluding, betweenmen and relationship the key issue of the "symbiotic cattle," that Harris has "overstatedhis case and failed to appreciate the competitiveaspects of this relationship."I withSimoons'sview "that the properframework concurfully is one which in which to place the sacred-cowcontroversy or negative-functioned, traitsto be positive-functioned, permits that in a given area both." Further,one may demonstrate at one time and negativea trait may be positive-functioned of the popuor positiveforone segment at another, functioned foranother. What we nowneedto do is not lationand negative to arguethatIndia has a surplusofcattle,but continue merely and locationof of the extent investigations conductsystematic the surplus and of ways of achievinga better distribution. and moresophisticated callsfor"morecareful Simoons properly comparisonof disstudy,involving economicand geographic trictsas well as a much broadersample of Indian villages." I would suggestdetailedmappingand analysisof Specifically, (a) the ratiosofcattle and total bovinepopulations(expressed as standardized"animal units") to rural populationand to begingrosssownacreage(hereSopher[1975]has made a useful ning); (b) the ratios of draughtand milchcattle to draught and (c) the rates of increase respectively; and milchbuffaloes of a numbers of of bovines. The relationship in types specific on tendto overlook and economists planners ... lack of consensus and ofcropping and wateravailability patterns economic values.It is assumed.. . thatgivenequal opportunity, and b to specific of c to the rates of increasein the rural populationlikewise willrespond. .. all communities financial incentive and resources, demandsattention. in their efforts....FromwhatI've seen... productive similarly do not communities oftherural majority seemthata great it would Simoons'sappraisal of his data is judicious,but Generally, in thisconcept ofliving. share standard ofan ever-rising an occasional slip may be noted. It is fallacious to equate absolute population densitywith populationpressureas he appears to do with respectto Kerala and West Bengal. One byJOSEPH E. SCHWARTZBERG should not take at face value the apparent decline in the University of Minnesota,Minneof Geography, Department in 1919-20to only 5,100,000 bulls" from number of "breeding apolis,Minn. 55455, U.S.A. 2 iii 79 question 400,000 in 1966; there is probably a definitional On myfirst readingof Simoons'spaper,I was notparticularly involved here. Nor should one seriouslycredit the figures of "wild cattle" in Uttar Pradeshor attentiveto the dates in his citationsand wonderedwhy,in on the number presented referred to, it light of the range and numberof authorities Punjab, especially in a source emanating from Himachal shouldhave been necessaryforhim to writeat all. Although Pradesh. Indian statisticsmust be treatedwith considerable in the in much of his I foundhis arguments persuasive,I thought, and thereinlies much of the difficulty circumspection, rebuttalof Harris, that he was beatinga dead horse.While, India is so vast and variegatedand controversy. sacred-cow whentheywere first advanced, Harris's views on the role of has given rise to such a mass of diverseand noncomparable that reporting, impressionistic cattle in India (1965, 1966) undoubtedly provided a useful data, not to mention "official" to the prevailing and whilethe seeming persons with axes to grind can glean fromthe plethora of corrective stereotype, of his originalcase provideda usefulstimulusto plausibility findings and observationsconsiderablesupportfor virtually writings any positiontheywishto advocate. it was myimpression thatsubsequent further research, had exposedessentialflawsin his thesisand that few,if any, Closerstudyof of India stilltookit seriously. seriousstudents made clear whySimoonsfeltmoved Simoons'stext,however, byM. SURYANARAYANA to write as he did. Harris's horse oughtto be dead, but he Sri Venkateswa University, ofSocial Anthropology, Department to let it die. To himthathorsehas becomea sacredcow. refuses Tirupati517 502, India. 23 ii 79 That Harris could continueto writeas he did in 1974 and and generally Simoonshas presenteda lively discussionon the sacred-cow havingbeenexposedto suchtrenchant 1977,after He is rightlycritical of Harris's view of the controversy. valid critiquesas thoseof Bennett(1967), Dandekar (1969b), Hindu ban on cow slaughterand beef eating as a positive to and Heston (1971), reveals a remarkableunwillingness and his failureto of technoenvironmental pressures than himself. So engage reflection learn from othersmoreknowledgeable conthe negativeimpact of the sacred-cow of someof the best-informed stresssufficiently the writings is he that he ignores lighton the cept. How far Simoonshas succeededin throwing authoritieson India, most notably Brown (1957, 1964), to it contributes conceptand on whether originof the sacred-cow whose views on the sanctityof the cow in HinduismHeston Vol. 20 * No. 3
*

cattle to similarly and important complicated In reference I have reachedthe sad conclusion (1978a: in Africa, questions upon forces 262) that"a perusalof the social scienceliterature past work in Africa that social scientists' one the conclusion in need of answers questions] ... [significant rarelyconsidered at least as much from and that they would have benefited guidanceas vice versa," just as "with few naturalscientists' to underhas failedto helpscientists [thehumanist] exceptions, to or likelyconsequencesof background stand the historical actions." theirintended and The widelyheld view amongAmericanagriculturalists policymakersthat "over the past 200 years the U.S. has had programof the best,the mostlogicaland the mostsuccessful development anywherein the world" and that agricultural would do well to copy it" (Heady 1976:107) "othercountries is encouraging, as part of total "Green Revolution"packages the replacement of bullock and other in India as elsewhere, Fossil fuelsare tractors. animalpowerby fossil-fuel-consuming not available to replace the 54% of energyneeds in Indian now being providedby cattle (Revelle 1976) or agriculture would eventhe453,000kg ofcoal that Odend'hal(1972) found for be requiredin his West Bengal study area to substitute fuel.Most GreenRevolutiondungas cooking locallyproduced typeadvantageswouldbe realizableusinganimal and human beingconcentrated reserves power,witheverscarcerfossil-fuel tractor ofa "wave" ofsupplemental in governments' provision drivers foruse onlyduringthe one timeof powerand tractor critical need, the plantingseason (as it progressesthrough thecountry). Importanttechnicalquestionslike this one are relevantto in India. Related questionsas clearlyin need of cattleutility moraland are thepositive orcompensatory careful investigation beliefsregarding humane aspects of currentIndian religious cattle, aspects relatedperhaps to Nair's (1961:191-92) suggestion that,in India,

Simoons:QUESTIONS

IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

1979 September

489

in present-day to waste and destructiveness India remainsto in view of the following be seen,however, limitations: the data on the originof the sacred-cow 1. After reviewing concept,Simoonsstates that "to weighthe meritsof the two would requiremuch additionalcollecting, alternatives sifting, ofdata." and weighing 2. The questionof how much beefis goingwaste in India becauseofthesacred-cow conceptis difficult to answerbecause thereare no hard data on thisaspect. In the contemporary context,Simoons should have also of the sacred-cow considered(a) the contribution conceptto maintenance the ban on ethnic-boundary by Hindus through values amongHindus towardsthe cow slaughter; (b) changing ofmodernization context sacredcowin thepresent and technological change; and (c) the extentto whichit is justifiable to viewtreattheissueofthesacredcow in India from a Western ofmeatand milk.The observations ofSchwabe point,in terms here. (1978a) are relevant byP. L. WAGNER SimonFraserUniversity, Department ofGeography, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6. 27 ii 79 to Harris's evaluativestatements Simoonsresponds withwelldocumented descriptive evidencethat showsHarris's position In sucha debate,absoluterefutation to be extremely farfetched. may remainimpossible, because theultimate value premises of like Harris's are not fullyclarified. an argument "Ecological of the relationships harmony," giventhe complexity invoked, tells moreperhapsabout the presuppositions and preferences of its observer than about empirical reality.Simoonsappeals, however,to enough reliable authorityto make the Harris argument scarcelytenable. The imageofsymbiosis and cooperation and amonglivestock formanypastoralsocieties, humanbeingswoulddo verynicely even perhaps for ranchingsectorsof Westernsocieties,but of Hindu societyand the despitethe manypastoralovertones likelyroleof earlypastoralinvadersin shapingit, the modern rolesforcattle.The crux context dictatesdifferent agricultural of theissueis thepresence ofso many and costlymaintenance uselessanimals-the old, infirm, and unclaimed-whichwould not surviveat all in mostnomadicpastoralsocieties. probably It is curiousthatHarriswouldregardthesecattle,whichcarry no discernible in human livelihoodbut still impose function It also strikesme that Simoonscould costs,as "symbiotic." themas worsethanmerely have indicted "surplus." On theotherhand,ifhe choseto elevatethefunctionality of Hindu pietyto absolutestatus,of courseHarris could confute Simoons by claiminguntestableecological benefits deriving from forsoundtradition, groupsolidarity, respect and thelike. on occasion as beneRitual prescriptions are acknowledged ficial in practice in this way, but a functionalist ecological of the status quo in this case, as Simoons rationalization restson dubiousevidenceand unclearpremises. demonstrates,

Harris "a decade and a halfago" in this journaland that this controversy has mostlyinvolved Western scholars. Why should a problemas interesting, many-faceted, and culturally, economically, and ecologically significant as thatofthe sacredcow remainas cloudedas it now is? Many view the writings of a singleinvestigator, Marvin Harris,as primarily responsible, as the major barrierto a dispassionate exchangeof ideas on the sacred cow. This derivesfromthe high ideologicalcontent of those writings, the resultof which is that a complexsociocultural phenomenonis explained simply, in terms of an extremeformof technoenvironmental determinism. Scholars are aware of the ideologicalbackground of Harris's research on thesacredcow,and manyremain ofits conclusions skeptical or dismissthem. At the same time, his ideas have become quite popular with the general public throughhis books, and talks. Some scholarsbelieve that thispopularity articles, derivesfromthe fact that his explanationof the sacred cow of India fits preconceptions harbored by many Americans. In any case, in this technoenvironmental perspectivea phenomenon ofrich diversity and associationsis reducedto stark materialistic terms. I have written this article not only to directattention to in Harris'sarguments theflaws inhismarshaland inadequacies ling of evidence,but in the hope that a less iconoclastic approachmaybe made to thesacred-cow It is especially problem. pleasingto me that most CA commentators, comingfroma varietyof academic backgrounds, agree that Harris is wrong and that a newbeginning mustbe made.

Cited References
L. 1962. Beitrage zur Geschichtevon Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung in Indien. Akademieder Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Abhandlungen, Geistesund Sozialwissenschaften Klasse 1961:559-625. AMBEDKAR, B. R. 1948. The untouchables. New Delhi: Amrit. ANDERSON, EUGENE N., JR. 1978. Commenton: Ecology, evolution, and the searchforculturalorigins, by Paul Diener and Eugene E. Robkin. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 19:509. [PD] ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, HIMACHAL PRADESH. 1963. The dyingcow: Can it sutrvive? Simla. Azzi, CORRY. 1974. More on India's sacred cattle. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 15:317-21. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M. 1960. Cattle wealth of India. Rural India 23:384-94. in India. ModernReBANSIL, P. C. 1959.The rate of cattlemortality view[Calcutta] 105:277-86. . 1975.2d revised and enlarged edition.Agricultural problems of India. Delhi: Vikas. BELLERBY, J. R., and N. A. MUJUMDAR. 1961. Agriciultural economic and theIndian economy. theory Bombay: Vora. BENNETT, JOHN W. 1967. On the culturalecology of Indian cattle. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 8:251-52. -. 1971. Commenton: An approach to the sacred cow of India, by Alan Heston. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 12:197-98. transition: Culturalanthropology and hu. 1976. The ecological man adaptation. New York: PergamonPress. BHALLA, TILAK RAJ. 1955. Utilization ofdead animalsin thePunjab. (Board of Economic Inquiry, Punjab, Publication 31.) Chandiof PunGovernment garh: Economic and StatisticalOrganization, jab. of BIDDULPH, J. 1880. Tribesof theHindoo Koosh. Calcutta: Office the Superintendent of Government Printing. BOSE, BASANTA COOMAR.. 1929. Hindu cutstoms in Bengal. Calcutta: The Book Company. BRONOWSKI, JACOB. 1973. The ascentofman. Boston: Little, Brown. [EER] BROWN, W. NORMAN. 1957. The sanctityof the cow in Hinduism. Madras University Journal28:29-49. . 1964.The sanctityof the cow in Hinduism.EconomicWeekly [Bombay] 16:245-55. [JES] BRYSON, REID A. 1972. "Climatic modification by air pollution,"in The environmental future. Edited by Nicholas Polunin,pp. 133-55. London: Macmillan. Edited earth. -. 1974. "Dust, goats,and deserts,"in Man's finite by R. 0. Utgard and G. D. McKenzie. Minneapolis: Burgess. [EER]
ALSDORF,

Reply
byFREDERICK J. SIMOONS Davis, Calif.,U.S.A. 10 iv 79 Amongthe variouscomments made in responseto my article on the sacred cow, one of manythat struckme was Mishra's observationthat it is unlikely"that the sacred-cowcontroversycan ever be resolvedin a scientific spirit."It would be ifMishraweredirecting understandable to thespecial attention difficulties in resolvingthe controversy withinIndia, where Hindu religious commitment to the cow is powerful and emotional. The reader should be aware, however,that in fact Mishra is referring to the controversy initiatedby Marvin
490

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

University Press. statistical, andhisLaddk, physical, CUNNINGHAM, ALEXANDER. 1854. torical. London: Wm. H. Allen. DABADGHAO, P. M., and K. A. SHANKARNARAYAN. 1973. The grass Research. cover ofIndia. New Delhi: Indian CouncilofAgricultural
DALTON,

A., and DAVID A. BAERREIS. 1967. Possibilities of maNorthwestIndia, and theirimplications: jor climaticmodification 48: Society Meteorological a case forstudv. BulletinoftheAmerican 136-42. ofhunger. BRYSON, REID A., and THOMAS J.MURRAY. 1977. Climates of WisconsinPress. Madison: University development possibilities ofagricultural BURNS, W. 1944. Technological of Government Printing. in India. Lahore: Superintendent CHAGNON,NAPOLEON A., and RAYMOND B. HAMES. 1979. Protein deficiency and tribalwarfarein Amazonia: New data. Science 203: 910-13. [PD] forfood: Some aspects CHAKRAVARTI, A. K. 1974.Regionalpreference 28:395-410. of food habit patternsin India. Canadian Geographer [AKC] CHANDULAL, SADAJIWATLAL. 1966. The economy of cattle. Animal Citizen[Madras] 4:30-32. Chicago Tribune. 1978. They're untouchable-except by hate. Section 1, p. 33, October8. [PD] of history. Science 199:753. [PD] COE, MICHAEL. 1978. Struggles of the cow in India. Folk-lore 23: CROOKE, W. 1912. The veneration 275-306. ofnorthern India. London: Oxford -. 1926. Religionandfolklore
BRYSON, REID

Simoons:QUESTIONS

IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

[EER]

EconomicWeekly 16:351-55. 4: . 1969a. Cow dung models. Economicand Political Weekly 1267-71. . 1969b. India's sacred cattle and culturalecology.Economic 4:1559-66. and Political Weekly . 1970. Sacred cattle and more sacred productionfunctions. 5:527-31. Economicand Political Weekly . 1973. Impact of cattle on the land. Janata 28 (7): 19-21. DANDEKAR, V. M., and NILANKANTHA RATH. 1971. Poverty in India. 6:25-48. 1. Dimensionsand trends. Economicand Political Weekly London: Oxford DARLING, MALCOLM LYALL. 1930. Rusticusloquitur. University Press. DAS, S. K. 1953.A studyoffolkcattlerites.Man in India 33:232-41. in InDEBYSINGH, MOLLY. 1970. Poultryand culturaldistributions Syradia. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, cuse, N.Y. Ritual and revolution DIENER, PAUL. 1978.The tearsof St. Anthony: in easternGuatemala.LatinAmerican Perspectives 5:92-116. [PD] DIENER, PAUL, DONALD NONINI, and EUGENE E. ROBKIN. 1978. The dialecticsof the sacred cow: Ecological adaptation vs. politicalapin the originsof India's cattle complex.DialecticalAnpropriation thropology 3:221-41. DIENER, PAUL, and EUGENE E. ROBKIN. 1978. Ecology, evolution, and the search for cultural origins:The question of Islamic pig prohibition. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 19:493-540. A geoDREW, FREDERIC. 1875. The Jimmooand Kashmirterritories: London: Edward Stanford. graphicalaccouint. DRUMMOND, WILLIAM J.1974. Taboo in India: State plans beef proBee [California], April 7, p. C 4. cessing plant. Sacramento DUBE, S. C. 1951. The Kamar. Lucknow: Universal. Press. . 1955. Indian village.Ithaca: CornellUniversity Paris: Gallimard. DUMONT, LoUIS. 1966. Homo hierarchicus. . .. de lafamine.Paris: Le Seuil. [CWS] DUMONT, R. 1975.Croissance London: John DURAND, ALGERNON. 1900. The makingof a frontier. Seminar[New Delhi], no. 93 1967. Many dimensions. (May), pp. 34-36. ELLEFSEN, RICHARD ARTHUR. 1968. The milksupplyof major Indian cities. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof California,
DUTT, VISHNU. VERRIER. 1955. The religion London: Oxof an Indian tribe. fordUniversity Press. York: India. New John Day. EMERSON, GERTRUDE. 1944. Voiceless 1971. The rape of the peasantry:Latin America's FEDER, ERNEST. York: [PD] Doubleday (Anchor). landholding system. New FORD FOUNDATION AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION TEAM. 1959. Report on India's food crisis and stepsto meetit. New Delhi: Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Ministryof CommunityDevelopment ELWIN,

of Government Printing. cutta: Officeof the Superintendent in cattle development. DANDEKAR, V. M. 1964. Problemof numbers

EDWARD

TUITE.

1872. Descriptive ethnology of Bengal. Cal-

Murray.

Berkeley,Calif.

and Cooperation, Government of India. don: S. W. Partridge.

AUGUST HERMANN. A., and

FRANCKE,

1907. A history Tibet.Lonof western

FREED.

FREED, STANLEY Indian village.

FRIEDMAN, JONATHAN. 1974. Marxism, structuralism, and vulgar materialism. Man 9: 444-69. FUCHS, STEPHEN. 1950. The children of Hani. Vienna: Herold.

11:399-408. Ethnologey

RUTH S.

1972. Cattle

in a North

--. 1960. The Gondand Bhumia ofeastern Mandla. London: Asia PublishingHouse. GANDHI, M. K. 1954. How to serve thae cow. Ahmedabad: Navajivan. BALKRISHNA. 1966. Asoka Maurya. GOKHALE, New York: Twayne. [PD] RAMPRATAP. 1948.Changesin customsand practicesamong GONDAL, some loweragricultural castes of the Kotah State. EasternAnthro1 (4):21-28. pologist GOPALAN, C., S. C. BALASUBRAMANIAN, B. V. RAMA SASTRI, and K. RAO. 1971. DietatlasofIndia. Hyderabad: National VISWESWARA Instituteof Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research. GOPALAN, C., and K. VIJAYARAGHAVAN. 1969. Nutrition atlasofIndia. Hyderabad: National InstituteofNutrition, Indian Councilof Medical Research. [AKC] Gosamvardhzana. 1960. In Mt. Abu Seminar: Committee's recom8 (5), pp. 9-21. mendations. GOULD, STEPHEN JAY. 1978. Morton's rankingof races by cranial capacity. Science200:503-9. [EER] GOULD, STEPHEN JAY,and NILES ELDREDGE. 1977. Punctuatedequilibria: The tempoand mode ofevolutionreconsidered. Paleobiology 3:115-51. [PD, EER] GURDON, P. R. T. 1904. Note on the Khasis, Syntengs,and allied tribes theKhasi and Jaintia inhabiting Hills district in Assam.Journal oftheAsiatic SocietyofBengal 73:57-74. HABERMAS, JtRGEN. 1974. Theory and practice. Translated by John Viertel.London: Heinemann. [EER] HALLPIKE, C. R. 1973.Functionalist interpretations of primitive warfare.Man 8:451-70. . 1974. Functionsofwar. Man 9:488-89. HANUMANTHA RAO, C. H. 1969. India's surplus cattle: Some empirical results. Economicand Political Weekly 4:A225-27. HARRIS, MARVIN". 1964. The natureof culturalthings.New York: Random House. [EER] . 1965. "The mythof the sacred cow," in Man, culture, and animals. Edited by A. Leeds and A. P. Vayda, pp. 217-28. Washington, D.C.: American Association fortheAdvancement ofScience. . 1966. The culturalecologyof India's sacred cattle. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 7:51-66. . 1968. The rise of anthropological theory: A history of theories New York: Crowell. ofculture. [EER] . 1974. Cows, pigs, wars, and witches.New York: Random House. [JES] . 1975. Culture, people,nature:An introduction to generalanthropology. New York: Crowell. [PD] . 1977a. Cannibals andkings. New York: Random House. -. 1977b.Determinants of bovine sex, age, and species ratiosin Kerala and All India. Paper readat theannualmeetings of theAmerican Anthropological Association, Houston,Tex. [MH] 1978a. India's sacred cow. Human Nature 1 (2):28-36. . 1978b.Commenton: Ecology, evolution,and the searchfor culturalorigins, by Paul Diener and Eugene E. Robkin. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 19:515-17. [PD] . 1979a. Reply to Sahlins. New YorkReview ofBooks. In press. [MH] . 1979b. Culturalmaterialism: The struggle for a scienceof culture. New York: Random House. [MH] of the U.S. Scientific HEADY, E. 0. 1976. The agriculture American 235:107-27. [CWS] HEMPEL, CARL G. 1959. "The logic of functional analysis," in SymEdited by L. Gross, pp. 271-307. posium on sociologicaltheory. New York: Harper and Row. [PD] HESTON, ALAN. 1971. An approach to the sacred cow of India. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 12:191-209. cow sacrifice. Hindu [Madras]. 1949. Dinapore Muslinsnot to offer September 29, p. 5. HIRSCHFELD, LAWRENCE A., JAMESHOWE, and BRUCE LEVIN. 1978. A commenton Diand statisticalinference: Warfare, infanticide, 80:110-15. vale and Harris. American Anthropologist [PD] HOFFPAUIR, ROBERT. 1977. The Indian milk buffalo:A paradox of 5:111-34. and low reputation. Asian Profile highperformance . 1978. Subsistencestrategyand its ecological consequences in the Nepal Himalaya. Anthropos 73:215-52. HORA, S. L. 1952. "The Rajputana Desert: Its value in India's national economy." Proceedings of theSymposiumon theRajputana Desert. Bulletin of the National Institute of Sciences of India 1 (4). [EER] HUTTON, J. H. 1933. CensusofIndia 1931. Vol. 1, pt. 1. Delhi: Manager of Publications. Imperial Gazetteer of India, ProvincialSeries: Kashmir and Jammu. of Government 1909. Calcutta: Superintendent Printing. lands: A world surJACKS,G. V., and R. 0. WHYTE. 1939. Vanishing New York: Doubleday, Doran. veyofsoil erosion. JOHRI, SITARAM. 1962. Where India China and Bigrma meet. Calcutta: Thacker Spink.

1979 Vol. 20 * No. 3 * September

491

of Bombay. bay: University [PD] of dairy aniKHURODY, D. N. 1963. Some thoughts on development mals in selectedareas of the country with special reference to the Indian Dairyman15:317-25. fourth five-year plan and thereafter. KIPLING, JOHNLoCKWOOD. 1892. 2d edition.Beast and man in India. London and New York: Macmillan. KOSAMBI, D. D. 1946. Earlv stages of the caste systemin northern BranchoftheRoyal Asiatic Society 22: India. Journalofthe Bombay 33-48. and civilization. 1965. AncientIndia: A history of its culture New York: Random House. [PD] LAL, MUKANDI. 1967. "Cow cult in India," in Cow-slaughter: Horns ofa dilemma.Edited by A. B. Shah, pp. 15-34. Bombay: Lalvani. LALL, HAR KRISHNA. Editor. 1973. The resurrection of cowin India. (Woolner Indological Series 15.) Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Institute. LEEDS, ANTHONY. 1978. Commenton: Ecology, evolution,and the searchforculturalorigins, by Paul Diener and Eugene E. Robkin. CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY 19:517-18. [PD] LEITNER, G. W. 1893. Dardistan in 1866, 1886 and 1893. Woking, England: OrientalUniversity Institute. LELYVELD, JOSEPH. 1967. Cow birth curb aim for India. A ustin [Texas] American, August 15, p. 4. A sacred cow. Environment 17:38LEON, BRUCE. 1975. Agriculture: 40. [AKC] India: Studiesin a Delhi LEWIS, OSCAR. 1965. Villagelifein northern [PD] village.New York: Random House (Vintage). basis ofevolutionary change. LEWONTIN, RICHARD C. 1974. The genetic Press. New York: Columbia University [EER] LEWONTIN, RICHARD C., and RICHARD LEVINS. 1976. "The problem of Lysenkoism,"in The radicalisation of science:Ideologyof/inthe naturalsciences.Edited by Hilarv Rose and Steven Rose, pp. 3264. London: Macmillan. [EER] A culturalgeogLODRICK, DERYCK 0. 1977. Goshalasand pinjrapoles: raphyoftheanimalhomesofIndia. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, of California, University Davis, Calif. and milkbovinesin an urban Indian set. 1979a. On religion 20:241-42, ting.CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY in the . 1979b."Ahimsa,man and animals: Aspectsof religion and culturallandscape ofwestern India," in India: Cultural pattern process.Edited by Allen G. Noble and Ashok K. Dutt. Washing[DOL] ton, D.C.: V. H. Winston.In press. LORIMER, D. L. R. 1935-38. The Burushaskilanguage.Vol. 3. InstiSerie B, Skrifter, 29. tuttetforSammenlignende Kulturforskning, in transition. Calcutta: Longmans, MAJUMDAR,D. N. 1937. A tribe Green. MARX, K. 1967(1887). Capital.Vol.2. New York: International. [MH] in Balochistan, MASSON, CHARLES. 1842. Narrative ofvarious journeys and thePanjab; including a residence in those countries Afganistan, from1826 to 1838. Vol. 1. London: Richard Bentley. University MAYADAS, C. 1954.Between London: Oxford us and hunger. Press. MarketingSeries 79. of hidesin India. Marketing 1. 967. Reporton themarketing Series 164. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. 1963. A villagesurvey of Kothi (Kalpa District Sub-Division, Kinnaur). Census of India 1961, vol. 20, pt. 6, no. 1 (Village SurveyMonographsof Himachal Pradesh 1). MISHRA, S. N. 1966. Cattle-meatand economicwelfare.Kyklos 19: 119-31. . 1973. Surpluscattle in India: A criticalsurvey.Sociological Bulletin22:297-308. . 1978. Livestock planning in India. New Delhi: Vikas. [SNM] MOFFATT, MICHAEL. 1975. Untouchables and the caste system: A Tamil case study. Contributions 9:111-22. to Indian Sociology and MONIER-WILLIAMS, MONIER. 1885. 2d edition. Religious thought lifein India. Pt. 1. Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism.London: JohnMurray. MOORCROFT, WILLIAM, and GEORGE TREBECK. 1841. Travels in the Himalayan provinces of Hindustanand thePanjab; in Ladakh and Kashmir; in Peshawar,Kabul, Kunduz, and Bokhara.Vol. 2. London: JohnMurray. MUHAMMAD,GHULAM. 1905. Festivals and folklore of Gilgit.Memoirs of theAsiatic Societyof Bengal 1:93-127. and improveMUKERJI, SANTOSH KUMAR. Editor. 1957. Preservation ment in WestBengal. Calcutta: Krisi Gopalan Silpa Sikshaofcattle lay (Dairy School and OutdoorVeterinary Hospital). in thedust: The humanelement in Indian deNAIR, K. 1961. Blossoms London: Duckworth. velopment. [CWS] NAIR, K. NARAYANAN. n.d. Livestock trade in Kerala: An analysis with special reference to interstate cattle trade. MS, Trivandrum, [MH] CentreforDevelopmentStudies. NAKAO, SASUKE.1956. "Agricultural practice,"in Land and cropsof ReNepalHimalaya. Edited by H. Kihara, pp. 95-107. (Scientific
492 MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE,DIRECTORATE OF MARKETING AND INSPECTION. 1955. Reporton themarketing of meatin India.

BomKANGLE, R. P. 1965. The Kautiliya Arthasastra. Pt. 3. A study.

sults of the Japanese Expeditions to Nepal Himalaya, 1952-53, vol. 2.) Kyoto: Kyoto University. TimesofIndia, K. K. G. 1975. Lift ban on cow-slaughter. NAMBIAR, March 30, p. 9. OF APPLIEDECONOMIC RESEARCH. 1963. SocioCOUNCIL NATIONAL in Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi. tribes survey ofprimitive economic NEWCOMER, PETER J. 1972.The Nuer are Dinka: An essay on origins Man 7:5-11. determinism. and environmental complex:Discovery NORTON, HELEN H. 1978. The male supremacist [PD] 80:665-67. Anthropologist American or invention? ODEND'HAL, STEWART. 1972. Energeticsof Indian cattle in theirenHuman Ecology1:3-22. vironment. Philadelofecology. ODUM, EUGENE E. 1971.3d edition.Fundamentals [EER] phia: Saunders. L. S. S. Editor. 1941. ModernIndia and theWest.LonO'MALLEY, Press. don: OxfordUniversity of livePALMIERI, RICHARD P. 1976. Domesticationand exploitation stockin the Nepal Himalaya and Tibet: An ecological,functional, econoin society, historical studyofyakand yak hybrids and culture my, and culture. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof California,Davis, Calif. ofgaushalas and pinjrapoles. PANNU, H. S. 1956. Kutch has tradition 4 (6-7) :21-24. Gosamvardhana H. 1973. "Physical problemsof the originof natuHOWARD PATTEE, Edited by A. homeostasis. ral controls,"in Biogenesis,evolution, Berlin: Springer. [PD] Locker,pp. 41-49. New York, Heidelberg, rePAUL, ROBERT, and PAUL RABINOW. 1976. Bourgeoisrationalism 1:121-34. vived. DialecticalAnthropology and society. D., and M. PIMENTEL.1979. Food, energy, PIMENTEL, [DP] London: Edward Arnold.In press. 1961. Pakistan: A compendium. PLATT,RAYE R. Editor-in-Chief. J. L. McPherson,and Compiled and edited by R. C. Kingsbury, [AKC] others.New York: AmericanGeographicalSociety. in livestockin agrarianeconomies.InRAJ, K. N. 1969. Investment 4:53-85. dian EconomicReview -. 1970. India's sacred cattle: Theories and empiricalresults. (Shastri Memorial Lectures.) MS, New Delhi, Indian Instituteof Research. Agricultural 1965. Economicsof liveA. R., and S. W. MURANJAN. RAJAPUROHIT, Use of cows fordraughtpurpose.Indian Journal stock enterprise: 20:121-29. Economics ofAgricultural in India. and animal husbandry RANDHAWA, M. S. 1962. Agriculture Research. [AKC] New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural M. S., and PREMNATH. 1959. FarmersofIndia. Vol. 1. RANDHAWA, Research. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural A. 1966. India's bovineburden.AmericanUniversities RAVENHOLT, Field StaffReports Service,South Asia Series 10 (12). REVELLE,R. 1976. Energy use in rural India. Science 192:969-75. [CWS] and J. E. LEGATES. RICE, V. A., F. N. ANDREWS, E. J. WARWICK, offarmanimals. New and improvement 1967. 6th edition.Breeding [EER] York: McGraw-Hill. ROSE, HILARY, and STEVEN ROSE. Editors. 1976a. The political economy of science: Ideologyof/in the natural sciences. London: Macmillan. [EER] of/inthenatural ofscience:Ideology -. 1976b.The radicalisation [EER] sciences.London: Macmillan. and castes ofthetribes ROSE, HORACE. Compiler.1911-19. A glossary Province.Vol. 3. Lahore: Frontier of the Punjab and North-West of Government Punjab. Printing, Superintendent of ROUSE, JOHN E. 1970. Worldcattle.2 vols. Norman: University [EER] Oklahoma Press. Seminar[New Delhi],no. 93 Roy, PRODIPTO. 1967.Social background. (May), pp. 17-23. 1937. The Khdrids.Vol. 1. Ranchi: "Man in Roy, SARAT CHANDRA. India" Office. The study SAHLINS, MARSHALL D. 1964. "Culture and environment: Edited by Sol Tax, ofanthropology. ofculturalecology,"in Horizons pp. 132-47. Chicago: Aldine. San Francisco Chronicle.1972. India fears surplus of sacred cows. March 20, p. 9. The legal aspect," in Cow-slaughSATHE, S. P. 1967. "Cow-slaughter: ter:Horns of a dilemma.Edited by A. B. Shah, pp. 69-82. Bombay: Lalvani. of ahimsaand cattle breedSCHNEIDER, BURCH H. 1948.The doctrine 67:87-92. Monthly ing in India. Scientific theOxus and theInduis. SCHOMBERG, REGINALD C. F. 1935. Between London: Martin Hopkinson. CALVINW. 1978a. Holy cow-provider or parasite? A SCHWABE, HumanitiesReview13:251-78. problemforhumanists.Southern in medicine. and progress Minneapolis: 1978b.Cattle, priests, [CWS] of Minnesota Press. University Charlottescuisine,orfoodforthought? .1979. Unmentionable [CWS] Press of Virginia.In press. ville: University Seminar[New Delhi], on industry. SEN, SANJOY.1967. Repercussions no. 93 (May), pp. 30-33.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

bay: Lalvani. The economicaspect," in CowSHAHI,M. M. 1967. "Cow-slaughter: Edited by A. B. Shah,pp. 44-68. Bomslaughter: Hornsofdilemma. bav: Lalvani. SHAW, R. B. 1878. Stray Arians in Tibet. Journalof theAsiatic SocietyofBengal 47:26-62. Tibetand theBritishborderland. SHERRING,CHARLES A. 1906. Western London: Edward Arnold. SIMOONS, FREDERICK J. 1961. Eat not this flesh:Food avoidancesin of WisconsinPress. theOld World.Madison: University and milkuse in southlimitsof milking . 1970. The traditional ern Asia. Anthropos 65:547-93. of India. Ecology . 1973. The sacred cow and the Constitution 2:281-96. of Food and Nutrition role of "the fiveproductsof the cow" . 1974. The purificatory 3:21-34. in Hinduism.Ecologyof Food and Nutrition and ELIZABETH S. SIMOONS. 1968.A ceremoniSIMOONS,FREDERICK J., of WisconsinPress. al ox of India. Madison: University animals.New Delhi: National Book SINGH, HARBANS. 1966. Domestic [EER] Trust. SINGH, KHUSHWANT. 1967. Holy men of India: In searchof the seekers of truth.New York Times Magazine, January8, pp. 42-43, 102-12. and classes: Their economic SINGH, MOHINDER. 1947. The depressed social condition. Bombay: Hind Kitabs. of an Indian official. SLEEMAN, W. H. 1915. Ramblesand recollections Revised annotated editionby VincentA. Smith. London: Oxford Press. University SNAPP, Rosco R., and A. L. NEUMANN. 1960. 5th edition.Beefcattle. New York: Wiley. [EER] SOPHER, DAVID E. 1975. "Indian pastoral castes and livestockecologies: A geographicanalysis," in Pastoralistsand nomadsin South Asia. (Schriftenreihedes Suidasien-Institutsder Universitiit Heidelberg.) Edited by Lawrence Saadia Leshnik and GuntherWiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Dietz Sontheimer. in India. George Town, SUNDARA RAM, L. L. 1927. Cow-protection Madras: South Indian HumanitarianLeague. Court Reports. 1959. MohammedHanif Quareshi& othersv. Supreme the State of Bihar. Pp. 629-90. in theeconomy ofIndia. n.d. New Delhi: All-India The roleoflivestock Cattle Show Society. Madras THURSTON, EDGAR. 1903. Paliyans. Bulletin,Anthropology, Government Museum 5:46-51. Time. 1961. Cowed. 78(8), pp. 26-28.

Horns of a dilemma.BomSHAH, A. B. Editor. 1967. Cow-slaughter:

Simoons:QUESTIONS

IN THE SACRED-COW CONTROVERSY

Times [London]. 1978a. Blow to Gandhi party.January24, p. 6e. . 1978b.Partv symbolappeal. January28, p. 5a. TimesofIndia. 1962.Wild cowson rampagein Ghoga area. March 28, p. 3. TRENKLE, ALLEN, and R. L. WILLHAM. 1977. Beef productionefficiency.Science 189:1009-15. [EER, CWS] UNITED NATIONS. 1977. Case studieson desertification, Luni developmentblock,India. United Nations Conference on Desertification August 29-September9, 1977, Nairobi, Kenya. UNDP Project RAS/75/063. [EER] U.S. AID MISSION TO INDIA. 1964. Land and water resources ofIndia. New Delhi. U.S. Newsand World Report. 1966.Wherecowseat and people starve. 61(21), p. 111. VON FtRER-HAIMENDORF, CHRISTOPH. 1963. "The social background of cattle-domestication in India," in Man and cattle.Edited by A. E. Mourant and F. E. Zeuner,pp. 144-49. London: Royal Anthropological Instituteof Great Britainand Ireland. . 1966. "Caste concepts and status distinctions in Buddhist ofwestern communities Nepal," in Castestudies in Hindu-Buddhist contact zones,pp. 140-60. New York: Asia PublishingHouse. VON LENGERKEN, S. H., and E. VON LENGERKEN. 1955. Ur, Hausrind und Mensch. Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Landwirt-Wissenschaf ten. [CWS] WAGNER, PHILIP L. 1978. Commenton: Ecology, evolution, and the searchfororigins, by Paul Diener and Eugene E. Robkin. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 19:523-24. WEISS, CHARLES. 1979. Mobilizingtechnology fordevelopingcountries.Science203: 1083-89. [MH] WHYTE, R. 0. 1964. Revised edition. The grasslandand fodderresourcesof India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research ScientificMonograph22. . 1968. Land, livestock, and human nutrition in India. New York: Praeger. . 1971. Grazing in the land ecosystemsof India. Annals of Arid Zone 10:111-19. . 1974. Land and land appraisal. The Hague: W. Junk. [EER] WIENER, NORBERT. 1948. Cybernetics, or Control and communication in theanimaland themachine. Cambridge:M.I.T. Press. [EER] WILLIAMSON, GRAHAME, and W. J. A. PAYNE. 1965. 2d edition.An to animal husbandry introduction in thetropics. London: Longman. [EER]

debate (CA 18:781-82, CA 20:135the recentTransylvanian 40). CA does not publishanonymouspapers-unless there is strongand unusual reason to do so. Even then,CA cannot publishunlessthe Editor knowsthe underany circumstances identity of the author.The authorof this articleis urged to and at once. communicate withthe Editorin confidence

ment for CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY subscriptions. The acceptable creditcardsare VISA (BankAmericard, Chargex, Barclaycard, Carte Bleue, etc.) and MASTERCHARGE (Eurocard,Access, etc.). In usingthissvstem, it is necessary to quote thefullcard number, expiration date, name,and address.

Vol. 20 * No. 3 * September 1979

493