Those who are Hindus used to consider cow as mother, believe it and will continue to believe it
India is the only unlucky country in the world where the history of India to be taught is written by those people who are mentally slaves of the British, staunch opponents of their own country's civilization, culture and religion, and staunch supporters of the invaders who invaded India. The attackers present themselves as heroes, while those who fight for the defense of their motherland, religion and people from those fanatic, violent narcissists, show the attacked Hindu heroes as enemies. What could be more unfortunate for this country than this? Here, if there are any qualities of the invading rulers, they write them in exaggeration after searching and if there are few flaws of the Hindus, then they make it a sesame palm. I have already exposed the despicable acts of these leftist historians in my manifesto, which you can read in the Manifesto tab under the Introduction tab. That's why without writing much here, I ask, think, will the history of India written by such foolish historians really be the history of India?
Left historian Dwijendranath Jha's article
One such leftist historian Dwijendranath Jha's article has been published in the BBC. He has written – “There are many such examples in the Vedic literature which show that beef was consumed even during that period. Even when the Yagya was performed, the cows were sacrificed. It was also a custom at that time that if a guest or a special person came, a cow was sacrificed to welcome him. The practice of eating and feeding beef was common in the rituals of marriage or even at the time of home entry. This is before the Gupta period. There has never been a ban on cow slaughter, but from the fifth century to the sixth century, small kingdoms began to form and the practice of donating land started. For this reason the importance of animals for agriculture increased. Especially the importance of cow also increased. After that, it was mentioned in the scriptures that the cow should not be killed.
By the fifth-sixth century, the number of Dalits had also increased significantly. At that time, Brahmins also started writing in the scriptures that the one who eats beef is a Dalit. At the same time, a provision of punishment was also made, that is, the one who killed the cow would have to atone for it. Still, there was no such law that the life of the cow slaughterer should be taken, as some people are saying today. But cow slaughter was kept in the category of Brahma murder. Despite this, no strict punishment was provided for this. As punishment, it was decided that the person who killed the cow would have to feed the Brahmins. This is not a major crime in the scriptures, so it was never banned in ancient times. Yes, although it certainly happened during the time of the Mughal emperors that there was an entry of Jains in the royal court, so cow slaughter was banned on some special occasions.
The whole controversy started in the 19th century when Arya Samaj was established and Swami Dayanand Saraswati campaigned for cow protection. And only after that it was marked that the one who sells and eats 'beef' is a Muslim. After this, communal tensions also started. Before that there were no communal riots. When you say that beef should be banned keeping in mind the sentiments of the majority of the country, you are hurting the sentiments of one of these sections as well. At the same time, you are also encroaching on the food and drink of another class”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/hindi/india/2015/04/150331_beef_history_dnjha_sra_vr?ocid=socialflow_facebook
You will be sad to know that most of the leftist historians also like to tell their mental filth as history. These include Romila Thapar, the most notorious leftist historian after Marxist historian DD Kaushambi.
left wing lie exposed
Now let's expose the lies of this leftist historian and tell its worth:
There have always been good and bad people, but that doesn't mean that evil is an acceptable part of normal life. Let's assume that even in Vedic times some people used to eat beef, but who were those people? And did he have acceptance in Hindu society? The answer is no. For example, today some Hindu names of lowly leftists also eat beef. Does this mean that Hindus eat beef? It is possible that in Vedic times, non-Vedic people - asuras, demons, demons, demons used to eat beef. They even used to eat human flesh. Then it should have also written that the Vedic people were cannibals. Let's take another example. Islamic terrorist organizations in and around Libya are cannibals. Saudi Arabia's Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, the head of the Muslim world's Sharia law, says that Muslims can eat the meat of their wives if food is not available in extreme circumstances. Would it be fair to say that Muslims are cannibals?
What Hindu scriptures say
Manu Smriti was written by Rajarshi Manu, the first progenitor of humans in India. Manu is said to be the first progenitor of human beings in any Manvantara and in each Manvantara Manusmriti is composed as the policy and constitution of the whole world, which is called the Universal Constitution of that Manvantara. At present, Vaivastha Manvantara is going on for thousands of millions of years and the present Manusmriti is the global constitution written by Vaivast Manu which was the constitution of the whole world before Christianity and Islam. That Manu Smriti says that alcohol, meat etc. are the food of yakshas, demons and vampires. (Manu Smriti 11/75)
For those who eat meat, it is said in the Manusmriti, “With whose consent you kill and who cuts off the limbs and separates them. The killer and the buyer, the seller, the cook, the one who serves and the eater are all fatal. There is no one who commits a greater sin than the one who desires to increase his own flesh from the flesh of others, disrespects the breached form of prohibition by eating the flesh of ancestors, gods and scholars. (Manu Smriti 5/5152)
These leftist historians themselves consider Manu Smriti to be at least pre-Gupta period. And note that eating beef is not criticized in this, but it has been criticized for eating all kinds of meat. And Chinese sources show that the original Manusmriti text was composed of ten thousand AD and this is only a historical estimate, the reality is that it has been the constitution of the world for millions of years. The Vedas were composed even before that. Let's expose the deceit of these idiots with the evidence of Vedas:
Rigveda 8.11.15 - I tell the wise man that you poor innocent singer do not kill, she is Aditi, that is, she is not capable of cutting.
Rigveda 8.101.16 - Human beings do not kill the cow by being short-witted.
Atharvaveda 10.1.29 - Do not kill our cow, horse and man.
Atharvaveda 12.4.38 - The son of the one who cooks the (old) cow in the house dies.
Atharvaveda 4.11.3 - He who does not eat bullocks does not get into trouble
Rigveda 6.28.4 - Cows should not go to slaughterhouse
Atharvaveda 8.3.24 - Whoever deprives people of cow's milk by killing a cow, cut off his head with a sword
Yajurveda 13.43 - Don't kill cows, which are irreconcilable
Atharvaveda 7.5.5 - Those people who perform yagya with a dog or with the parts of a cow are fools
Yajurveda 30.18 - Give death penalty to the cow killer
If we read the above things carefully, it comes to the conclusion that even at that time there were some Asuras, Rakshasas, Demons, wicked people who used to kill cows or eat their meat, but as it is said in Manusmriti, according to the universal constitution that was was wrong. Therefore, in the Vedas, along with the prohibition of cow slaughter, eating of beef, strict punishment was also enacted for that misdeed.
In fact, in the Rigveda, Saraswati among rivers and cow among animals has been used most often and as the most sacred word. It is clear from these hymns of the Vedas that what it said that the people of the Vedic period used to eat beef, there was no provision for punishment or very little punishment for cow slaughter, cow sacrifice was done in yagyas, etc. And the Left is bullshit.
The provision of capital punishment on cow slaughter was applicable till the arrival of the invading Muslims in India. We also get evidence of this from the incident that happened in Saptagram of Bengal in the thirteenth century.
One day a Muslim living in Saptagram, on the occasion of circumcision of his son, cut a cow and had a feast. This news spread like fire all over Bengal. For the Hindus, the cow was revered and sacred like a mother. Cow slaughter is prohibited in the Vedas and there is a law of death penalty for the killing of cow. That is why all the Hindus were hurt and angry due to the slaughter of cows in the holy shrine of Saptagram. He demanded Man Nripati to punish him. King Man Nripati sentenced the son of that Muslim to death and he was put to death. (An Account of the Temple of Triveni near Hugli, by D. Money, Esq. Bengal Civil Service)
Whether small states started forming in India in the fifth to sixth century
Then it says that "from the fifth century to the sixth century, small kingdoms began to be formed and the practice of donating land started. For this reason the importance of animals for agriculture increased. Especially the importance of cow also increased. After that, it was mentioned in the scriptures that the cow should not be killed. By the fifth-sixth century, the number of Dalits had also increased significantly. At that time, Brahmins also started writing in the scriptures that the one who eats beef is a Dalit."
The invention of agriculture and the beginning of agricultural work was done by Ichchhavaku Vanshi Maharaj Prithu, whose kingdom was called Prithvi, due to which the most popular word for the whole earth remains even today. Since the leftists are blind of wisdom, they will not see that far, but the leftist historians say that before 500 AD there was an empire of the Haryanka dynasty, in which Bimbisara and Ajatashatru were the two Chakravarti emperors. After that Ghanananda was the Chakravarti emperor of India, India was divided into only 16 Mahajanapadas from present Bangladesh to Afghanistan. According to these historians, the empire of Chandragup Maurya was from Afghanistan, Pakistan in the north to Kashmir in the south, Narmada in the south and most of the Bengal region in the east, then Ashoka had expanded that empire further. The saga of Chakrabarti emperor Vikramaditya was sung in the Arab country as well, the evidence of which is still preserved in museums. Were all these small states?
Secondly, was the cow not the only symbol of prosperity from the Vedic period to the later Vedic period? Wasn't fighting mainly for the cow? Then how did its importance increase in the fifth to sixth century? Did oxen start being used in plows from the 5th to the 6th century? Before that agriculture and plow were not used? Only these leftist historians tell that traces of plows have been found in the Indus Valley Civilization before 2000 AD. Evidence of rice cultivation has been found in Mehrgarh before 8000 AD. Although their time-count is also a sample of their lies and deceit, but they will be seen in a different subject. But it is clear from the above that these leftist historians have become handicapped due to anti-India, anti-Hindu mentality. They do not understand any difference between true history and leftist mental perversion.
Whether Dalit was there in Indian history and literature
Now see that the word Dalit is not used in any of our texts. The word Dalit is modern. When it says that at that time Brahmins also started writing in the scriptures that the one who eats beef is a Dalit, it simply means that he is lying hundred percent. Even if Dalits are considered to be Hindu castes included in the Scheduled Caste category, even then these hundred percent will prove to be false because Hindus, irrespective of their caste, cannot eat beef. The Hindu castes included in the Scheduled Castes were invaders, violent, plunderers, exploiters, oppressors, tyrannical Muslims-became impoverished by the misrule of the British rulers, except for the exception, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas (read the paper - Scheduled Castes Muslims- There are Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas who became poor due to the misrule, tyranny, loot of the British rulers). Words like Upper Caste, Lower Caste, Untouchable were invented by the British. For scientific reasons, the domes who cremate the dead and the tanners who trade in the leather of the dead animals were settled on the outskirts of the village/city so that the infection would not spread. These were called untouchables by the British under the divide and rule policy. With the knowledge of this British, blind Nehruvians, Leftists and Dalitists created a campaign of untouchability. Even the messiah of Dalits, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar himself was neither a Dalit nor an untouchable, but a Mahar (was) Kshatriya, a descendant of Panduputra Mahabali Bhima. The Mahar castes until at least the nineteenth century or later proudly claimed themselves to be descendants of the Pandavas and fought on the side of the Pandavas against the Kauravas in the war of Mahabharata (read the paper - Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was neither a Dalit nor an untouchable, They were Kshatriyas). Dr. Ambedkar also knew the history of his caste very well, so he has written in his book "Who is Shudra" that most of the Shudra castes are the children of Kshatriyas. But these cunning Nehruvian leftist historians neither believe in true history nor Babasaheb Ambedkar.
The question is then who were the people who used to eat beef and against whom it is written in Manusmriti and Vedas? स्पष्ट है वे क्षत्रिय, ब्राह्मण, वैश्य या शूद्र हिन्दू नहीं थे, बल्कि भारतवर्ष में तब भी वामपंथियों, जिहादियों और मिशनरियों की तरह रहनेवाले कुछ लोग थे जो गौ मांस खाते थे, जिन्हें उनके कुकर्मों के आधार पर मनुस्मृति और वेदों में असुर, राक्षस, दानव, दैत्य आदि बुरे शब्दों से लांक्षित किया गया है. वैदिक लोगों को गौ मांस ना खाने की सलाह दी जाती थी और दंड का प्रावधान किया गया था ताकि वे उन नीच लोगों की तरह असुर, राक्षस और पिशाच मनोवृत्ति के नहीं बने. खुद द्विजेन्द्रनाथ झा इसका बढ़िया उदहारण है जो हिन्दू होकर नीचता की सारी हदें लांघता है. इसके जैसे कुछ लोग यदि आज भी गौ मांस खाते हैं तो इसका यह कतई मतलब नहीं हो सकता है कि हिंदू लोग गौ मांस खानेवाले होते हैं.