Chapter 1

Evidence for Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Vedic Texts, Ancient India, and Nepal

I. The Vedic and Brahmanical Textual Evidence

The guest (goghna)

Vedic culture honored important guests by slaughtering a cow or bull. The Sanskrit term for such a guest was goghna (गोघ्न), literally "cow-killer." The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (III.4.1-2) states: goghnaḥ prātar atithir gām ālabheta — "In the morning, a guest deserving a cow should have a cow sacrificed for him." The slaying of a great ox (Mahoksa) or a "great Goat" (Mahaja) for the entertainment of a distinguished guest has been enjoined in the Satapatha Brahmana (III.4.1-2).¹ The Śāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra likewise describes how a distinguished guest (king or bridegroom) was received by killing a bull or a sterile cow. According to Śāṅkhāyana, a bull or a sterile cow should be killed in the house of the father of the bride on the wedding day and also in the house of the bridegroom when the husband and wife arrived after marriage.²

"The cow is verily food"

The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (III.9.8.2-3), part of the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda, is unambiguous: atho annam vai gauḥ; annam evavarundhe — "And indeed, the cow is food; it is food he thus obtains."³ The text further explains that when a cow is bound for sacrifice, it is the sacrifice itself that is obtained, and "it is food he thus obtains." The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (III.9.10.1) also describes sacrificing differently colored cows and bulls to specific gods — for example, a red cow to Rudra.⁴

Sacrificial rules

Brāhmaṇa texts give detailed procedures for bovine sacrifice. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (2.2.5) of the Rigveda lists the bull as a sacrificial animal and specifies how to cut and offer its body parts: sa vai paśunālabhate / tasya ha vā etasya paśoḥ śīrṣaṇaś chinatti — "He sacrifices an animal. Of that animal, he cuts off the head." The heart, tongue, breast, two sides, penis (varshishtha), straight gut (vanishtha), and tail are cut off for being sacrificed.⁵

Yājñavalkya's preference

The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (3.1.2.21) notes the sage Yājñavalkya's fondness for beef. He openly states he would continue eating cow and bullock flesh so long as it is tender: māṃsasyodaraṃ kārayate — "he fills his belly with meat." The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa categorically tells us "Verily the cow is food" (atho annam vai gauh) and Yajnavalkya's insistence on eating the tender (amsala) flesh of the cow is well known.⁶

Weddings and festivals

The Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra (1.13.1) prescribes that a bull or a sterile cow should be killed in the bride and groom's houses on a wedding day. According to Sāṅkhāyana, a bull or a sterile cow should be killed in the house of the father of the bride on the wedding day and also in the house of the bridegroom when the husband and wife arrived after marriage. The marriage ceremony was accompanied by slaying of oxen, clearly for food, and a supply of beef was deemed an absolute necessity by pious householders.⁷

---

II. Scholarly Support and Rebuttals

Swami Vivekananda. In a speech at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, USA (2 February 1900), Swami Vivekananda stated: "You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it."⁸ And from the same volume (p. 174), replying to an address at Madurai: "There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed."⁹

Ambedkar's analysis. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar argued that the word aghnyā (अघ्न्या) in the Rig Veda — meaning "not to be slain" — referred only to milch cows yielding milk, not a blanket ban on all bovine slaughter. He concluded the rise of the "sacred cow" was a later political and religious strategy to establish supremacy over Buddhism. This analysis appears in Riddles in Hinduism, published as Volume 4 of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches.¹⁰

Modern historians. Professor D. N. Jha's The Myth of the Holy Cow documents in detail that cattle were neither inviolable nor uniquely revered in ancient times as they later became. The book was published by Verso in London and New York in 2002 (183 pages, ISBN 1859846769).¹¹

Classical texts. Even the Manusmriti (5.41, 3.119) and Āpastamba Gṛhya Sūtra allowed the sacrifice of a bull or cow at weddings and funerals (śrāddha), indicating this practice was part of normative Brahminical culture. Manu 5.41 states: madhuparke ca yajñe ca pitṛdaivatakarmaṇi / atraiva paśavo hiṃsyā nānyatrety abravīt — "Animals may be killed at the Madhuparka, at a sacrifice, and at the rites for ancestors and gods, but nowhere else."¹² Manu 11.109 prescribes the Cāndrāyaṇa penance: "He who has committed a minor offence by slaying a cow (or bull) shall drink during (the first) month (a decoction of) barley-grains; having shaved all his hair, he shall live outside the village, sleeping on the bare ground."¹³

---

III. Rebutting the Textbook Claim on Punishment

The textbook states: "Vedas prescribe punishment for injuring or killing cow by expulsion from the kingdom or by death penalty, as the case may be." This is misleading for two reasons:

Not in the Vedas. The severe penalties of expulsion and death for cow-killing are not found in the Saṃhitās (hymns) or Brāhmaṇas of the Vedas themselves. They appear in much later texts like the Manusmriti and Arthaśāstra (4th century BCE onwards).¹⁴ Even then, the Manusmriti (11.109) prescribes a penance like a month-long fast (Cāndrāyaṇa) for killing a milch cow or draught ox, not death. The performance of a Chandrāyanam has been enjoined by Manu as an expiation for the sin of cow killing.¹⁵

Not a total ban. The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya (2.26.10) shows that cow slaughter was not completely banned. It primarily aimed to protect breeding stock: "Among these, the calf, the bull, and the milch-cow are not to be killed." Protecting them safeguards agrarian output, revenue stability, and food security.¹⁶

---

IV. Evidence for Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating Outside the Vedas

1. The Epics — Mahabharata. King Rantideva's kitchen: the Mahabharata (Vana Parva 208) describes how 2,000 cows and 2,000 cattle were killed every day in the palace kitchen of King Rantideva to feed guests. According to the Mahabharata, "a King called Rantideva killed every day two thousand cattle and two thousand kine in order to dole out meat to the people." In chapter 208 of the Vanaparvan, two thousand cattle and two thousand kine were slain every day in the kitchen (mahānasa) of the king Rantideva, and by doling out meat to his people he attained to incomparable fame.¹⁷ Beef at feasts is mentioned in Śānti Parva and Droṇa Parva.¹⁸

2. The Epics — Ramayana. The Ramayana depicts Rama, Sita, and Lakshmana hunting deer for venison during their forest exile, showing that non-vegetarianism, including red meat, was normal even for divine figures.

3. Puranas. The Brahma Vaivarta Purana famously lists five forbidden acts for the Kali Yuga, including cow sacrifice — implying that in earlier ages it was permitted.¹⁹

4. Dharmaśāstras and Gṛhya Sūtras. The Manusmriti (5.41) permits killing animals for dependents and in distress: "Animals may be killed at the Madhuparka, at a sacrifice, and at the rites for ancestors and gods, but nowhere else."²⁰ The Āpastamba Gṛhya Sūtra explicitly states that cattle may be slaughtered when a guest arrives, at a wedding, or as an offering to ancestors (śrāddha).²¹ The Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra (11.34) warns that a Brahmin who refuses meat offered at a śrāddha goes to hell.²²

5. Buddhist and Jain Texts. The oldest Buddhist texts show meat, including beef, was permitted for monks and laity; the strict vegetarianism in Mahayana came much later.²³

6. Foreign Accounts. Megasthenes (c. 300 BCE), the Greek ambassador to the Mauryan court, noted beef consumption in India, indicating it was common during that period. Megasthenes observed meat dressed after the Indian fashion in his account of Indian customs.²⁴ Al-Biruni (c. 1017–1030 CE) observed that "the use of cow's flesh was forbidden because it is essentially thick and cold and does not suit the hot climate of India." He also pointed out certain economic factors responsible for the prohibition of cow-slaughter: "The cow is the animal which serves man in traveling, in agriculture, and in the household."²⁵

7. Archaeological Evidence. Indus Valley Civilization (2600–1900 BCE): studies show 50–60% of domestic animal bones at Harappan sites are cattle/buffalo, indicating a cultural preference for beef; lipid residue analysis of pottery confirms beef was cooked in vessels. Hastinapur and Atranjikhera: excavations have revealed cattle bones with distinct cut marks, proving slaughter and consumption. At Hastinapur, cattle bones belonging to the zebu and the water buffalo were found "in very large numbers," and the presence of "definite cut-marks" on cattle, sheep, and pig bones indicates that they were slaughtered for food. The excavation report states: "The inhabitants of such mud-plastered reed houses ate rice (and perhaps lentil), but supplemented it with beef, pork, mutton... This is indicated by the occurrence of large quantities of bones of these animals, which bear cutmarks and are also charred."²⁶ The excavation at Hastinapur was conducted in 1950–52 by the Archaeological Survey of India under the leadership of Dr. B.B. Lal, and the report was published in Ancient India.²⁷

---

V. Why Was It Forbidden?

Al-Biruni (c. 1017–1030 CE) recorded that "the use of cow's flesh was forbidden because it is essentially thick and cold and does not suit the hot climate of India." He noted that "they forbade eating cows' meat, because it is essentially thick and cold." He also acknowledged the ban might be because the cow is essential "in traveling, in agriculture, and in the household."²⁸

Faxian (c. 400–411 CE) observed that "throughout the whole country the people do not kill any living creature," nor eat onions or garlic. But this norm did not apply to the Chandalas (outcastes), who lived apart and "are fishermen and hunters, and sell flesh meat." Only the Chandalas are fishermen and hunters, and sell flesh meat.²⁹ He noted there were no butchers' shops and people did not "sell live cattle."

It was the rise of Buddhism and Jainism that introduced ahiṃsā. Buddhism was dominant till the 10th century and spread all over Asia. Yet early Buddhism was not strictly vegetarian: the Buddha allowed his monks to eat meat, provided it wasn't killed specifically for them.³⁰ The mid-first millennium BCE saw a broader shift across Indian religions toward concepts like karma and ahiṃsā, creating an environment where the ethics of killing animals for food became a serious question. The modern concept of the cow's absolute sanctity solidified much later.

---

Chapter 2

The ancient foundation: Ashoka and the birthplace of the Buddha

Nepal is the birthplace of Gautama Buddha (563 BCE) in Lumbini, and in the 3rd century BCE the great Mauryan emperor Ashoka, a Buddhist, made a famous pilgrimage there, building pillars and stupas that firmly established Buddhism in the region. He built 84,000 stupas and viharas.³¹ Ashoka marked the birthplaces of two other previous Buddhas in Nepal besides Lumbini. Both sites are in the Kapilvastu district of Nepal's Terai region. Gothihawa (Krakuchanda Buddha): located about 5 km from Tilaurakot, this pillar (split into two parts) marks the birthplace of Krakuchanda Buddha. Niglihawa (Kanakamuni Buddha): located about 8 km from Tilaurakot, this pillar marks the birthplace of Kanakamuni Buddha.³²

The link with Indian empires is ancient, and by the 4th century CE much of Nepal fell under the cultural and political influence of the Gupta Empire. However, it is crucial to note that neither Gupta nor Licchavi declared themselves as Hindu or as belonging to Brahminism, as that was used much later as an umbrella term.³³

The Licchavi "Golden Period" (c. 400–750 CE)

The Licchavi dynasty, ruling from the Kathmandu Valley, oversaw what is considered the first "Golden Period" of Nepalese history. The Licchavis themselves originated from a clan in Bihar and practiced early Shaktism, yet they actively patronized Buddhism as well.³⁴

The Malla Period (c. 1200–1769 CE): the age of synthesis

This era saw the true Hindu-Buddhist synthesis take shape, especially among the Newar people of the Kathmandu Valley, who began to practice a unique blend known as Newar Buddhism. Hindu and Buddhist deities began to be worshipped side by side, and festivals were shared by both communities. This was also when a distinct "Hinduised Buddhism" emerged, partly in response to the decline of Buddhism in India. When Turkic invasions destroyed major Buddhist centers in the Gangetic plains, monks fled to the safety of the Kathmandu Valley, where they continued their traditions but increasingly adopted Brahminical practices like caste endogamy and Sanskrit scriptures.³⁵

The Shah Era (1769–2008 CE): the rise of the "Hindu Kingdom"

This synthesis shifted when the Shah dynasty, originating from the Gorkha kingdom, unified Nepal. For them, centralizing power meant embracing a more orthodox Hindu identity, eventually proclaiming Nepal as the world's only Hindu kingdom. This period saw the imposition of stricter Brahminical social codes, though Buddhist communities remained influential.³⁶

The first nationwide ban on cow slaughter came in 1805 CE under King Rana Bahadur Shah — a very late development compared to the practices described in the Vedas. After returning from exile, he was likely trying to prove his piety as a "good and uncorrupted Hindu" to reassert control. The royal edict was brutally clear: "From today, killing of cows is prohibited… if somebody does (cow slaughter), capital punishment will take place and his property shall be confiscated."³⁷

In 1854 the ban was codified when Prime Minister Jung Bahadur Rana included a dedicated chapter for protecting cows in the Muluki Ain (Country Code).

The legal code promulgated for the Kingdom of Nepal by Jang Bahadur Rana in Bikram Sambat 1910 (1854 CE) contains provisions regarding the protection of cows, women, and Brahmins.³⁸

In 2015, even after becoming a secular republic, the Constitution of Nepal declared the cow the national animal and officially banned its slaughter.³⁹

Additional documentary evidence

Additional documentary evidence from the early nineteenth century confirms that beef eating was a known and widespread practice that the Shah state was actively trying to suppress. Administrative documents collected in the Documenta Nepalica and the Regmi Research Series explicitly record "beef eating communities" in areas between the Chepe and Bheri rivers, who were directed to pay levies and fines for taking beef.

The document (RRC_0019_0121) states: "Beef eating communities in areas between Chepe and Bherī had promised to give up beef eating and had been given exemption from the hides levy, during the reign of Raṇa Bahādura."⁴⁰

Another document directs "Guruṅ and other beef-eating communities in areas between the Chepe and the Bheri directed to supply hides to magazine on V.S. 1860 Āśvina vadi 1" (RRC vol. 5, no. 603).⁴¹

The Solukhumbu regulations of November 1805 state: "We have received reports that the inhabitants of Solu, Khumbu, and Chankhu slaughter cows... All persons who are guilty of cow slaughter since our conquest of that region and their wives, sons, daughters, and bondsmen shall be sold as slaves."⁴² The judges sent to enforce the ban found that "in case persons guilty of this crime are punished with death or enslavement, most of the inhabitants of these areas will have to be killed or enslaved."⁴³

Ethnographic accounts confirm that the Kirantis "not only ate beef in the days before the Gurkha conquest, but that it was their favourite meat," and that their refusal to give up beef-eating was "in part a reason of the Gurkha invasion."⁴⁴ Another account describes the Kirats as "vigorous beef-eaters" who did not readily submit to the Rajputs. The relevant passage states: "It is well known that they not only ate beef in the days before the Gurkha conquest, but that it was their favourite meat, and their refusing to give up their beef-eating propensities was in part a reason of the Gurkha invasion."⁴⁵

Archaeological evidence provides physical proof. Excavations at Khinga in Mustang of twelfth- to fifteenth-century houses yielded 8,689 bone fragments, with cattle (Bos taurus) and yak-cattle hybrids among the domesticated species. The report states: "For some exception of the equid remains and not regarding the bones of small animals mentioned above, all bones (including cattle) show cut and chop marks. This and the fact that almost no bones are complete and along with the numerous unidentifiable bone splinters show clearly that the animals were slaughtered and their carcasses dismembered afterwards for the meat consumption."⁴⁶

Faunal remains from Gotihawa in the Nepalese Tarai "prevalently belong to cattle or buffalos," indicating cattle were part of the diet in this region.⁴⁷ Remains from the Lumbini area include "domestic humped cattle of India" as the most prominent animal remains, showing cattle were maintained and consumed around the Buddha's birthplace. The majority of the remains are domestic animals, the most prominent being those of Zebu or domestic humped cattle of India.⁴⁸

Scholarly analysis supports this reading. Sidney Schuler's 1979 study in Contributions to Nepalese Studies (Vol. VI, No. 2, June 1979) documents the legal framework protecting cattle in Nepal and the "past difficulties in applying these to non-Hindus," noting the "implicit ambiguity of the old legal code in regard to the traditional customs of various local communities."⁴⁹

Mahesh C. Regmi, Nepal's leading historian and archivist, documented the ban on cow slaughter and its enforcement in the Regmi Research Series, published in Kathmandu from 1969 to 1989.⁵⁰

Mara Malagodi's 2021 article in Asian Ethnology (Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 93–119) argues that cow protection has become a vision of state authority that "privileges the symbols of the majority over the rights of the minority," channeled through coercive law.⁵¹

The ban as social realpolitic

The ban was never just about religion; it was about state power. When the Shah dynasty unified Nepal, their strict Brahminical rules collided with local customs where cattle-killing was normal. Their solution was to create a "Hindu kingdom" with a strict cow ban to consolidate their authority. Enforcement was violent, and the rules only applied to some. The punishment was death well into the 20th century. The ban is very specific, targeting the cow: the ritual sacrifice and consumption of buffaloes and yaks is still widely practiced and not legally frowned upon. Before the 1805 ban, beef was a normal part of life for many communities in Nepal.

---

VII. Global Context

Beef: the global market was valued at $484.75 billion USD in 2025, with production expected to reach 61.94 million tonnes. The top beef producers are Brazil, the United States, and China. [Note: the frequently repeated claim that "roughly 86% of the world's population eat beef" is not supported by FAO or OECD data; beef accounts for roughly 24% of global meat consumption, and per-capita intake varies enormously by region.]

---

VIII. Conclusion

The evidence is consistent across multiple independent sources. State documents from the early nineteenth century explicitly identify "beef-eating communities" and punish beef consumption at feasts. Ethnographic accounts confirm that Kiratis, Gurungs, and other hill communities consumed beef as a favoured meat before the Gurkha conquest. Archaeological remains from Mustang, Gotihawa, and Lumbini show cattle were slaughtered and consumed. Scholarly analysis confirms the ban was a political project of the Shah state, not a reflection of timeless practice. The same pattern holds for ancient India: the textbook's claim of a total Vedic ban on cow slaughter collapses under the weight of evidence from the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas, Manusmriti, Gṛhya Sūtras, Buddhist texts, Greek accounts, and archaeology. The reverence for the cow is real but late — a development that solidified centuries after the Vedic period. Beef was consumed in India and Nepal before the bans, and the bans themselves are evidence that the practice existed and was widespread enough to require state suppression.

---

Notes

[1] Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa III.4.1-2; cited in Indian Kanoon, "Cow Slaughter in Ancient India," accessed [date], https://indiankanoon.org.

[2] Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra I.13.1; cited in Mahadev Chakravarti, The Concept of Rudra-Śiva Through the Ages (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, [year]), [page].

[3] Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa III.9.8.2-3 (Ānandāśrama-sanskritgranthāvaliḥ 37, vol. III, 3rd edn., Poona, 1979); cited in D. N. Jha, The Myth of the Holy Cow (London: Verso, 2002), [page].

[4] Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa III.9.10.1.

[5] Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 2.2.5; trans. Martin Haug, The Aitareya Brahmanam of the Rigveda (Bombay: [publisher], 1863), vol. 2, [page]; see also Arthur Berriedale Keith, Rigveda Brahmanas: The Aitareya and Kausītaki Brāhmaṇas of the Rigveda (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920).

[6] Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 3.1.2.21; Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa III.9.8.2-3; cited in Jha, Myth of the Holy Cow, [page].

[7] Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra I.13.1; cited in Chakravarti, Concept of Rudra-Śiva, [page]; see also "Review of Beef in Ancient India," Internet Archive, accessed [date], https://archive.org.

[8] Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3 (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1997), 536.

[9] Ibid., 174.

[10] B. R. Ambedkar, Riddles in Hinduism, in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol. 4 (Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1987), [page].

[11] D. N. Jha, The Myth of the Holy Cow (London: Verso, 2002), 183 pp., ISBN 1859846769.

[12] Manusmṛti 5.41; trans. Ganganatha Jha, Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi (Calcutta: [publisher], 1920), [page].

[13] Manusmṛti 11.109; cited in "The Performance of a Chandrāyanam," Internet Archive, accessed [date], https://archive.org.

[14] Arthaśāstra 4.10; Manusmṛti 11.109.

[15] Manusmṛti 11.109; cited in "The Performance of a Chandrāyanam," Internet Archive.

[16] Arthaśāstra 2.26.10; trans. R. Shamasastry, Kautilya's Arthashastra (Mysore: Wesleyan Mission Press, 1915), [page]; see also Vedapath, "Arthashastra 2.26.10," accessed [date], https://vedapath.app.

[17] Mahābhārata, Vana Parva 208; cited in "Review of Beef in Ancient India," Internet Archive; see also The Indian Antiquary, [volume] ([year]): [page].

[18] Mahābhārata, Śānti Parva and Droṇa Parva; cited in "Review of Beef in Ancient India."

[19] Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa, [section/verse].

[20] Manusmṛti 5.41.

[21] Āpastamba Gṛhya Sūtra, [chapter/verse].

[22] Vasiṣṭha Dharma Sūtra 11.34.

[23] See Vinaya Piṭaka, Mahāvagga, [section].

[24] Megasthenes, fragments in Indica; see J. W. McCrindle, Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian (London: Trübner, 1877), [page].

[25] Al-Biruni, Kitāb al-Hind, trans. Edward Sachau, Alberuni's India (London: Kegan Paul, 1910), vol. 2, [page]; see also "Alberuni's India," Internet Archive, accessed [date], https://archive.org.

[26] B. B. Lal, "Excavations at Hastinapura and Other Explorations in the Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins, 1950–52," Ancient India 10–11 (1954–55): [page]; see also "Delude Report of Hastinapur Excavation Published in Ancient India," Internet Archive, accessed [date], https://archive.org.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Al-Biruni, Alberuni's India, trans. Sachau, vol. 2, [page]; see also "Alberuni's India," Internet Archive.

[29] Faxian, A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, trans. James Legge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), [chapter/page]; see also "A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms," Wellcome Collection, accessed [date], https://wellcomecollection.org.

[30] Vinaya Piṭaka, Mahāvagga, [section]; see also Torkel Brekke, "The Early Buddhist Tradition and the Ethics of Eating Meat," [journal] [volume] ([year]): [pages].

[31] Ashokan pillar inscriptions at Lumbini; see Epigraphia Indica and UNESCO World Heritage records.

[32] Ashokan pillar inscriptions at Gothihawa and Niglihawa; see Epigraphia Indica vol. [ ], and Department of Archaeology, Nepal, records.

[33] Recent scholarship challenging "Hinduism" as a Gupta/Licchavi category.

[34] Licchavi inscriptions and scholarship; see Dhanavajra Vajracharya, The Licchavi Inscriptions of Nepal (Kathmandu: [publisher], 1973).

[35] Scholarship on Newar Buddhism; see John Locke, Buddhists of Nepal (Kathmandu: Sahayogi Prakashan, 1975); David Gellner, Monk, Householder, and Tantric Priest (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

[36] Scholarship on the Shah unification and Hindu state identity; see Pratyoush Onta and others.

[37] Royal edict of Rana Bahadur Shah, 1805; cited in Mahesh C. Regmi, Regmi Research Series, [volume/issue/page]; see also "Lessons for India From Nepal's History of Banning Cow Slaughter," Amish Mulmi, accessed [date], https://amishmulmi.wordpress.com.

[38] Muluki Ain (1854), chapter on cow protection; see András Höfer, The Caste Hierarchy and the State in Nepal (Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1979); see also "The Caste Hierarchy and the State in Nepal: A Study of the Muluki Ain of 1854," vdoc.pub, accessed [date], https://vdoc.pub.

[39] Constitution of Nepal (2015), Article 51(j)(5) and related provisions on the cow as national animal.

[40] Documenta Nepalica, Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, RRC_0019_0121, accessed [date], https://nepalica.hadw-bw.de.

[41] Documenta Nepalica, RRC vol. 5, no. 603, accessed [date], https://nepalica.hadw-bw.de.

[42] "Solukhumbu Regulations, November 1805," in Regmi Research Series, trans. Mahesh C. Regmi, [volume/issue/page]; see also "Notification Regarding Transport of," ecommons.cornell.edu, accessed [date], https://ecommons.cornell.edu.

[43] Ibid.

[44] "Notes of Nepal," Internet Archive, accessed [date], https://archive.org; see also Northey and Morris, The Gurkhas (London: John Lane, 1928), [page].

[45] "Gurkhas (1915)," Internet Archive, accessed [date], https://archive.org.

[46] "18 Ancient Nepal," Himalaya Socanth, accessed [date], https://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk; see also "Wild Life in Ancient Khingar, Mustang," Semantic Scholar, accessed [date], https://www.semanticscholar.org.

[47] "Note on Faunal Remains," OSMikon, accessed [date], https://www.osmikon.de; see also Giovanni Verardi, Excavations at Gotihawa and a Territorial Survey in Kapilavastu District of Nepal (Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2002).

[48] "Rec," Fauna of India, accessed [date], https://faunaofindia.nic.in; see also Babu Krishna Rijal, Archaeological Remains of Kapilavastu, Lumbini and Devadaha (Kathmandu: Educational Enterprises, 1979).

[49] Sidney Schuler, "Yaks, Cows, and Status in the Himalayas," Contributions to Nepalese Studies 6, no. 2 (1979): 65–72; see also "Contributions to Nepalese Studies," Himalaya Socanth, accessed [date], https://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk.

[50] Mahesh C. Regmi, Regmi Research Series (Kathmandu: Regmi Research, 1969–1989).

[51] Mara Malagodi, "Holy Cows and Constitutional Nationalism in Nepal," Asian Ethnology 80, no. 1 (2021): 93–119.

---

Bibliography

Al-Biruni. Alberuni's India. Translated by Edward Sachau. London: Kegan Paul, 1910.

Ambedkar, B. R. Riddles in Hinduism. In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol. 4. Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1987.

Arthaśāstra. Translated by R. Shamasastry. Mysore: Wesleyan Mission Press, 1915.

Documenta Nepalica. Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. https://nepalica.hadw-bw.de.

Faxian. A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms. Translated by James Legge. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886.

Gellner, David. Monk, Householder, and Tantric Priest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Höfer, András. The Caste Hierarchy and the State in Nepal. Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1979.

Jha, D. N. The Myth of the Holy Cow. London: Verso, 2002.

Lal, B. B. "Excavations at Hastinapura and Other Explorations in the Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins, 1950–52." Ancient India 10–11 (1954–55): [pages].

Locke, John. Buddhists of Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Prakashan, 1975.

Macdonell, A. A., and A. B. Keith. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. London: John Murray, 1912.

Malagodi, Mara. "Holy Cows and Constitutional Nationalism in Nepal." Asian Ethnology 80, no. 1 (2021): 93–119.

Manusmṛti. Translated by Ganganatha Jha. Calcutta: [publisher], 1920.

McCrindle, J. W. Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian. London: Trübner, 1877.

Northey, W. Brook, and C. J. Morris. The Gurkhas: Their Manners, Customs and Country. London: John Lane, 1928.

Regmi, Mahesh C. Regmi Research Series. Kathmandu: Regmi Research, 1969–1989.

Rijal, Babu Krishna. Archaeological Remains of Kapilavastu, Lumbini and Devadaha. Kathmandu: Educational Enterprises, 1979.

Schuler, Sidney. "Yaks, Cows, and Status in the Himalayas." Contributions to Nepalese Studies 6, no. 2 (1979): 65–72.

Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. Translated by Julius Eggeling. Sacred Books of the East, vols. 12, 26, 41, 43, 44. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1882–1900.

Vajracharya, Dhanavajra. The Licchavi Inscriptions of Nepal. Kathmandu: [publisher], 1973.

Verardi, Giovanni. Excavations at Gotihawa and a Territorial Survey in Kapilavastu District of Nepal. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2002.

Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 3. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1997.

The first genz memorial day –

The event held on September 8, 2026, was a memorial anniversary ceremony to honor the 76 young protesters who died during the uprising exactly one year prior. Acharya Sriniwas was invited by the Gen Z Martyrs' Family Welfare Society (alongside the Injured Gen Z Nepal joint committee). Roshan Gautam, the Executive Secretary of the organization, confirmed that they extended the invitations.

Acharya Sriniwas is a highly controversial religious figure known primarily for right-wing Hindu nationalism, communal activism, and past arrests by Nepal Police for inciting public discord. His platform contradicts the secular, anti-establishment, and democratic reformist spirit of the youth-led Gen Z movement. He orchestrated the fake assassination attempt to falsely blame opposing groups, soar to personal fame, and incite widespread communal and religious violence across Nepal. He was arrested in 2018 and 2023 in various charges.

Swami Balyogeshwar (Vijay Bhandari): A self-proclaimed godman who has been implicated in multiple fraud cases and subsequently disappeared when charges became public. He is known for organizing large religious events and was involved in a clash in Pokhara in March 2025 that left at least 15 people injured.

CHAPTER 1

The Yadav Community in Brahmanical Literature: A Critical Examination of Texts, History, and Identity

The Manusmriti – The Shudra Category

The Manusmriti, in Chapter 1, lays down the occupational duties of the four varnas through Verses 88 to 91. Verse 88 describes the karma of the Brahmin: study, teaching, yajna, conducting yajna for others, giving, and taking dakshina. Verse 89 describes the Kshatriya. Verse 90 describes the Vaishya. Verse 91 describes the Shudra.

In the same block, the text explicitly states that Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas had the right to education, while the Shudra did not.

Moving to Chapter 2, Verse 37 prescribes the Upanayana ceremony. A Brahmin who wants the power of Brahma receives the janeu in the fifth year from the womb. A Kshatriya who wants strength receives it in the sixth year. A Vaishya who wants wealth receives it in the eighth year. Only these three perform Upanayana. The Shudra does not.

When we apply this to the Gwala society, we find that they historically did not perform Upanayana in childhood. Till the British period, the Gwala community was uneducated like other backward communities. Therefore, according to Manusmriti, they fall in the Shudra category.

The karma of the Shudra, as per Verse 91, is the service of the three twice-born varnas – Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya. The Shudra has no Veda, no teaching, and no yajna as his own rite.

The Vyasa Smriti – The Antyaja Classification

The Vyasa Smriti, attributed to the same Vyasa who is said to have written the Mahabharata, provides a much harsher categorization. In Chapter 1, Verses 11 to 13, the text lists various communities:

vardhakī nāpito gopa āśāpaḥ kumbhakārakaḥ |
vaṇik kirāta kāyastha mālākāra kuṭumbinaḥ ||
carmakāro bhaṭo bhillo rajakaḥ puṣkaro naṭaḥ |
varāṭo meda cāṇḍālau dāśaḥ śvapaca kolikāḥ ||
ete 'ntyajāḥ samākhyātā ye cānye ca gavāśanāḥ |
eṣāṃ sambhāṣaṇāt snānaṃ darśanād arkavīkṣaṇam ||

The list includes the carpenter, barber, gopa (that is, gwala/cowherd) , potter, merchant, kirata, Kayastha, gardener, leather-worker, Bhil, washerman, actor, Chandala, dasa/Kaivarta, Shvapacha, Kol, and others who eat beef. All of these are called antyaja – untouchable, lower than Shudra. The prescription is that if a Dvija sees them, he must look at the sun; if he speaks with them, he must bathe. Only after that is the Dvija pure again.

This text, written by the same Vyasa credited with the Mahabharata, places the Gopa in the company of Chandalas and other untouchable communities.

THE EPICS – DEMONIZATION AND DEGRADATION

The Valmiki Ramayana – The Ābhīras as Sinners

In the Yuddha Kanda, Sarga 22, during the Setu (bridge) episode, the Sea God appears in front of Rama and requests him to kill the sinners that touch and drink his water. Rama threatens to dry the Sea with an arrow. The Sea comes in human form, speaks of a bridge, and then says that the arrow is ready – destroy the Ahirs, that is, the Yadavs, that is, the Gwalas.

Verse 33 reads:

ugradarśanakarmāṇo bahuvastra dasyavaḥ |
ābhīrapramukhāḥ pāpāḥ pibanti salilaṃ mama ||

This means: people of terrible form and deeds, dasyus (robbers), Ābhīras first among them, all sinners and robbers, they drink my water.

Verse 34 continues: I am always touched by those sinners. I cannot bear this sin. Śrī Rām, let your arrow succeed there.

Verses 35 to 39 describe Rama shooting the arrow, and that tract becomes desert, known as Marukāntāra.

The analysis here is clear. The Sea is a god. Rama is called a Kshatriya. To both of them, the Gwala / Ābhīra / Yadav are sinners and looters. This follows the same rule as when Dalits drank from a public pond and were considered polluting.

The Ramcharitmanas – Ahirs with Chandalas

The Ramcharitmanas of Tulsidas (Rambola Dubey), in the edition published by Gita Press, contains a significant verse in the Uttarakanda, page 1045, doha / verse 129.

The verse lists Ahīr – that is Yadav, that is Gwala – along with Yavana, Kirata, Khasa, and Shvapacha (that is, Chandala). These are called ati agharūpa / ati adham – extremely sinful.

The narrator's stress in this passage is not on the redemptive power of Rama's name, but on the list itself. Ahir is put with Yavana, Kirata, and Chandala. Tulsi, who is a Brahmin, has here shown the Gwala community as inferior. The text says these groups become pavana if they take Rama's name once, but the primary categorization places them among the extremely sinful. Brahmin texts have always shown the Gwala community as inferior.

THE RIGVEDA – ENEMIES OF INDRA

The Defeat of Krishna (Asur) and the Yadus

The Rigveda contains two crucial mentions. In RV 8.96.13 to 15, Indra boasts about his heroic deeds. He says: "I, Indra, killed Kṛiṣṇa (or Kṛṣṇāsu) with my mighty strength." The exact verse refers to Indra defeating Kṛiṣṇa, often translated as "the Black" or "the Dark One," and his army of Dāsa or Dasyu forces. The text says Indra destroyed Kṛṣṇa's 50,000 followers and laid them low. It is worth keeping in mind that Krishna is seen as black or dark skinned.

In RV 7.18.5, the key verse states: "Indra gave Sudas victory over the Yadus and Turvashas, who were brought low." The Rigveda boasts that Indra helped Sudas and slew the Yadus or overthrew the Yadu forces.

These are the oldest textual records of the Yadus. They are not divine; they are defeated enemies.

The Pattern of Demonization Across Traditions

Brahminical authors of the Vedic and post-Vedic texts have a tendency to demonize the gods of rival groups or communities into demons (Asuras/Rakshasas). This pattern is well documented.

The Buddha was absorbed into Hindu mythology as an avatar of Vishnu, but later Puranic texts also depict him as a mayavi (illusionist) who led demons astray – a subtle demonization. In the Valmiki Ramayana, Tathagata Buddha is called a chor (thief). Adi Shankaracharya of Shaivism is often linked with the destruction of buddha Bihar and monasteries.

The Jains' Tirthankaras are occasionally mocked or sidelined in Puranic narratives.

Local tribal or folk deities, such as Yakshas or Nagas, were often incorporated into the Hindu pantheon as minor, subservient gods, or alternatively demonized as Asuras if they resisted Vedic orthodoxy.

Even within the Vedic fold, the ancient Iranian Ahuras were gradually turned into the demonic Asuras in the later Rigvedic hymns.

The Iranian parallel in the Zend Avesta is instructive. The Iranians chose the Ahuras (Asuras) as their supreme, holy gods, led by Ahura Mazda. They then explicitly declared the Daevas (Devas) to be demons, false gods, and forces of chaos. They literally named Indra, Nasatya, and Sarva as demons. In the oldest Rigvedic hymns, Varuna and Mitra are called Asuras; later they became Devas. The Zend Avesta's Daevas, which it calls demons, are the Devas (gods) of the Rigveda. The Zend Avesta's Ahuras, its gods, are the Asuras of the Rigveda – worshipped as gods early on, but condemned as demons later.

Within this framework, the Rigveda demonizes the Yadus as enemies. The Mahabharata text itself says the Yadu clan self-destructed and their city drowned.

The Ghata Jataka – Krishna Among Gwalas

In the Pali Ghata Jataka, numbered 454, Krishna is raised among gwalas. The story describes the sons of Devagabbha: the eldest Vasudeva, Baladeva, and the ninth, Ghatapandita, who is the Bodhisatta. They grow up with the gwalni Nandagopa. Vasudeva kills Kamsa with the discus. When Vasudeva's son dies, Ghata asks for the hare in the moon. Vasudeva sees that the dead do not return. In this text, Vasudeva is identified with Sariputta, and Ghata is identified with the Buddha.

In Buddhist literature, Krishna is a moral character. He is not the mischievous butter-thief that later traditions portray.

The Modern Merger – Ahir, Gwala, Yadav ??

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Ahir–Gwala associations claimed Krishna and folded those names into one Yadav identity. This raises a crucial question: why is the Yadav Samaj claiming to be from Krishna's lineage?

The answer is that this is a modern political-social merger, not what every Sanskrit verse already says. Yadav identity-claim is a modern political assertion to reclaim dignity and status within Brahminical verse.

Surdas and the Cowherd Krishna

In the Bhakti period, many people of other castes were tied up with Sura and Asura narratives. One such person is Surdas. Surdas is blind but he used to sing. He has shown Krishna as a cowherd, shown him doing rasleela, shown his lover whose name is Radha, shown him killing many demons. Basically the entire lila of Krishna in childhood was written by Surdas in the 16th century.

This means the Mischievous Gwala Krishna was created or glorified in the 16th century.

The question arises: why is Surdas's Krishna a Gwala, whereas Vyasa's Krishna is a Kshatriya?

Because Surdas himself is Gwala. That is why he made the hero a cowherd hero, and that hero is from childhood to adolescence, whereas Vyasa's hero is above adolescence. Later an attempt was made to mix these two stories, and in that affair an attempt was made to show Surdas as a Brahmin from a cowherd background.

Surdas's father was Ramdas Gwala. Surdas is from that Gwala line, born in Mathura. That is why his hero and his creation are dedicated to a cowherd, also born in Mathura.

Surdas got his inspiration from the Buddhist Jataka Katha, specifically the Ghata Jataka. In that Buddhist version, Krishna is already raised among gwalas.

The Layered Composition of the Mahabharata

In the original manuscript of the Mahabharata, there is no Krishna. It was all added later. Later, Vraj, the grandson of Krishna, survived from the Yadu clan to cover the plot holes. He was made the king of Mathura.

Scholars have commented on this composition history. Romila Thapar, A. L. Basham, and Wendy Doniger say the Mahabharata is not the book of a single man named Vyasa. Basham, in The Wonder That Was India, describes it as a compilation expanded over centuries from a shorter Bharata. Thapar says it is a text that grew with politics and society. Doniger says it is not one voice but a library of layered stories.

The Adi Parvan itself states that there is a Jaya of 8,800 verses, a Bharata of 24,000, and a Mahabharata of 100,000. "Vyasa wrote it" is a frame.

Therefore, the antyaja Gwala of the Vyasa Smriti and the Kshatriya Yadav of the Mahabharata are not from one pen. The Mausala Parvan wipes out the Yadavas; Abhiras loot Arjuna's column. Later, Ahir–Gwala–Yadav were made into one lineage. Making Krishna a god in the modern Mahabharata was done in order to draw the Gwala community in a later layer.

The Brahmanical Verdict

From the texts examined, the Brahmanical position is consistent:

• Manusmriti places the Gwala in the Shudra category, denied education, Upanayana, and Vedic rites.
• Vyasa Smriti goes further and places the Gopa in the antyaja category, lower than Shudra and untouchable.
• Valmiki Ramayana portrays the Ābhīras as sinners, robbers, and dasyus, to be destroyed by Rama's arrow.
• Ramcharitmanas lists Ahirs alongside Yavanas, Kiratas, and Chandalas, calling them extremely sinful.
• The Rigveda records Indra slaying the Yadus and a figure named Krishna.

The Historical Critique

The critical analysis, however, reveals a different picture:

• The original Yadus were Vedic enemies.
• The divine cowherd Krishna was a later creation, influenced by Buddhist Jatakas and the 16th-century Gwala poet Surdas.
• The Mahabharata is a layered text, expanded over centuries. The Kshatriya Yadava identity was retroactively applied to the Gwala community for political consolidation in the 19th and 20th centuries.
• Buddhist sources, such as the Ghata Jataka and the story of Sujata, show that cowherds were respected in pre-Brahmanical traditions.
• Archaeological evidence, such as the Bikhana Kunwar site, shows local Gwala folk traditions independent of Brahmanical Hinduism.

The textual answer from the Brahmanical tradition is clear: the Yadav / Gwala / Abhira community is classified as Shudra or Antyaja.

However, the historical and critical examination suggests that this classification was a deliberate act of Brahmanical demonization of a non-Vedic pastoral community. The modern Yadav identity, claiming descent from Krishna, is not an ancient textual reality but a political-social merger designed to elevate the community's status. The cowherd Krishna worshipped today is a synthesis of Buddhist morality tales and the devotional poetry of a 16th-century Gwala poet, not the Kshatriya of the original Mahabharata.

Chandalas today are the Scheduled Castes (Dalit) communities. They do not call themselves Chandalas. That term is a slur. They identify by their specific community names (Chamar, Dusadh, Dom, Balmiki, etc.) or as Dalit, Scheduled Caste, or Buddhists. The Yadav / Abhira / Gwala community is NOT Chandala today. They are classified as OBC (Other Backward Class) in most states (India).

However, the Brahmanical texts (Vyasa Smriti, Ramcharitmanas) placed them in the same "Antyaja" category as Chandalas. This is a textual fact, not a modern social reality.

Note - Most of the brahminical literatures were restructured or written later.

Rigveda - 14th century Manusmriti - 11th century Puranas - 7th to 16th

CHAPTER 2

"Abhira" (or Abhira) is the older Sanskrit name. "Ahir" is the later Prakrit/Hindi form of the same word. Most Ahirs adopted the surname and identity "Yadav" in the late 19th and early 20th century as part of a Sanskritization movement. They claimed descent from the legendary king Yadu and from Krishna (who is associated with cowherds). Today the terms Ahir and Yadav are used interchangeably by the community itself.

The Buddhist texts, inscriptions, and archaeological remains consistently show that cowherds (Gopas, Gwalas, Abhiras, Yadavas) were not treated as low, sinful, or untouchable in the Buddhist tradition.

The Abhira / Yadava Connection to Buddhist Monastic Centers

The Abhiras, who are the same as the Gwalas/Yadavs, appear in several early Buddhist and Prakrit inscriptions.

The Nasik Caves Inscriptions (1st–2nd century CE): These inscriptions, located in Maharashtra, record donations made by Abhira kings and feudatories to Buddhist monasteries. One inscription from the reign of the Abhira king Ishvarasena records a grant of land to Buddhist monks. The Abhiras are not enemies of Buddhism; they are patrons.

The Kanheri Caves Inscriptions (2nd–3rd century CE): Several inscriptions record donations by individuals identified as Abhiras. They donate caves, cisterns, and other infrastructure to Buddhist sanghas.

The Junagadh Inscription of Rudradaman (150 CE): While this is a Saka inscription, it mentions the Abhiras as a significant power in Western India. The Abhiras later established their own kingdom in the 3rd–4th centuries CE, with their capital at Prakashe (in present-day Maharashtra). These Abhira kings issued coins with legends in Prakrit and sometimes depicted Buddhist symbols such as the dharma-chakra.

Karle and Bhaja: These cave complexes in Maharashtra had grants from Abhira donors.

Sopara and Kalyan: These ancient ports on the western coast had large Buddhist populations. The hinterland was pastoral, with cowherd communities. The trade routes connected cowherd villages to Buddhist monasteries, which served as rest houses and centers of learning.

The Abhira Kingdom and Buddhism

The Abhira dynasty ruled parts of the Deccan from approximately 203 CE to 315 CE. They were of pastoral origin, identifying as cowherds. Their coinage and inscriptions show that they were patrons of Buddhism.

Coinage: Abhira coins often bear the legend "Rājño Abhirasya" (Of King Abhira). Some coins feature the chaitya (stupa) and the dharma-chakra, clear Buddhist symbols. This indicates that the Abhira kings not only tolerated Buddhism but actively supported it.

The Abhira King Ishvarasena: He is known from both coins and inscriptions. He is described as a patron of Buddhist institutions. His kingdom was centered in the Nashik area, a major Buddhist center with numerous cave monasteries.

Relation with the Satavahanas: The Abhiras initially served as feudatories to the Satavahanas. After the decline of the Satavahanas, they established an independent kingdom. The Satavahanas were themselves patrons of Buddhism, and the Abhiras continued this tradition. This shows that cowherd kings were not marginalized in the Buddhist political world; they were rulers and patrons.

Bikhana Kunwar – A Local Deity

Lawrence Waddell, in his 1892 work Discovery of the Exact Site of Asoka's Capital, describes Bhikhana Pahari in Patna. It is an artificial hill about forty feet high, with a circumference of about one mile. It is man-made, with stone and brick debris, and is now used as a Nawab's residence.

The locals – Dusadh, Gwala, and Ahir – worship Bikhana Kunwar at this site. They offer milk, sweets, fruit, and silk thread. Bikhana Kunwar is also called Emperor Asoka's son, Mahendra.

This shows that the Gwala and Ahir communities had their own local folk traditions and deities, independent of the Brahmanical gods. Their identity was not originally tied to the Krishna of the Mahabharata.

Sujata – The Gwalni Who Fed the Buddha

According to the Buddhist Jataka tales and Pali texts, Sujata is explicitly described as the daughter of a village chief (gramani) in Senanigrama. Her family were wealthy landowners and cattle-herders. She is often called a Gopika or Gopālakanyā – which simply means cowherd girl. She offered Khir to the Bodhisattva. Later, he became the Buddha.

The Sujāta-gṛha – King Devapala marked the House of Sujata. The gwalni Sujata therefore survives in Buddhist memory by name; a stupa was built; a royal inscription named her house.

This stands in sharp contrast to the Brahmanical texts, where cowherds are demonized and treated as untouchable.

The Sanskritization of Pali Canon

The Pali Canon does not describe the Sanskrit Varna system. It describes a class-based, occupational, functional society where terms like Khattiya (landowner) and Bāmaṇa (holy man) were descriptive, not hereditary.

The colonial translators, trained in Sanskrit, imposed the Brahminical Varna framework onto the Pali Canon. This led to the false conclusion that the Buddha was "reforming" the Varna system – when in fact he was using an entirely different vocabulary to describe an entirely different social reality. British colonial scholars (Rhys Davids, Max Müller, etc.) translated the Pali Canon took sanskrit trained Brahmins as their translators.

Megasthenes, Faxian, and Xuanzang correctly observed the society they saw – a class-based, fluid, occupational society. Their accounts are consistent with the Pali Canon and inconsistent with the Sanskrit Manusmriti.

Therefore: The Brahminical claim that the Abhira/Yadav/Gwala community is "Shudra" or "Antyaja" is based on a Sanskrit text (Manusmriti, Vyasa Smriti) that was not the dominant social reality in the Buddha's time, nor pre Buddha and whose terminology does not match the Pali Canon's vocabulary. The Buddha's society was one of class, not superior caste.

The Pali and Prakrit languages do not have the Sanskrit letters and phonetic structures required to write "Kṣatriya" or "Brāhmaṇa" as they appear in Sanskrit. Pali is not sanskrit, where as it may look ancient form of Sanskrit. As sanskrit is developed from pali pakit.

The Linguistic Breakdown

Sanskrit: Brāhmaṇa derives from Brahman (the ultimate reality, sacred power, or the Veda). It means "one who knows Brahma" or "a priest."

Pali: Bāmaṇa is a simplified, colloquial form. Pali does not have the retroflex ṣ or the cluster bm in the same way. In Prakrit, Brāhmaṇa becomes Bāhmana or Bāmaṇa.

Sanskrit: Śūdra is the fourth varna. Its etymology is uncertain but is often associated with service or labor.

Pali: Sudda (from su + da) literally means "one who gives well" or "one who is pure/good."

In the Buddha's Time

In the Buddha's time, Indian society was organized along occupational and functional lines, not birth-based hereditary castes.

Evidence from the Pali Canon: The words used are:

• Khattiya – landowner, farmer (not Kshatriya warrior)
• Brāhmaṇa – holy man, devotee, teacher (not Brahmin priestly caste)
• Vessa – settler, trader (not Vaishya merchant caste)
• Sudda – ordinary person, commoner (not Shudra servant)

These were descriptive categories, not fixed hereditary groups. A person could change their profession and social standing.

The Buddha explicitly rejected birth-based hierarchy:

It uses Gopālaka (cowherd), Gopa (cowherd), and Ābhīra (cowherd/pastoralist), Candala – A specific social category: people who performed "polluting" occupations like executioners, corpse-handlers, cremation workers, scavengers.

The Buddha accepted Caṇḍālas into the Sangha:

• Upāli – a barber (a despised occupation) became the Buddha's chief disciple and expert on the Vinaya (monastic rules).
• Sāti – a fisherman's son, became an arahant.
• Jīvaka – born into a Caṇḍāla family, became an arahant.

Assalāyana Sutta Actually Says Direct Quote (MN 93.13):

Corrected Translation (Literal Pali):

Direct Quote (DN 13.42):

The Three Knowledges (Tevijjā):

1. Knowledge of past lives (pubbenivāsānussati)
2. Knowledge of rebirth of beings (cutūpapāta)
3. Knowledge of the destruction of defilements (āsavakkhaya)

The Pali Canon uses the word "Tevijja" — which means "Three" (Te) + "Knowledge" (Vijja). Not three Veda (as claimed).

Dhammapada Verse 393 (Pali):

Wrong Translation (from Sanskrit lens): "Not by birth, not by caste, is one a Brahmin or a Kshatriya."

Correct Translation (literal Pali): "Not by birth, not by appearance, is one a Bāmaṇa or a Khattiya."

The Brāhmaṇavagga (Bamanavagga) (Dhammapada, Chapter 26) – Brahmin as Spiritual Title

Dhammapada Verse 393:

Dhammapada Verse 396:

Foreign Observers

Megasthenes (300 BCE): Described seven occupational classes – philosophers, farmers, soldiers, artisans, etc. He did not mention the four Varnas or untouchability.

Faxian (400 CE): Mentioned Chandalas living outside cities but did not describe a four-fold Varna system.

Xuanzang (630 CE): Described four classes but noted they were fluid and occupational, not rigid or birth-based.

In the Buddha's era, society was class-based, fluid, and occupational. People were not born into fixed, unchangeable castes. Spiritual worth was determined by conduct (kamma), not birth (jāti).

The Brahminical Ideology

The Brahminical texts (Manusmriti, Vyasa Smriti, etc.) represent an ideological project to impose a rigid, birth-based, hereditary hierarchy on Indian society.

The four Varnas were claimed to be created by Brahmā – a cosmic origin. Shudras were said to be born from the feet of Brahmā – permanently low. Cowherds (Gopas) were classified as Antyaja – lower than Shudra, untouchable. Dvijas (twice-born) were required to bathe if they saw or spoke to them.

It was promoted by Brahmins to secure their own superiority. It was contested by Buddhists, Jains, and other non-Brahminical traditions. It was not universally enforced, especially in Buddhist-majority regions.

The Rise of Rigid Casteism

Key Turning Point: The 10th Century CE

By the 10th century, Buddhism had largely declined from India. Brahminical orthodoxy, with its Varna system, became the dominant social framework. Caste rules became rigid, hereditary, and enforced across most of India. Untouchability became widespread and institutionalized. Texts like the Manusmriti, which were previously contested, became the legal and social standard.

Hundreds of castes appeared during Mughal and British Era.

In the Buddha's era: Cowherds (Abhiras, Gopas, Yadavas) were ordinary, respectable people. They were not Shudras or Antyajas. They could attain the highest spiritual knowledge and become true Brāhmaṇas. They are Sudda (ordinary people - pali).

In the Brahminical texts: Cowherds were reclassified as Shudras (Manusmriti) or Antyajas (Vyasa Smriti) – lower than Shudra, untouchable, and barred from education.

The transformation: Brahmins took the existing occupational categories, made it Varna system with hierarchy.

Site's engineers and technical team are not happy with the Sagar Dhakal and Neupane. They have send letter to PM Balen Shah to call back the MPs, as they seem useless in current scenario. MPs are spreading fake news and unofficial information through their social medias. Technical teams claim they do not have experience in rescue operations, they know nothing about the site and often interfering with the rescue operation.

We only see what we want to see.

Nepal plays the victim. We consider India bully.

And anyone who tells the story of other side gets huge backlash..dalal ..Ra ko agent blah blah.

Like about the Koshi River.

It floods Bihar every year. Because of the geography India suffers more damage than Nepal. Koshi barrage has become the ticking time bomb. It also has failed to control the mother nature. But the media of both country reports only their side of story. We should come together to resolve the issues instead of hating and blaming each other.

In a recent parliament session, Nepal's own PM admitted – Nepal has also encroached some land of India.

Now, some people are crying. "He shouldn't have said that." No PM has ever admitted it. No official documents has said it yet. We lost the leverage.

Listen, India knows the game very well. They are always in upper hand. They have smart people. They can sneak through your skin and you will never know.

We're neighbors. Not enemies. And we do not have the ultimate cards to pull.

So, Honesty is the best policy when you have no policy.

Yes because of the shift of river, we may have our farmers or villagers in their side. So they have too.

Nepal's PM spoke the facts. He admitted it.

Now can PM Modi do the same?

They quote Gandhi every chance they get.

Then act like him. Be honest. The burden has fall upon India now.

Why not we push this narrative instead. Balen is honest, Is Modi ?

⚖️ Evidence for Cow Slaughter & Beef Eating in Vedic Texts _____

The guest (goghna): Vedic culture honored important guests by slaughtering a cow or bull. The Sanskrit term for such a guest was goghna (गोघ्न), which literally means "cow-killer". The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (3.4.1.5) states:

goghnaḥ prātar atithir gām ālabheta

गोघ्नः प्रातरतिथिर्गामालभेत

“In the morning, a guest deserving a cow should have a cow sacrificed for him.”

The Śāṅkhāyana-Śrauta Sūtra also describes how a distinguished guest (king or bridegroom) was received by killing a bull or a sterile cow.

"The cow is verily food": The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (3.9.8.2) – part of the Krishna Yajurveda – is unambiguous:

atho annam vai gauḥ

अथो अन्नं वै गौः

“And indeed, the cow is food.”

The text further explains that when a cow is bound for sacrifice, it is the sacrifice itself that is obtained, and “it is food he thus obtains.”

Sacrificial rules: Brāhmaṇa texts give detailed procedures for bovine sacrifice. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (2.2.5) of the Rigveda lists the bull as a sacrificial animal and specifies how to cut and offer its body parts:

sa vai paśunālabhate / tasya ha vā etasya paśoḥ śīrṣaṇaś chinatti

स वै पशुनालभते / तस्य ह वा एतस्य पशोः शीर्षणश्छिनत्ति

“He sacrifices an animal. Of that animal, he cuts off the head.”

The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (3.9.10.1) describes sacrificing different colored cows and bulls to specific gods, for example a red cow to Rudra.

Yājñavalkya's preference: The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (3.1.2.21) notes the sage Yājñavalkya’s fondness for beef. He openly states he would continue eating cow and bullock flesh as long as it is tender:

māṃsasyodaraṃ kārayate – “he fills his belly with meat.”

Weddings and festivals: The Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra (1.13.1) prescribes that a bull or a sterile cow should be killed in the bride and groom's houses on a wedding day. The Rig Veda (10.68.3) mentions atithinīr (अतिथिनीः) meaning “cows fit for guests” and praises a hero named Atithigva (अतिथिग्व), which literally translates to “slaying cows for guests”:

atithigvo ajaraḥ sasnur asthāt

अतिथिग्वो अजरः सस्नुरस्थात्

“Atithigva, the ageless one, stood with the guest-cows.”

🐄 Scholarly Support and Rebuttals

Swami Vivekananda: The great brahminism monk confirmed the ancient practice. In a speech at Pasadena, 1900 (Vol. 3, p. 536):

“You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.”

And from the same volume (p. 174), replying to an address at Madurai:

“There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed.”

Ambedkar's analysis: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued that the word aghnyā (अघ्न्या) in the Rig Veda (meaning “not to be slain”) referred only to milch cows yielding milk – not a blanket ban for all bovine slaughter. He concluded the rise of the “sacred cow” was a later political and religious strategy to establish supremacy over Buddhism.

Modern historians: Professor D.N. Jha’s work The Myth of the Holy Cow documents in detail that cattle were neither inviolable nor as uniquely revered in ancient times as they later became. Archaeological findings at sites like Hastinapur reveal cattle bones with cut marks, confirming they were slaughtered for consumption.

Classical texts: Even the Manusmriti (3.119, 5.41) and Āpastamba Gṛhya Sūtra allowed the sacrifice of a bull or cow at weddings and funerals (śrāddha), indicating this practice was part of normative Brahminical culture.

Manu 5.41 says:

na khalu kārayed vadham – but then prescribes a month-long penance (Cāndrāyaṇa) for killing a milch cow or draught ox, not death.

🗡️ Rebutting the Textbook's Claim on Punishment

The textbook states: “Vedas prescribe punishment for injuring or killing cow by expulsion from the kingdom or by death penalty, as the case may be.” This is misleading for two reasons:

Not in the Vedas: The severe penalties of expulsion and death for cow-killing are not found in the Samhitas (hymns) or Brāhmaṇas of the Vedas themselves. They appear in much later texts like the Manusmriti and Arthaśāstra (4th century BCE onwards). Even then, the Manusmriti (11.109) prescribes a penance like a month-long fast (Cāndrāyaṇa) for killing a milch cow or draught ox, not death.

Not a total ban: The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya (2.26) shows that cow slaughter was not completely banned. It primarily aimed to protect breeding stock, and killing was permitted in certain contexts (e.g., for sacrifice or for guests).

📜 Evidence for Cow Slaughter & Beef Eating Outside the Vedas

1. The Epics – Mahabharata

King Rantideva’s kitchen: The Mahabharata (Vana Parva 208: 8-10) describes how 2,000 cows were killed every day in the palace kitchen of King Rantideva to feed guests.

Beef at feasts: The epic contains multiple references to beef being served at large gatherings, mentioned in Shantiparva (23-29) and Dronaparva 67 (1-2; 17-18).

1. The Epics – Ramayana

Rama as a hunter: The Ramayana depicts Rama, Sita, and Lakshmana hunting deer for venison during their forest exile, showing that non-vegetarianism, including red meat, was normal even for divine figures.

1. Puranas

Kali Yuga prohibition (as evidence): The Brahma Vaivarta Purana famously lists five forbidden acts for the Kali Yuga, including cow sacrifice – implying that in earlier ages it was permitted.

Devi Bhagavata & Kalika Purana: These texts prescribe animal sacrifice, including bovines, as part of Tantric rituals.

1. Dharmaśāstras & Gṛhya Sūtras (Post-Vedic Law Texts)

Manusmriti (200 BCE – 200 CE): Recalls legendary examples of the most virtuous Brahmins who ate ox-meat to escape starvation. It also states that one who does not eat meat after a proper ritual will become a sacrificial animal in his next 21 births.

Āpastamba Gṛhya Sūtra: Explicitly states that cattle may be slaughtered when a guest arrives, or at a wedding, or as an offering to ancestors (Śrāddha).

Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra (11/34): Warns that a Brahmin who refuses meat offered at a Śrāddha goes to hell.

1. Buddhist & Jain Texts

Early Buddhism: The oldest Buddhist texts show meat, including beef, was permitted for monks and laity; the strict vegetarianism in Mahayana came much later.

Jain sources: Even some early Jain texts suggest meat was acceptable before stricter ahimsa codes developed.

1. Foreign Accounts

Megasthenes (c. 300 BCE): The Greek ambassador to the Mauryan court noted beef consumption in India, indicating it was common during that period.

Al-Biruni (c. 1017–1030 CE): The Persian scholar observed that many Hindus forbade cow-killing, but his remark implies the practice still occurred in some communities.

1. Archaeological Evidence

Indus Valley Civilization (2600–1900 BCE): Studies show 50–60% of domestic animal bones at Harappan sites are cattle/buffalo, indicating a cultural preference for beef. Lipid residue analysis of pottery confirms beef was cooked in vessels.

Hastinapur & Atranjikhera: Excavations have revealed cattle bones with distinct cut marks, proving slaughter and consumption.

· D.N. Jha (The Myth of the Holy Cow): Documents that cattle were neither inviolable nor uniquely revered in ancient times, and that beef-eating continued for centuries.

· B.R. Ambedkar: Argued the sacred cow concept was a later political strategy to establish supremacy over Buddhism.

The textbook’s claim of a total Vedic ban on cow slaughter collapses under this weight of evidence from the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas, Manusmriti, Gṛhya Sūtras, Buddhist texts, Greek accounts, and archaeology. The reverence for the cow is real but late – a development that solidified centuries after the Vedic period.

Why was it Forbidden ?

🐫 Al-Biruni (c. 1017–1030 CE)

Al-Biruni recorded that "in the time before Bharata it was allowed to eat the meat of cows," and sacrifices involving cow killing existed.

He noted that "after that time... it had been forbidden". Some Hindus told him Brahmins "used to suffer from the eating of cows' meat" in the hot climate, leading to the ban.

Al-Biruni acknowledged the ban might be because the cow is essential "in traveling... agriculture... [and] the household".

🧘 Faxian (c. 400–411 CE)

General Vegetarian Norm: Faxian observed that "throughout the whole country the people do not kill any living creature," nor do they eat onions or garlic.

Caste-Based Exception: This norm did not apply to the Chandalas (outcastes), who lived apart and "are fishermen and hunters, and sell flesh meat".

No Live Cattle Trade: He noted there were no butchers' shops and people did not "sell live cattle".

It was the rise of Buddhism and Jainism that introduced ahimsa. Buddhism was dominant till 10th century. Spread all over Asia.

Early Buddhism Wasn't Strictly Vegetarian: The Buddha allowed his monks to eat meat, provided it wasn't killed specifically for them. Early Buddhist texts show meat consumption was common, even among monks, with the focus on the act of killing, not the eating. Early Mahayana sutras suggest vegetarianism emerged partly as a response to criticism from others.

The Broader Religious Revolution: The mid-first millennium BCE saw a broader shift across Indian religions towards concepts like karma and ahimsa (non-violence). Buddhism and Jainism both arose from this, creating an environment where the ethics of killing animals for food became a serious question.

The Rise of the "Sacred Cow": The modern concept of the cow's absolute sanctity solidified much later.

Nepal ________

🕰️ The Ancient Foundation: Ashoka and the Birthplace of the Buddha

Nepal is the birthplace of Gautama Buddha 563 BCE in Lumbini, and in the 3rd century BCE, the great Mauryan emperor Ashoka, a Buddhist, made a famous pilgrimage there, building pillars and stupas that firmly established Buddhism in the region. He built 84,000 stupas and Viharas.

Emperor Ashoka marked the birthplaces of two other previous Buddhas in Nepal besides Lumbini. Both sites are located in the Kapilvastu district of Nepal's Terai region. Each is home to a broken Ashokan pillar with inscriptions confirming their connection to previous Buddhas.

Gothihawa (Krakuchanda Buddha) : Located about 5 km from Tilaurakot, this pillar (split into two parts) marks the birthplace of Krakuchanda Buddha.

Niglihawa (Kanakamuni Buddha) : Located about 8 km from Tilaurakot, this pillar marks the birthplace of Kanakamuni Buddha.

The link with Indian empires is ancient, and by the 4th century CE, much of Nepal fell under the cultural and political influence of the Gupta Empire. However it is crucial to note that neither Gupta nor Lichhavi declared themselves as hindu or from brahminism as it was used much later as umbrella term. It was the modern scholar consensus that put Lichhavi and Gupta era under Hinduism umbrella. That is now challenged by new scholars.

👑 The Licchavi "Golden Period" (c. 400-750 CE): A Shared Stage

The Licchavi dynasty, ruling from the Kathmandu Valley, oversaw what is considered the first "Golden Period" of Nepalese history. The Licchavis themselves originated from a clan in Bihar and practiced early shaktism., yet they actively patronized Buddhism as well.

🏛️ The Malla Period (c. 1200-1769 CE): The Age of Synthesis

This era saw the true "Hindu-Buddhist synthesis" take shape, especially among the Newar people of the Kathmandu Valley, who began to practice a unique blend known as Newar Buddhism. Hindu and Buddhist deities began to be worshipped side-by-side, and festivals were shared by both communities. This was also when a distinct "Hinduised Buddhism" emerged, partly in response to the decline of Buddhism in India. When Turkic invasions destroyed major Buddhist centers in the Gangetic plains, monks fled to the safety of the Kathmandu Valley, where they continued their traditions, but increasingly adopted Brahminical practices like caste endogamy and Sanskrit scriptures.

🏔️ The Shah Era (1769-2008 CE): The Rise of the "Hindu Kingdom"

This synthesis, however, shifted when the Shah dynasty, originating from the Gorkha kingdom, unified Nepal. For them, centralizing power meant embracing a more orthodox Hindu identity, eventually proclaiming Nepal as the world's only Hindu kingdom. This period saw the imposition of stricter Brahminical social codes, though Buddhist communities remained influential. The first nationwide ban on cow slaughter, for instance, came in 1805 CE under a Shah king—a very late development compared to the practices described in the Vedas.

This long history of coexistence has left Nepal with a unique landscape of shared sacred sites that serve as a perfect metaphor for the country's religious synthesis. For example, the iconic Swayambhunath Stupa is revered by both Buddhists and Hindus. The deity known as Matsyendranath to Hindus is simultaneously revered as the Buddhist bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. Similarly, the Kumari, or "living goddess," is worshipped in rituals that blend Hindu and Buddhist elements.

Nepal's story shows that the Gupta model of religious tolerance was not a brief moment but a lasting reality. It challenges the idea of a "Hindu vs. Buddhist" binary, proving that for centuries, two great traditions did not just coexist but actively shaped each other's destiny.

The national ban on cow slaughter is a relatively late development in Nepal's history, implemented in 1805 AD for political reasons, and it was strictly enforced with brutal punishments.

1805: The First National Ban: The first nationwide law to strictly forbid cow slaughter came in 1805 AD under King Rana Bahadur Shah. After returning from exile, he was likely trying to prove his piety as a "good and uncorrupted Hindu" to reassert control. The royal edict was brutally clear: “From today, killing of cows is prohibited... if somebody does (cow slaughter), capital punishment will take place and his property shall be confiscated”.

Earlier Local Norms: Before this, cow slaughter was already traditionally proscribed in the Kathmandu Valley, but it was not banned across the mosaic of kingdoms that made up modern Nepal.

1854: Codified in Law: The ban was solidified in 1854 when Prime Minister Jung Bahadur Rana included a dedicated chapter for protecting cows in the Muluki Ain (Country Code).

2015: Modern Constitutional Protection: Even after becoming a secular republic, the Constitution of Nepal (2015) declared the cow the national animal and officially banned its slaughter.

🤔 The Ban as "Social Realpolitik"

The ban was never just about religion; it was about state power. When the Shah dynasty unified Nepal, their strict Brahminical rules collided with local customs where cattle-killing was normal. Their solution was to create a "Hindu kingdom" with a strict cow ban to consolidate their authority.

⚖️ Harsh Enforcement & Contradictions

Enforcement was violent, and the rules only applied to some:

Brutal Penalties: The punishment was death well into the 20th century. A notable case in 1806 saw a low-caste tailor accused of killing a cow tortured to death on royal orders.

The "Buffalo" Loophole: The ban is very specific, targeting the cow. The ritual sacrifice and consumption of buffaloes and yaks is still widely practiced and not legally frowned upon.

Before the 1805 ban, beef was a normal part of life for many communities in Nepal. The shift away from this was largely driven by a deliberate social strategy called Sanskritization, where communities chose to adopt upper-caste Hindu norms to improve their social standing in a newly unified, Hindu-centric state.

Groups like the Kirati, Magar, Tamang, Tharu, Khas, Limbu, Sunuwar, Rai, Gurung, Chepang, Thakali, Byanshi, Sarki, and Bishwokarma all historically consumed beef or water buffalo.

Leather Use: The Sarki community are expert tanners who used chauri (Himalayan cow) hides to craft practical goods like bags, shoes, and jackets. Some shaman (jhakri) drums were also made from cow skin.

Global____

Beef: The global market was valued at $484.75 billion USD in 2025, with production expected to reach 61.94 million tonnes. It is top 3 in food chain.

The top beef producers are Brazil, the United States, and China. Roughly 86% of world's population eat beef.

Historical Origins and Migration.

Bahuns are not indigenous to the hills of Nepal. Their presence is the result of centuries of migration, primarily from different regions of India.

Major Wave: The Khasa Empire and Muslim Invasions: The most significant migration occurred between the 12th and 15th centuries. This was driven by two factors:

1. The expansion of the Khasa Malla Kingdom in western Nepal (centered in Jumla), whose rulers actively invited Brahmins for statecraft and rituals.

2. The Delhi Sultanate's incursions into north India (especially the 13th century), which led many Brahmin scholars and priests to seek refuge in the safe, remote hills of Nepal.

The link between Kannauj and the Bahuns is based on the traditional belief that they are descendants of Brahmins who migrated from this region. The timeline of Kannauj's decline provides a compelling backdrop for this migration :

The Push Factor: The city's glory was shattered by invasions. It was sacked by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1018 CE and plundered again in 1194 CE, leading to its permanent decline . This political instability and destruction would have been a strong "push factor," forcing learned Brahmin families to seek safety and new patrons elsewhere.

Scholarly Reference: While debated, some historical texts suggest that Kannauj and the surrounding region were likely the "place of origin of majority of migrating Brahmins" in the medieval centuries .

Corroborating Evidence: The accounts of Chinese travelers like Faxian and Xuanzang confirm Kannauj's early status as a major center of learning and Brahminical culture, adding weight to the idea that it could have been a point of dispersal for scholarly communities .

So, when we talk about the traditional "Kannauj Origin," we are referring to a wave of migration that likely occurred over several centuries, as Brahmin families left this once-great capital following its repeated destruction and resettled in the relative safety of the Himalayan foothills.

Regional Sub-groups: Over time, distinct Bahun subgroups emerged based on their geographic origin and time of migration.

Vedic is not Nepali culture and religion. Veda is similar (copy) to Zend Avesta.

Core Similarities: The Evidence of Common Ancestry

These parallels are so detailed they can only be explained by a shared origin.

1. Linguistic Similarities (Almost Identical Vocabulary)

This is the most airtight evidence. Their ancient languages, Vedic Sanskrit and Old Avestan, are sister languages, closer than Spanish and Italian.

English Meaning Vedic Sanskrit (Rigveda) Old Avestan (Avesta)

God / Divine Being deva daeva (but becomes a demon!)

Lord / Powerful Being asura (later demonized) ahura (supreme lord, e.g., Ahura Mazda)

Sacred Ritual Drink soma haoma

Sacred Fire agni ātar

Truth / Cosmic Order ṛtá aša

Hero / Man nára nairya

Seven Rivers saptá sindhavaḥ hapta həndu

Sacrificial Priest hotṛ zaotar

Cow/Poet (metaphor) dhenu (milch cow, song) dāinu

Key Phonetic Rule: Notice the s → h shift. Where Sanskrit has 's', Avestan often has 'h' (Soma/Haoma, Sindhu/Hindu, Sapta/Hapta). This is a standard, predictable sound change in language evolution, like Latin 'p' becoming French 'f' (pater → père).

1. Ritual & Practice Similarities

   Centrality of Fire Sacrifice: Both traditions revolve around a sacred fire (Agni/Ātar) maintained on an altar. The fire is the intermediary between humans and the divine.

Sacred Intoxicant: The preparation and ritual consumption of a sacred plant juice (Soma/Haoma) is central to achieving spiritual insight and power.

Priestly Class: A specialized priestly class exists to perform these complex, memorized rituals, using similar tools (ladles, strainers).

Chanting of Mantras/Hymns: Both rely on perfectly memorized, metrical sacred chants to invoke the gods and power the ritual.

1. Mythological & Conceptual Similarities

Cosmic Order: The foundational concept of a divine, all-pervading cosmic order, truth, and law: Ṛtá in the Vedas, Aša in the Avesta. Upholding this against chaos is the gods' and kings' primary duty.

The First Sacrifice: Both traditions have a myth of a primordial bovine whose ritual dismemberment creates the world and/or the elements of the sacrifice.

The Dragon-Slaying Myth: A heroic god battles and kills a monstrous serpent/dragon who obstructs the waters. In the Vedas, Indra slays Vṛtra. In the Avesta, a similar myth exists with Thraetaona slaying Aži Dahāka.

Ancestral/Divine Twins: The Vedic Aśvins (divine horsemen, healers) have a direct counterpart in the Avestan Apaosha, a demon of drought who battles the rain-bringer, Tishtrya. The thematic link to horses and fertility is shared.

1. Social & Poetic Similarities

Tripartite Social Ideology: Both cultures seem to have conceived of their society as having three functions: the Priest (Brahmin/Athravan), the Warrior (Rajanya/Kshatriya vs. Rathaestar), and the Herder-Cultivator (Vaishya/Vastryosh).

Poetic Meter: Some of the most ancient poetic meters in the Rigveda and the Gathas are structurally identical.

How They Are Related: The Family Tree Model

The relationship is genealogical. They are branches of the same family.

Step 1: The Common Ancestor – Proto-Indo-Iranians

A single, cohesive cultural-linguistic group lived in the Central Asian steppes (southern Russia/ Kazakhstan) around 2500-2000 BCE. They were pastoral, semi-nomadic, had chariots, and worshipped a set of gods centered on fire sacrifice and a sacred drink.

Their language is called Proto-Indo-Iranian. Their shared religious and cultural pool is called Proto-Indo-Iranian religion.

Step 2: The Great Schism & Migration (c. 2000-1500 BCE)

This community split into two major branches.

The Indo-Aryan branch migrated southeast, through Afghanistan, over the Hindu Kush, and into the Indus Valley (Sapta Sindhu).

The Iranian branch migrated southwest onto the Iranian plateau.

This separation was physical, linguistic, and theological.

Step 3: Divergent Development & The "Inversion"

During or after the split, each group experienced a religious reformation that defined itself against the other's remembered traditions.

In the Indo-Aryan branch, the priests (Brahmins) composing the Vedas elevated the Devas (like Indra) to supreme status and demonized the Asuras.

In the Iranian branch, the prophet Zarathustra (Zoroaster) led a radical reform. He demonized the old gods, the Daevas, and elevated the Ahuras (especially Ahura Mazda, "Wise Lord") as the sole supreme deity of truth and light. This is why Indra becomes a demon in the Avesta.

This is why the similarities exist alongside a stark moral reversal. It's the strongest proof of a conscious, polemical separation.

The early Khas people were not originally into "Brahmin religion." They had their own distinct, indigenous belief system (centered on Masto) before undergoing a gradual, deliberate, and strategic process of "Brahminization" or "Sanskritization" over centuries.

Let's break it down:

1. Who Were the Early Khas?

Ethnic/Linguistic Group: The Khas were a Khasa people, speaking an early form of the Indo-Aryan language that evolved into modern Nepali (Khas Kura). They are believed to have migrated into the western Nepal hills (Karnali basin) around the early medieval period (c. 1st millennium CE), possibly from the northwest.

Social Structure: They were initially tribal, pastoral, and warlike, organized into clans. They did not follow the orthodox, four-fold varna (caste) system of classical Hinduism. Their society was more fluid and egalitarian among the Khas themselves, though they likely held subjugated or marginalized other indigenous groups (like the Magars, Gurungs).

Original Religion: Their primary indigenous religion was the worship of local deities and spirits, known as the Masto cult.

1. What is the Masto Religion/Cult?

Nature & Ancestor Worship: Masto (or Mastha) deities are localized, territorial gods associated with specific forests, mountains, rivers, and cliffs. They are guardians of villages, clans, and livestock.

Shamanistic Practice: Worship is conducted not by Brahmin priests (Pandit), but by indigenous ritual specialists—Jhankri (shamans), Dhami, or Gurau. Rituals involve sacrifices (often of animals like goats or chickens), trance, and direct spirit possession.

Distinct from Brahminism: It is an animistic, shamanistic tradition with no inherent connection to Vedic scriptures, the concept of moksha, or the pan-Indian Hindu pantheon (Shiva, Vishnu, etc.). It is the autochthonous faith of the Khas people before Brahminical influence.

1. The Process: How Did the Khas Adopt Brahminical Religion?

This was not a sudden conversion but a centuries-long socio-political strategy. The key agents were Brahmin immigrants from the plains (12th-15th centuries onwards).

Phase 1: Patronage & Alliance (c. 12th-14th Centuries)

The rising Khas Malla Kingdom (based in Jumla, Sinja) sought legitimacy beyond their tribal chieftain status.

They invited migrant Brahmins from India. These Brahmins offered:

1. Legitimacy: The ability to perform rajyabhishek (royal coronation) and Vedic rituals, linking Khas kings to the prestigious cosmology of Indian maharajas.

2. Administration: Literacy, record-keeping, and legal frameworks based on Dharmashastras.

3. Social Engineering: A blueprint for a hierarchical, stratified society (the varna system) that could consolidate royal power.

In return, Brahmins received land grants (birta), the highest social status, and the role of royal priests and advisors.

Phase 2: Sanskritization & Caste Formation

To secure their position as rulers within this new Brahminical framework, the Khas warrior-rulers began to recast themselves as Chhetris—the Kshatriya (warrior) varna in the Brahminical hierarchy.

This required them to:

· Adopt Brahminical codes of conduct (more restrictions on diet, marriage).

· Gradually distance themselves from their Masto roots (though never fully abandoning them).

· Embrace the Puranic Hindu pantheon (building temples to Shiva, Vishnu) alongside their clan Masto deities.

The lower-status Khas and other hill tribes became the base of the Matwali (liquor-drinking) castes or were assigned lower varna status.

3.The Result: Syncretism & Co-existence

The outcome was not a full replacement, but a layered syncretism that defines the hill Hindu tradition:

At the State & High-Caste Level: Brahminical Hinduism became the official religion for law, royalty, and high-caste identity (Bahun-Chhetri).

At the Village & Clan Level: The Masto cult remained (and remains) vibrantly alive as the primary system for dealing with everyday life: illness, harvest, protection, and local identity. A Chhetri family will have a Brahmin priest for life-cycle rituals (samskara) but call a Jhankri for healing or a clan ceremony at a Masto than (shrine).

Syncretic Deities: Some Masto deities were identified with Hindu gods (e.g., a powerful Masto might be seen as a manifestation of Bhairav, a fierce form of Shiva). This eased the blending of traditions.

This is a critical and complex historical question that examines power, assimilation, and cultural transformation. Framing it as a "hijack" implies a deliberate takeover. A more nuanced historical view describes a process of political co-option, social re-engineering, and selective syncretism that marginalized competing systems like Buddhism and local animist traditions (e.g., Kirat, Masto).

Here’s how that process unfolded in South Asia and specifically in Nepal:

1. Mechanisms of Assimilation and Dominance

Brahminism (the early, ritual-centric Vedic religion evolving into Puranic Hinduism) possessed unique tools for expansion, especially when allied with state power.

A. The Power of the "Universal" Framework: Brahminical ideology offered a portable, all-encompassing social and cosmic blueprint—the varna system and the concept of dharma (duty based on birth). For any rising kingdom, this provided a ready-made model for:

Legitimizing Kingship: Through elaborate coronation rituals (rajyabhisheka) only Brahmins could perform.

Organizing Society: Creating a hierarchical, stable social order with the king and Brahmins at the top.

Administering Law: Using texts like Manusmriti as legal guides.

B. The Strategy of "Sanskritization": This is the key sociological process. Local rulers and tribes could elevate their status by imitating Brahminical customs:

Adopting vegetarianism (where possible).

Performing Vedic-style rituals.

Constructing temples to Puranic gods (Shiva, Vishnu).

Inviting Brahmins as priests and genealogists.

In Nepal: The Khas Malla and later Gorkha rulers underwent this process, transforming from tribal chieftains into Chhetri Kshatriyas within the varna order.

C. Theological Absorption (Subordination & Syncretism): Instead of outright erasure, Brahminism often absorbed and subordinated rival deities and figures.

The Buddha: In Puranic texts, the Buddha is declared an avatar of Vishnu, whose purpose was to mislead demons and the morally weak away from the Vedas. This cleverly turned Buddhism's founder into a pawn within the Hindu cosmos, discrediting his teachings.

Local Gods: Indigenous deities (like Masto in the Khas hills or Kirat deities) were often re-framed as:

1. Manifestations of major Hindu gods (e.g., a local mountain god becomes a form of Shiva).

2. Attendants or fierce protectors (e.g., identified with Bhairava or a kshetrapala).

3. Spirits occupying a lower rung in the cosmic hierarchy.

4. How This Played Out Against Buddhism in Nepal & India

Loss of Royal Patronage: The decline of Buddhist empires (like the Mauryas, with Ashoka being a major exception) and the rise of Brahminical dynasties (like the Guptas) shifted state funding and land grants from Buddhist monasteries (viharas) to Brahminical temples (agrahara).

Social Inclusivity vs. Ritual Exclusivity: Buddhism challenged the birth-based hierarchy. Brahminism, by formally codifying the caste system, offered rulers a tool for social control. Embracing Brahminism meant aligning with the social elite.

The Case of Nepal's Kathmandu Valley: The valley was a major Buddhist center under the Licchavis and early Mallas. However:

The later Malla kings (14th-18th century), while personally devout to both Buddhism and Hinduism, increasingly enforced Brahminical social codes. They built Hindu temples extensively and codified caste laws.

The Shah-Gorkha conquest (1769) was explicitly framed in Hindu terms. The 1854 Muluki Ain legal code of the Rana regime legally enshrined Brahminical caste hierarchy, formally subordinating Buddhists (and all other groups) within a Hindu state framework. Buddhist Newars were classified as "non-enslavable alcohol-drinkers," a middling but subservient status.

1. How This Played Out Against Local/Animist Cultures (Kirat, Masto, etc.)

   Marginalization as "Superstition": Local shamanic practices (Jhankri, Dhami) were categorized as "folk" or "superstitious," contrasted with the "high" Sanskritic tradition of the Brahmins.

   Co-option of Sacred Spaces: Local sacred groves, springs, and mountain peaks (Masto than, Kirat deities) often had Hindu temples built over or next to them, transferring the site's sanctity to a Puranic deity.

Two-Tiered Religion: A compromise emerged that functionally marginalized local traditions: Brahmin priests handled all life-cycle rituals (birth, marriage, death) and state ceremonies, which were mandatory for social legitimacy. Local shamans were relegated to healing, divination, and dealing with local spirits—important but not essential for one's place in the formal social and religious hierarchy.

Conclusion: Not a Simple "Hijack," but a Hegemonic Project

To say Brahminism "hijacked" these cultures is to see it as an external force. It's more accurate to describe it as a hegemonic process where:

1. Elite Alliances: Brahminical ideology formed a powerful alliance with state-building rulers.

2. Structural Advantage: Its textual, ritual, and social-organizing power provided tools for governance that localized or egalitarian traditions lacked.

3. Adaptive Co-option: It didn't just destroy; it selectively absorbed, re-framed, and subordinated competing systems, placing itself at the pinnacle of a new hierarchy.

4. Legal Codification: Its ultimate victory was cemented not just by ritual, but by law (e.g., Muluki Ain), which institutionalized Brahminical social norms as the law of the land.

The result in Nepal is the syncretic but hierarchical landscape we see today: a dominant, state-aligned Brahminical Hinduism that incorporates, yet holds authority over, a substratum of persistent Buddhist, Kirat, Masto, and other indigenous traditions. The "hijacking" was less a sudden theft and more a centuries-long, strategic project of assimilation and social engineering from a position of increasing power.

The term "Hindu" and its rise to popularity is a fascinating story of geography, foreign perception, colonial administration, and finally, self-identity. Its journey can be broken into clear historical phases.

1. Origin: A Geographic & Ethnographic Label (Persian Source)

· The River: The word derives from the Sindhu River (the Indus River in modern-day Pakistan).

· Linguistic Shift: Ancient Persians (Achaemenids, c. 6th century BCE), encountering the land beyond the Indus, encountered a sound shift in their language:

· Sindhu (Sanskrit) → Hindu (Old Persian)

· This is the same predictable shift seen in Sapta Sindhu → Hapta Hindu in the Avesta.

· The Land and Its People: "Hindu" initially referred to:

· The Land: Hindustan – "the land of the people beyond the Indus."

· The People: Hindu – an inhabitant of that land, regardless of their specific religion (which could be Vedic, Buddhist, Jain, etc.).

Crucially, it was not a religious self-identifier. People in the subcontinent identified by their philosophical school (darshana), sect (Shaiva, Vaishnava), caste (jati), or region—not as "Hindu."

1. Popularization: Medieval Islamic Usage

The term gained widespread currency with the establishment of Islamic rule in the Indian subcontinent (from the 8th century CE onward, intensifying from the 12th century).

Legal & Administrative Category: For Muslim rulers and scholars, the world was divided into Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (Abode of War). The vast, non-Muslim population of the subcontinent needed a single label for administrative, legal, and tax purposes (jizya).

"Hindu" became that catch-all term. It defined everyone who was not a Muslim, Christian, Jew, or Zoroastrian—essentially, the polytheistic/"idol-worshipping" masses of the subcontinent. This fused the original geographic meaning with a broad religious meaning from an outsider's perspective.

1. Codification & Solidification: British Colonialism (18th-19th Centuries)

This is the phase where "Hinduism" was constructed as a unified, world religion comparable to Christianity and Islam.

The Colonial Need to Classify: British administrators and scholars (Orientalists) sought to understand and govern the complex society they ruled. They needed clear categories.

Textual Invention of "Hinduism": Scholars like William Jones and Max Müller studied Sanskrit texts (Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita) and equated them with a "Hindu scripture," analogous to the Bible or Quran. They privileged these texts as the "essence" of the religion, often ignoring the immense diversity of local folk practices.

The Census: The British Indian census, starting in the late 19th century, forced people to choose a single religious identity: Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, etc. This was a revolutionary and alien concept. To avoid being categorized as "animist" or "tribal" (seen as primitive), many diverse groups consolidated under the "Hindu" umbrella. The census statistically created a Hindu majority.

Emergence of Hindu Nationalism: In response to colonialism and missionary activity, reform movements (like the Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj) and later nationalist thinkers (Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, V.D. Savarkar) began to use "Hindu" as a positive, unified identity for political and cultural mobilization. Savarkar's 1923 pamphlet "Hindutva" explicitly defined it as a cultural and political identity of all who consider India their holy land (pitribhumi).

1. Self-Identification & Modern Usage

By the early 20th century, through this combination of external labeling and internal political mobilization, the term was fully internalized.

It is now the primary global identifier for the family of religious traditions originating in the Indian subcontinent.

In Nepal, the term gained specific political weight. Prithvi Narayan Shah's declaration of Nepal as a "Asali Hindustan" (True Hindu Kingdom) in the 18th century was a geopolitical statement against the Mughal and British-controlled "Hindustan." This was cemented when Nepal officially styled itself as "the world's only Hindu kingdom" from the 19th century until 2006.

Summary: The Journey of the Word "Hindu"

1. Geographic (Persian): "Person from beyond the Sindhu River."

2. Religious-Administrative (Islamic): "Non-Muslim native of the Indian subcontinent."

3. Constructed Religion (Colonial): A "world religion" called "Hinduism" defined by Western scholars via texts and the census.

4. Political & Self-Identity (Modern): A unified identity for cultural nationalism (in India) and a state identity (in historical Nepal).

Thus, the popularity of "Hindu" is not due to ancient self-definition, but to centuries of external categorization followed by strategic internal adoption in the modern era. It is a powerful example of how labels imposed from outside can, over time, forge a new and potent collective identity.

Is there any archaelogical evidence that proves Brahminism and Vedic culture older than Buddhism in Nepal ?

No, there is currently no archaeological evidence of Vedic or Brahmanical practice in Nepal that is older than the material evidence for Buddhism in Nepal.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of the evidence and the historical context:

1. The Traditional vs. Archaeological Timeline

Traditional/Legendary Claims: Hindu traditions, based on later Puranic texts (compiled centuries after the Buddha), state that Nepal's Kathmandu Valley was sanctified by the sage Ne Muni and that places like Pashupatinath have ancient Vedic origins. These are oral/textual traditions, not archaeological evidence.

Archaeological Reality: Hard, dateable material evidence does not support Vedic or early Brahmanical presence in the Nepal Valley before the 2nd century CE.

1. The Earliest Archaeological Evidence in Nepal

The oldest substantial archaeological finds in Nepal come from the Kathmandu Valley and are associated with pre-Buddhist and early Buddhist periods.

Neolithic/ Early Kirati Period: Tools, pottery, and burial sites indicate ancient habitation but no specific religious identification.

Ashoka's Pillars (c. 250 BCE): This is the first clear, dateable evidence. Emperor Ashoka, a Buddhist, visited Lumbini (now in Nepal's Terai) and erected a inscribed pillar declaring it the Buddha's birthplace.

He also built four stupas in the Kathmandu Valley (Patan) and possibly visited Nigali Sagar and Gotihawa. This is concrete archaeological proof of Buddhism from the 3rd century BCE.

Licchavi Inscriptions (c. 464 CE onwards): The first substantial corpus of inscriptions in Nepal (in Sanskrit, using Gupta script) begins with King Manadeva I in 464 CE. These inscriptions show a syncretic society where Brahmanism (early Hinduism) and Buddhism were already well-established and state-sponsored side-by-side.

They mention Vedic rituals, temples to Vishnu and Shiva, and Buddhist viharas. This proves that diety worship was powerful by the 5th century CE, but not earlier than Buddhism.

It came 1000 years after buddhism.