Slamming writers who have returned their awards in the wake of the incident in Dadri where a man was lynched over beef rumours, RSS mouthpiece Panchjanya, in its latest edition, has carried a cover story saying the Vedas order the killing of “sinners” who slaughter cows.
It alleges that madrasas and the Muslim leadership teach Indian Muslims to hate the country’s traditions. “Akhlaq (the Dadri victim) perhaps slaughtered a cow under the influence of such bad deeds,” it states. Questioning the silence of writers, it asks them why they have been quiet on this issue.
“Veda ka adesh hai ki gau hatya karne wale pataki ke pran le lo. Hum mein se bahuton ke liye to yah jivan-maran ka prashn hai (Vedas order killing of the sinner who kills a cow. It is a matter of life and death for many of us),” states the article ‘Is Utpat ke Us paar’ (The other side of this disturbance)’ by Hindi writer Tufail Chaturvedi who edits the journal Lafz. Tufail is the name Vinay Krishna Chaturvedi uses.
“Cow slaughter is such a big thing for us that for hundreds of years our ancestors have staked their lives to prevent it and counter the killers.There are hundreds of such occasions in history when Muslim invaders thrust beef into our mouths to convert Hindus into Muslims,” it reads.
Speaking to The Sunday Express, Chaturvedi cited several instances of Vedas prohibiting cow slaughter. “30.18 of Yajurveda says ‘hand over capital punishment to those who kill cows’,” he said, adding that “Gau-hatya Hinduon ke liye maan bindu hai (Cow slaughter is an issue of honour for Hindus). Muslims who commit such acts today are converted Hindus of Indian origin. It is important for social harmony that we respect faiths of each other.”
In the article, Chaturvedi takes a swipe at writers who returned their awards after the lynching of Akhlaq: “Aapko Akhlaq dwara ki gayi gau-hatya nahi dikhayi di (You overlooked the cow-slaughter by Akhlaq). You did not consider that in the entire reporting of Akhlaq’s death, there is no mention of Akhlaq’s enmity with anyone in the village)”.
Claiming that the killing was a “natural reaction” to the “sin” of cow slaughter, the cover story turns to Isaac Newton to state “Newton had propagated the theory of natural reaction to any action in 1687. Aap log yah nahi dekh paye ki aisi soch ke samaj men rahne wala Akhlaq itne bhayanak parinam dene wale paap ke liye utsuk kaise ho gaya (you could not consider that how did Akhlaq, living in a society with such feelings (for the cow) become eager to commit a sin that invites such dreadful consequences).”
It goes on to say that “if you do not respect the feelings of 80 per cent majority”, then how can “such reactions be prevented”.
The article claims that society does not consider those “who kill the sinner who have slaughtered a cow from the perspective of advocates of appeasement”. The society “glorifies and remembers” such persons “martyred to prevent cow-slaughter”, it states.
Describing Indian Muslims as Hindus who have been “converted”, it states: “Who has taught the converted Indians to hate their origins, reject the traditions of centuries? After all, all Muslims, including Akhlaq, were Hindus until a few generations ago. Uske purvaj bhi usi tarah gau-rakshak thhe jaise gau-hatyaron ko dandit karne wale asankhya vir hain. (His ancestors were cow-protectors like the countless brave persons who punish those who kill cows). From where did these converted people gather so much hatred that they became cow-slaughterers from cow-protectors?”
Chaturvedi has named Muslim religious leaders who he claims have supported cow-slaughter and has questioned writers for never condemning “these wicked persons”.
Underlining the significance of cows for Hindus, the cover story states that the 1857 revolt was triggered only after the order of uncapping cartridge greased with beef.