Beef eating in Vedas and other Hindu texts

Present day Hindu culture is pivoted solely on the cow. Its material and spiritual concepts are both

engulfed in cow worship. Such an animal worship is known as zoolatry. The Hindutva brigade

propaganda machinery uses the politics of cow to mobilize the blind Hindu masses and works them

into a frenzy. The taboo on cow slaughter is one of the pillars of the Hindutva ideology. According to

M.S.Golwalkar, a Hindutva ideologue, cow slaughter in India began with foreign domination. "The

Muslims started it and the Britishers continued it" (M.S.Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Pg 496). In the

past, several futile attempts have been made by proponents of Hindutva to pass a law to ban the

slaughter of cows at the national level. In the NCERT school textbook for Class VI (2002) we read:

“Among the animals the cow was given the most important and sacred place.

Injuring or killing of cow was prohibited in the Vedic period. The cow was

called Aghnya (is not to be killed or injured). Vedas prescribe punishment for

injuring or killing cow by expulsion from the kingdom or by death penalty,

as the case may be”

(Social Sciences Textbook for Class VI, Pg 89.).

But the theory that the in Vedic times there was no cow slaughter is historically inaccurate. Although

cow was revered and treated as sacred, it was also offered as food to guests and persons of high

status. The fact remains that ancient Hindu scriptures clearly permit the consumption of meat, even of

cows. True scholars, and not modern frauds, know this. For example, Swami Vivekananda who is

considered as a major force in the revival of Hinduism in modern India, admitted that ancient Hindus

used to eat meat. He says,

"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."

[The complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3, Pg 536]

In the same volume on page 174 he says,

"There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin

could remain a Brahmin;"

Let us now look at the evidence from Hindu texts, which proves that Hinduism not only permits beef

eating but also requires its folowers to institute certain cow sacrifices. I will simultaneously refute the

common arguments of Hindus.

Yajna and animal sacrifices

In Hinduism, Yajna is a ritual of sacrifice derived from the practice of Vedic times. It is performed to

please the gods or to attain certain wishes. A Vedic yajna is typically performed by an adhvaryu priest,

with a number of additional priests such as the hotar, udgatar playing a major role, next to their dozen

helpers, by reciting or singing Vedic verses. How to deal with the animal, that is to be sacrificed in the

Yajna, be it a goat, a horse or a cow, is mentioned in the Aitareya Brahman of the Rigveda as follows:

"6. ...Turn the animal's feet northwards. Make its eyes go to the Sun, dismiss

its breath to the wond, its life to the space, its hearing to the directions, its

body to the earth. In this way the Hotar (priest) connets it with these world.

Take of the entire skin without cutting it. Before opening the navel tear out

the omentum. Stop its breathing within (by stopping its mouth). Thus the

Hotar puts breath in the animals. Make of its breast a piece like an eagle, of

its arms (two pieces like) two hatchets, of its forearms (two pieces like) two

spikes, of its shoulders (two pieces like) two kashyapas (tortoises), its loins

should be unbroken (entire); make of its thigs (two pieces like) two shields, of

the two kneepans (two pieces like) two oleander leaves; take out its twenty-

six ribs according to their order; preserve every limb of its in its integrity.

Thus he benefits all its limbs. Dig a ditch in the earth to hide its excrements.

7. Present the evil spirits with the blood."

[Aitareya Brahman, Book 2, para 6 and 7]

Subsequently, the same Aitareya Brahman instructing on how to distribute different parts of the

sacrificial animal says,

"Now follows the division of the different parts of the sacrificial animal

(among the priests). We shall describe it. The two jawbones with the tongue

are to be given to the Prastotar; the breast in the form of an eagle to the

Udgatar; the throat with the palate to the Pratihartar; the lower part of the

right loins to the Hotar; the left to the Brahma; the right thigh to the

Maitravaruna; the left to the Brahmanuchhamsi; the right side with the

shoulder to the Adhvaryu; the left side to those who accompany the chants;

the left shoulder to the Pratipasthatar; the lower part of the right arm to the

Neshtar; the lower part of the left arm to the Potar; the upper part of the

right thigh to the Achhavaka; the left to the Agnidhra; the upper part of the

right arm to the Aitreya; the left to the Sadasya; the back bone and the

urinal bladder to the Grihapati (sacrificer); the right feet to the Grihapati

who gives a feasting; the left feet to the wife of that Grihapati who gives a

feasting; the upper lip is common to both, which is to be divided by the

Grihapati. They offer the tail of the animal to wives, but they should give it to

a Brahmana; the fleshy processes (maanihah) on the neck and three gristles

(kikasaah) to the Grahvastut; three other gristles and one half of the fleshy

part on the back (vaikartta) to the Unnetar; the other half of the fleshy part

on the neck and the left lobe (Kloma) to the Slaughterer (Shamita),

who should present it to a Brahmana, if he himself would not

happen to be a Brahmana. The head is to be given to the Subrahmanya,

the skin belongs to him (the Subrahmanya), who spoke, Svaah Sutyam (to

morrow at the Soma Sacriice); that part of the sacrificial animal at a Soma

sacrifice which beloings to Ilaa (sacrificial food) is common to all the priests;

only for the Hotar it is optional.

All these portions of the sacrificial animal amount to thirty-six single pieces,

each of which represents the paada (foot) of a verse by which the sacrifice is

carried up..."

"To those who divide the sacrificial animal in the way mentioned, it becomes

the guide to heaven (Swarga). But those who make the division otherwise

are like scoundrels and miscreants who kill an animal merely."

"This division of the sacrificial animal was invented by Rishi Devabhaaga, a

son of Srauta. When he was departing from this life, he did not entrust (the

secret to anyone). But a supernatural being communicated it to Girija,the

son of Babhru. Since his time men study it."

[Aitareya Brahman, Book 7, Para 1, Translated by Martin Haug]

I have come across certain bigots among Hindus, who make the excuse that these are the translations

of a non-Hindu European scholar with 'ulterior motives'. This is a common response of half-baked

Hindus, who have negligible knowledge of Hindu scriptures. To establish the authenticity of the above

translations, I will produce before you passages from the 'Purva Mimamsa Sutras' of Jaimini, its

commentary called 'Shabarbhasya' and the views of renowned Arya Samaj scholar, Pandit

Yudhishthira Mimamsak on them.

It must be noted that the Purva Mimamsa Sutras (compiled between 300-200 BCE), written by Rishi

Jaimini is one of the most important ancient Hindu philosophical texts. It forms the basis of Mimamsa,

the earliest of the six orthodox schools (darshanas) of Indian philosophy.

Commenting on Purv Mimansa Sutra Adhyaya 3, Pada 6, Sutra 18, the Shabarbhasya says,

शंति च ऩऴुधममा् - उऩमकरण,ं उऩमनय,ं अक्ष्णयम बंध् , यूऩे तनयोजनम ् ,

शंहऩन,ं वळऴशनतमत्येळममदय्

There are also certain details to be performed in connection with the

animals, such as (a) Upaakaranam [Touching the animal with the two

mantras], (b) Upaanayanam [Bringing forward], (c) Akshanyaa-bandhah

[Tying with a rope], (d) Yoope niyojanam [Fettering to the Sacrificial Post],

(e) Sanjnapanam [Suffocating to death], (f) Vishasanam [Dissecting], and so

forth.

[Shabhar bhashya on Mimamsa Sutra 3/6/18; translated by Ganganath

Jha]

Expounding on this, Arya Samaj scholar, Pandit Yudhisthira Mimamsak writes in is 'Mimamsa Shabar

Bhashyam'

"In this case and otherwise it appears from the Jaimini Sutras that the

offering of sacrificed animals is to be made in the Yajnas. It is clearly

mentioned in the Mimamsa Sutrs."

[Mimamsa Shabharbhasyam, adhyaya 3, Page 1014]

Moving on let us see Mimamsadarshan Sutra 3/7/28 which says,

ऴतमिम च ऴब्दभेदमि ्

The 'Shamita' (slaughterer of the animal) is not distinct from the major

priests.

Commenting on it the Shabarbhashya says,

क्ऱोमम चमर्द्ाळं ळैकिानं च ऴतमिु् िद् ब्रमह्मणमय दद्यमि ्यद्य ब्रमह्मण् स्यमि ्

"The liver and the upper quarter belongs to the Shamita Priest ; one should

give it to a Brahmana if he be a non-Brahmana."

[Shabhar bhasya on Mimamsa Sutra 3/7/28; translated by Ganganath Jha]

Notice that this is exactly the same things that we saw was said in Aitareya Brahman Book 7; Para 1

above (the highlighted part). This proves that Shabarbhashya is confirming the Aitareya Brahman and

the translation is also accurate.

Pandit Yudhisthira Mimamsak also confirms this when he says,

"The division of the meat of the sacrificed animal as instructed in the

Aitareya Brahman clearly proves that during the time of the writing

of Aitareya Brahman and the time when it was edited by

Saunaka, animals were sacrificed in the Yajnas and their meat

was consumed by the Brahmins"

Some half-baked Hindus who like to play games might try to call all these references as later

interpolations. However, the scholar Yudhisthir Mimamsak outrightly rejects such a bogus conclusion

when he says,

"There is no strong evidence to consider these passages as later

interpolations."

[Mimamsa Shabarbhashyam by Yudhishthir Mimamsak Adhyaya 3, Page

1075]

Further in Mimamsa Sutra 3/8/43 it is mentioned,

ममंशं िु शळतनयमनम ंचोदनमवळऴेवमि

"Only the 'Savaniya' cakes should consist of flesh"

All these passages prove that the flesh of the sacrificed animal was consumed as per the instructions

of the Hindu texts.

Refuting the modern Hindu polemic of 'No violence in Yajna'

Hindu Argument (quoted from a Hindu apologetics website)

Yajna never meant animal sacrifice in the sense popularly understood. Yajna in the Vedas meant a

noble deed or the highest purifying action.

—————————————–

Adhvara iti Yajnanaama – Dhvaratihimsaakarmaa tatpratishedhah

Nirukta 2.7

According to Yaaska Acharya, one of the synonyms of Yajna in Nirukta or the Vedic philology is

Adhvara.

Dhvara means an act with himsa or violence. And therefore a-dhvara means an act involving no himsa

or no violence. There are a large number of such usage of Adhvara in the Vedas.

Response

This argument is incorrect because the word 'Adhvar' has been misplaced and interpreted

incompletely. Yaska is merely giving the etymology of the word 'Adhvar' and not where it is to be

applied and what constitutes violence. To know the true application of the word 'Adhvar' we will have to

turn to Shatapath Brahman, which gives the complete understanding of why 'Yajna' is called 'Adhvar'.

Shatapath Brahman 1/4/1/40 says,

devānha vai yajñena yajamānāṃtsapatnā

asurā dudhūrṣāṃ cakruste dudhūrṣanta eva na śekurdhūrvituṃ te

parābabhūvustasmādyajño adhvaro nāma

"For once when the gods were engaged in sacrificing, their rivals, the

Asuras, wished to injure (dhvar) them; but, though desirous of injuring

them, they were unable to injure them and were foiled: for this reason the

sacrifice is called adhvara ('not damaged, uninterrupted')."

Thus the argument of the polemicist turns out to be a deception aimed at fooling those who have no

access to the original texts. The passage of Shatapath Brahman makes it clear that 'Adhvar' is called

so because the priests performing the Yajna did not become victims of violence. It has no connection

to the violence of the animals done in the Yajna.

Renowned classical commentator of the four Vedas, Sayana Acharya, also gives the same reason for

calling Yajna as 'Adhvar'. He says in his comments on Rigveda 1/1/4,

अध्ळरं हषंशमरहषिम ्ह्वग्नननम शळाि् ऩमतऱिं यहं रमसशमदयो हषंतशिंु प्रभळंति

"Adhvar is called 'without violence' because being protected by Agni on all

sides it is uninterrupted by Rakshashas or violent enemies, who are unable

to mar it."

Again we see that Acharya Sayan expresses the same view as that of the Shatapath Brahman i.e the

violence referred in the 'adhvar' is not for the sacrificial animal in the Yajna.

Renowned Hindu scholar, Swami Prabhupada explains the so-called violence in the Yajna in the

following words,

“Although animal killing in a sacrifice is recommended in the Vedic

literature, the animal is not considered to be killed. The sacrifice is to give a

new life to the animal. Sometimes the animal is given a new animal life after

being killed in the sacrifice, and sometimes the animal is promoted

immediately to the human form of life.”

[Bhagavad Gita As It Is 8/13]

Even Manu Smriti echoes the same opinion in a more clear way in Chapter 5, verse 39 when it says,

"Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of

sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole

(world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not

slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word)."

Again Manu Smriti Chapter 5, verse 44 says

"Know that the injury to moving creatures and to those destitute of motion,

which the Veda has prescribed for certain occasions, is no injury at all;

for the sacred law shone forth from the Veda."

Thus, this argument stands nullified. For more scholarly explanation that the violence of animals in the

Yajna is actually no violence please see the last section of this article namely 'The testimony of

classical scholars'.

Animal sacrifices in Vedas, including cow sacrifice

Chapter 24 of the Shukla Yajurveda is a unique chapter that will help us throw light on the animal

sacrifices in the Vedas. This chapter contains an exact enumeration of animals that are to be tied to

the sacrificial stakes, with the names of the deities to which they are dedicated. Several of the animals

cannot be identified. This entire chapter is a weird puzzle, which is difficult to solve for the modern

vegetarian Hindus. They are simply unable to explain the coherent meaning of this chapter. You will be

amazed to know that even a Vedic scholar like Swami Dayanand is unable to throw any light on it. He

merely says that we should know the qualities of each animal by relating to the qualities of the deity to

whom they are dedicated. This statement of the Swami is itself a puzzle, as it gives no clear beneficial

knowledge to us. Even Pandit Devi Chand, an Arya Samaj scholar, who based his English translation

of the Yajurveda on Swami Dayanand's work is clueless about the exact meaning of this chapter. He

says in the footnote to verse #1,

"The exact significance of these animals being attached to the forces of

nature (or Deities) is not clear to me." (words in brackets mine)

Does this mean that no Hindu scholar for thousands of years has been able to understand the

meaning of this chapter? I would say that is not the case. If we go to the Brahmanas and the classical

commentators of the Vedas, the puzzle is solved. According to them each animal dedicated to a

particular diety in this chapter has to be sacrificed to that deity. See Shatapath Brahmana 13/2/2/1-10

If this view is not accepted as the correct one, then every verse of this chapter would be a question

mark with no answer. For example, verse 1 dedicates 'a cow that slips her calf' to Indra. But the

question is, what will Indra do with such a cow? Is Indra going to give a sermon to her? or is Indra

going to punish her? Such questions require satisfactory answers which modern vegetarian Hindus are

unable to provide.

In the Yajnas meant for obtaining Rice, meat of bulls was cooked and offered to the diety.

Rigveda 10/28/3 mentions this as

अहिणम िे मग्ददन इदि िूयमन शुदळग्दि शोममन वऩबतश िळमेऴमम |

ऩचग्दि िे ळवाभमनग्त्श िेवमं ऩसणे यदमघळन षूयममन् ||

"Your worshippers express with the stone fast flowing exhilarating Soma-

juices for you. You drink them. They roast bulls for you, you eat them when

you are invoked, Maghavan, to the sacrificial food."

This is interpreted by Sayana Acharya as follows:

"You (O Indra), eat the cattle offered as oblations belonging to the

worshippers who cook them for you."

Acharya Sayana explicitly mentions about sacrificing a bull in the introduction to Atharvaveda 9/4/1 as

follows

"The Brahman after killing the bull, offers its meat to the different deities. In

this hymn, the bull is praised, detailing which parts of the bull are attached

to which deity as well as the importance of sacrificing the bull and the

rewards of doing the same."

The Ashwamedha Yajna

The 'Practical Sanskrit English Dictionary' by V. S. Apte (1890) gives the following meaning of 'Ashwa-

medha'

अश्व् प्रधमनियम मेध्यिे हषंस्यिे अत्र

"A Yajna in which a Horse is primarily sacrificed is called Ashwamedha. [A

Horse Sacrifice]"

The dictionary further goes on to say

"In Vedic times this sacrifice was performed by kings desirous of offspring."

This statement is right when we turn to Shatapath Brahman 13/1/9/9.

To give readers a brief idea of Ashwamedha Yajna, I will briefly mention the entire ritual based on

Hindu texts like Katyayana Srauta Sutra, Apastamba Sutra, etc; but I will not mention the obscene

portion of the Ashwamedha ritual as it is irrelevant with the topic at hand.

The horse to be sacrificed is sprinkled with water, and the Adhvaryu and the sacrificer whisper mantras

into its ear. Anyone who should stop the horse is ritually cursed, and a dog is killed symbolic of the

punishment for the sinners. The horse is then set loose towards the North-East, to roam around

wherever it chooses, for the period of one year (or half a year, according to some commentators). The

horse is associated with the Sun, and its yearly course. If the horse wanders into neighbouring

provinces hostile to the sacrificer, they must be subjugated. The wandering horse is attended by a

hundred young men, sons of princes or high court officials, charged with guarding the horse from all

dangers and inconvenience. During the absence of the horse, an uninterrupted series of ceremonies is

performed in the sacrificer's home.

After the return of the horse, more ceremonies are performed. I HAVE OMITTED THE OBSCENE

PORTION OF THIS YAJNA IN THIS ARTICLE. Those who wish to read them can see Shukla

Yajurveda Chapter 23; verses 19-31 and the commentary of classical scholars.

After this, the horse, a hornless he-goat, a wild ox are bound to sacrificial stakes near the fire, and

seventeen other animals are attached to the horse. A great number of animals, both tame and wild,

are tied to other stakes, according to a commentator 609 in total (Yajurveda, chapter 24 consists of an

exact enumeration).

Then the horse is slaughtered. The horse is dissected, and its flesh roasted. Various parts are offered

to a host of deities. Prayers are made for wealth, offspring and body strength.

In Rigveda, the clearest mention of Ashwamedha is made in Mandal 1 Sookt 162. I will be quoting

those verses of this hymn which directly prove that a horse was sacrificed and consumed. As we have

already read the passages of Aitareya Brahman concerning the method of sacrificing the animal and

distributing its meat, the following passages of the Rigveda will be easier to comprehend.

Rigveda 1/162/3 says,

एव छमग् ऩुरो अशे्वन ळमग्जनम ऩूष्णो भमगो नीयिे वळश्वदेव्य् |

अतभवप्रयं यि ऩुरोलमऴमळािम िळषे्टदेनं शौश्रळशमय ग्जदळति ||

This goat, the portion of Pushan, fit for all the gods, is brought first with the

fleet courser, so that Twashtri may prepare him along with the horse, as an

acceptable preliminary offering for the (sacrificial) food.

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192708.GIF

Next verse 1/162/4 says,

यद धवळष्यं रिुऴो देळयमनं िररममानुवम् ऩयाशं्व नयग्दि |

अत्रम ऩूष्ण् ऩरथमो भमग एति यहं देळेभ्य् ऩरतिळेदयदनज् ||

'When the priests at the season (of this ceremony) lead forth the horse, the

offering devoted to the gods, thrice round the (sacrificial fire) ; then the goat,

the portion of Pushan (or Agni), goes first, announcing the sacrifice to the

gods.'

That is, the goat is first sacrificed and then the horse.

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192709.GIF

Verse 9 says,

यदश्वस्य क्रवळवो मग्सकमऴ यद ळम शळरौ शळतधिौ ररप्तमग्स्ि |

यद धस्ियो् ऴतमिुयान नखेवु शळमा िम िे अवऩ देळेष्ळस्िु ||

Whatever the flies may eat of the raw flesh of the horse; whatever is smeared

upon the brush or upon the axe; (what is smeared) upon the hands or the

nails of the immolator, may all this be with you, (horse) among the gods.

Here we clearly see that the belief of the Vedic people was that horse was not actually dying. It was

rather going to the world of the gods to enjoy a much better life, quite similar to the explanation given

by Swami Prabhupada above.

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192711.GIF

Verse 10 says,

यदळूध्यमुदरस्यमऩळमति य आमस्य करवळवो गदधो अग्स्ि |

शुक्र्िम िच्छतमिमर् कर्णळादिूि मेधं ऴिाऩमकं ऩचदिु ||

Whatever undigested grass fall from his belly whatever particle of raw flesh

may remain;let the immolators make the whole world free from defect, and

so cook the pure (offering) that it may be perfectly dressed.

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192713.GIF

verse 11 says,

यि िे गमत्रमदग्नननम ऩच्यममनमदतभ ऴूऱं तनषिस्यमळधमळति |

मम िद भूम्यममम ऴररवन मम िणवुे देळेभ्यस्िदऴुद्भभ्यो रमिमस्िु ||

Whatever (portion) of your slaughtered body fall from your carcase when it

is being roasted by the fire, (escaping) from the spit; let it not be left on the

ground, nor on the (sacred) grass, but let it (all) be given to the longing gods.

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192713.GIF

verse 12 says,

ये ळमग्जन ंऩररऩश्यग्दि ऩक्ळं य ईममषु् शुरतभतनाषारेति |

ये चमळािो ममंशतभसममुऩमशि उिो िेवममतभगूतिाना इदळिु ||

Let their exertions be for our good who watch the cooking of the horse; who

say, it is fragrant; therefore give us some; who solicit the flesh of the horse

as alms.

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192714.GIF

verse 21, addressing the horse says,

न ळम उ एिन मररयशे न ररष्यतश देळमतनदेवव ऩतथतभ् शुगेतभ् |

षरी िे युञ्जम ऩवािी अभूिममुऩमस्थमद ळमजी धुरर रमशभस्य ||

Verily at this moment you do not die; nor are you harmed; for you go by

auspicious paths to the gods. The horses of Indra, the steeds of the Maruts

shall be yoked (to their cars), and a courser shall be placed in the shaft of the

ass of the Ashwins (to bear you to heaven).

Again, this verse explicitly proves the belief of the Vedic people that the sacrificial horse did not

actually die but was trasported to noble heavenly worlds.

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192719.GIF

After finishing all the rites of the sacrifice, prayers were made for wealth, male offspring and bodily

strength as is revealed by verse 22.

शुगव्यं नो ळमजी शळश्व्यं ऩंुश् ऩुत्रमनुि वळश्वमऩुवं रतयम |

अनमगमस्त्ळं नो अहदति् कणोिु कवत्रं नो अश्वो ळनिमं षवळष्ममन ||

May this horse bring to us all-sustaining wealth, with abundance of cows, of

excellent horses, and of male offspring: may the spirited steed bring us

exemption from wickedness: may this horse, offered in oblation, procure for

us bodily vigour.

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192720.GIF

This hymn would be nonsense if the horse was not really killed and cooked. That the horse was to be

actually immolated and that the body was cut up into fragments is clear ; that these fragments were

dressed, partly boiled, and partly roasted, is also undisputable ; and although the expressions may be

differently understood, yet there is little reason to doubt that part of the flesh was eaten by the

assistants, part presented as a burnt offering to the gods.

Refuting Hindu polemics concerning Ashwamedha

Hindu Argument (quoted from a Hindu apologetics website)

The biggest accusation of cattle and cow slaughter comes in the context of the Yajnas that derived

their names from different cattle like the Ashwamedh Yajna, the Gomedha Yajna and the Nar-medh

Yajna. Even by the wildest stretch of the imagination the word Medha would not mean slaughter in this

context.

It’s interesting to note what Yajurveda says about a horse

——————————————————–

Imam ma himsirekashafam pashum kanikradam vaajinam vaajineshu

Yajurveda 13.48

Do not slaughter this one hoofed animal that neighs and who goes with a speed faster than most of the

animals.

———————————————————-

Aswamedha does not mean horse sacrifice at Yajna. Instead the Yajurveda clearly mentions that a

horse ought not to be slaughtered.

In Shathapatha, Ashwa is a word for the nation or empire

The word medha does not mean slaughter. It denotes an act done in accordance to the intellect

Alternatively it could mean consolidation, as evident from the root meaning of medha i.e. medhru san-

ga-me

Raashtram vaa ashwamedhah

Annam hi gau

Agnirvaa ashwah

Aajyam medhah

(Shatpath 13.1.6.3)

Response

Even this argument is not upto the mark. The tactic used by the Hindu apologists here is quoting only

part of a verse (Yajurveda 13.48) and ignoring the rest; thus, attempting to mislead the gullible. Doing

so gives a completely different picture that Vedas are instructing people not to kill a horse.

Firstly, we need to ascertain that who is this mantra being spoken to? Is it a legal prohibition or a

prayer? Is this general or specific? Let us read the full mantra.

"O Agni, don't harm this one-hoofed beautiful horse, swifter than most

animals. I point out to you the wild rhinoceros. Let the wild rhinocerous be

harmed by you. Let the enemy whom we hate be harmed by you."

As you can see this is actually a prayer by a selfish person asking his firegod Agni not to harm his own

horses but to harm the wild animals, in this case a rhinocerous. So this verse is not a legal prohibition

from killing horses. It is also prayer for the welfare of one's own animals as every animal owner will

naturally do. For example, there are many shepherds who pray to God to protect their cattle from

undue harm so that he can sell them or kill them for food and thus they do not go waste. This prayer is

on the same lines and thus cannot be taken as a prohibition of slaughtering horses.

The next argument that Ashwa means a nation or empire, in the reference to Shatapath Brahman is

also incorrect. For example, we all know that water is essential for the existence of life on this planet.

But in many campaigns to prevent the wastage of water, we find slogans like 'Water is Life'. Does this

make the meaning of water to be life or the meaning of life to be water? Not at all. It is a mode of

speech where figuratively water and life are equated to establish the importance of water. Similarly, in

Vedic times, the horse-sacrifice was considered essential for a strong empire so much that it was

equated to the nation itself. Performance of this sacrifice depicted the royal granduer. But the meaning

of Ashwa can thus never become a nation. To claim so is ignorance.

If we read the quoted Brahman (13.1.63) further, it clearly differentiates between a nation and the

ashwamedha by saying, "let him who holds royal sway perform the ashwamedha".

A counter example to further nullify this argument will come from the same Shatapath Brahman. Who

does not know that the Sacrifice (Yajna) and the Sacrificer (Yajmaan) are two different things. Yet

Rishi Yajnavalkya says in Shatapath Brahman 13:2:2:1

Yajmaano Yajna

meaning the 'Sacriice is the Sacrificer'. This mode of speech is very common in the Brahmanas.

Only a person with the intention of twisting the meanings does not reveal this. Seeing all these

evidences this argument of the Hindtuva polemicist also turns out to be false.

The final blow to this argument comes from the historical narratives of Mahabharata and Ramayana,

where Hindus are clearly shown sacrificing a horse and other animals including cows.

The Ashwamedha Parv of Mahabharata, section 89, shlokas 1-5 says

1 [ळ]

ऴमतयत्ळम ऩऴून अदयमन वळतधळद दवळजशत्तमम्

िुरगं िं यथमऴमस्त्रम आऱभदि दवळजमिय्

2 िि् शंहमप्य िुरगं वळतधळद यमजकवाभम ्

उऩशंळेऴयन रमजंश ििश िमं दरुऩदमत्मजमम

कऱमतभश तिशभृी रमजन यथमवळतध मनग्स्ळनीम

3 उर्द्तृ्य िु ळऩमं िस्य यथमऴमसं्त्र दवळजवाभम ्

ऴरऩयमम आशुर अव्यग्रम् ऴमस्त्रळद भरिवाभ

4 िं ळऩम धूमगदधं िु धमारमज् शषमनुज्

उऩमग्जघ्रद यथमदयमय ंशळाऩमप्ममऩषं िदम

5 तऴष्टमदय अङ्गमतन यमदय आशंश िस्यमश्वस्य नरमतधऩ

िमदय अननौ जुषुळुर धीरम् शमस्िम् वॊडऴग्त्ळाज ्

Vaisampayana said, 'Having cooked, according to due rites, the other

excellent animals that were sacrificed, the priests then sacrificed, agreeably

to the injunctions of the scriptures, that steed (which had wandered over the

whole world). After cutting that horse into pieces, conformably to scriptural

directions, they caused Draupadi of great intelligence, who was possessed of

the three requisites of mantras, things, and devotion, to sit near the divided

animal. The Brahmanas then with cool minds, taking up the marrow of that

steed, cooked it duly, O chief of Bharata's race. King Yudhishthira the just,

with all his younger brothers, then smelled, agreeably to the scriptures, the

smoke, capable of cleansing one from every sin, of the marrow that was thus

cooked. The remaining limbs, O king, of that horse, were poured into the fire

by the sixteen sacrificial priests possessed of great wisdom.

Meat Eating in Vedas including Cow meat

The Sanskrit word for meat is 'Maamsam'. Yaska Acharya's Nirukt 4:3 says 'Maamsam maananam

va' (ममंश ंममनन ंळम) and 'Maanasam va' (ममनशं ळम). The meaning of the former is 'it is honoured',

while the later means 'it is thought'. Durga Acharya, the most important classical commentator of

Yaska's Nirukt, explains the phrase 'Maamsam maananam va' to mean, "It is prepared for a person

who is honoured". Explaining the phrase 'Maanasam va' he says, "It is enjoyed by a person with

hearty pleasure or by those who are intelligent'.

So we see that the very sanskrit word for meat is actually a permission for meat eating.

Atharvaveda 18/4/20 mentions the following.

Rich in cakes, rich in flesh, let the dish (charu) take seat here; to the world-

makers, the road-makers, do we sacrifice, whoever of you are here, sharing

in the oblation of the gods.

verse 42 of the same hymn reads.

The mingled draught, the mess of rice, the flesh which I present to you,

May these be full of food for you, distilling fatness, rich in sweets.

The serving of meat to the guests is confirmed by Shatapath Brahman 3/4/1/2 which says,

Now as to why it is called 'guest-offering.' He, the purchased Soma, truly

comes as his (the sacrificer's) guest,--to him (is offered) that (hospitable

reception): even as for a king or a Brâhman one would cook a large ox

or a large he-goat--for that is human (fare offered to a guest), and the

oblation is that of the gods--so he prepares for him that guest-offering.

Goghna- the guest for whom a cow is killed

Literally the word 'Goghna' means a killer of cows. However in the ancient Indian context it has a

unique application. The word 'Goghna' occurs in ancient Indian Grammarian Panini's book

Ashtadhyayi. He mentions in Ashtadyayi 3/4/73

दमऴगोघ्नौ शंप्रदमने

"The words 'daasa' and 'goghna' are irregularly formed and the affix in

these denotes the idea of the Dative or Recipient."

What does Panini mean that the word 'goghna' denotes the idea of recipient? He intends to say that in

popular usage 'goghna' does not mean 'the killer of cow' but 'he on whose coming the cow is killed in

order to give him, that is to say, a guest'. It is this irregularly formed word 'goghna' which is made

applicable to the priests, guests, sons-in-law, and not the regularly formed word 'goghna' which means

'a killer of a cow'.

Thus guests in ancient India were called 'goghna', because on their coming a cow was slaughtered

to be served to them.

This is exactly the explanation given in the 14th century grammar book Siddhanta Kaumudi by Pandit

Bhattoji Dikshit. This book is taught to university level students across India for learning sanskrit

grammar. In it, the sutra of Panini दमऴगोघ्नौ शंप्रदमने is explained in the 'Uttarkradant' chapter as

follows:

गमं षंति िस्मै गौघ्नो.अतितथ्

For it a cow is slaughtered; a guest is called 'goghna'

Almost similar definition of 'goghna' is provided by the Vedic commentator Acharya Sayana in his book

Maadhaviya dhaatuvrittih. He writes

गौयास्मै दमिुं षदयिे श गोघ्न् अतितथ्

"A person for whom a cow is slaughtered, is known as 'goghna' and 'atithi'

(guest)."

Thus it is clear that in ancient India, cows were slaughtered for honouring the guests.

Refuting the Hindu polemic of cow being called 'Aghnya'

Many Hindus trying to somehow hide these clear evidences give some lame arguments. One common

argument is that a cow in Vedic literature is called 'Aghnya' meaning 'not fit to be killed' and

therefore a cow cannot in any way be killed. Let us address this argument.

Hindu Argument

Not only the Vedas are against animal slaughter but also vehemently oppose and prohibit cow

slaughter.Yajurveda forbids killing of cows, for they provide energizing food for human beings

———————————

Ghrtam duhaanaamaditim janaayaagne maa himsiheeh

Yajurveda 13.49

Do not kill cows and bulls who always deserve to be protected.

In Rigveda cow slaughter has been declared a heinous crime equivalent to human murder and it has

been said that those who commits this crime should be punished.

—————————————–

Sooyavasaad bhagavatee hi bhooyaa atho vayam bhagvantah syaama

Addhi trnamaghnye vishwadaaneem piba shuddhamudakamaacharantee

Rigveda 1.164.40 or Atharv 7.73.11 or Atharv 9.10.20

The Aghnya cows – which are not to be killed under any circumstances– may keep themselves healthy

by use of pure water and green grass, so that we may be endowed with virtues, knowledge and

wealth.

Response

As with the previous arguments, this argument also has serious shortcomings. We've already dealt

with Yajurveda 13/48 and seen that it wasn't a legal prohibition against killing a horse. Similarly, this

verse also is a prayer to protect one's cows. Let me post before you the full mantra to demonstrate my

position.

"O Agni, don't harm this our cow, the giver of thousands of comforts, the

source of immense milk, yielding butter for the people. I point out to you the

forest cow. Let the wild forest cow be harmed by you. Let the enemy whom

we hate be harmed by you."

Again we see, as in verse 48, that there is no legal prohibition in this verse on killing a cow for food. It

is a prayer being made to the fire god Agni to protect one's cows from undue harm due to the wrath of

the fire god.All cowherds in the world pray to their own god to keep their cows safe from harm, so that

they can sell their milk and other dairy products and earn profit. This does not mean that certain cows

cannot be killed for food. To say so will be just an assumption. If this verse was about prohibiting

killing of cows, why would it talk about killing the forest cow? Anyone who would read the complete

verse will realize that this verse cannot be taken as a prohibition for killing cows. That is why the Hindu

polemicists never give the complete verse to their audience.

The next argument was that in the Vedas, a cow is called 'Aghnya' meaning 'not fit to be killed'. By

this argument they try to establish that as per the Vedas cows are not to be killed. This is again a

flawed argument as even according to the cultures who have beef for food know that certain cows are

not fit to be killed who bring more profit through dairy products; but there are also cows who do not

give much profit and thus are fit to be killed. Even the Vedic references where a cow is called 'Aghnya'

cannot in any way be generalized for all the cows.

Consider the following mantra from Rigveda 1/164/27.

हषङकर्णळािी ळशुऩत्नी ळशूनमं ळत्शतमछदिी मनशमभ्यमगमि |

दषुममग्श्वभ्यमं ऩयो अघ्दयेयं श ळधािमं मषिे शौभगमय ||

"Making the 'hin' sound, the treasure queen, desiring the calf of treasures

with her mind, has approached. Let this cow (aghnya) yield milk for the

two Asvins, and may she grow for greater prosperity"

This mantra is speaking about a particular cow which gives milk to the Asvins, the divine twin

horsemen in the Rigveda. Again it is not a legal prohibition, but rather is a prayer to yiled milk for the

Asvins. Moreover, classical Hindu commentators like Acharya Sayana interpret this verse and the one

before it i.e. verse 26 in terms of metaphors of clouds, rain and the earth. He opines that the cow may

be the rain cloud, the milk being the rain and the milker Vaayu, the god of wind who causes it to flow.

The calf is the world longing for the rain to fall.

Thus, it will be incorrect to insist that this verse is speaking about all cows in the world, referring to

them as 'Aghnya'. In order for anything to be prohibited it should be stated explicitly and without any

ambiguity, This is the basis of all law. However, nothing on the lines of prohibition can be deduced

from this verse and other verses where the word 'Aghnya' exists.

But this one more important point I wish to share with regards to the meaning of the word 'Aghnya'. I

agree that a meaning of 'Aghnya' is 'not fit to be killed', however, this does not tell us the entire story.

According to Yaska Acharya's Nirukt, the word has two meanings as follows:

Aghnya means 'not fit to be killed' or 'destroyer of sins'

Thus, we see why all the noise is being made on the first meaning of the word i.e. 'not fit to be killed';

while the second meaning i.e. 'destroyer of sins' is being completely brushed under the carpet. This is

a clear proof of intellectual dishonesty. Applying the second meaning to the verses where the word

'Aghnya' appears in the Vedas appears to be a more appealing prospect. Let us now read Rigveda

1/164/40 with this very meaning:

शूयळशमद भगळिी हष भूयम अथो ळयं भगळदि् शयमम |

अवर्द् िणामघ्दये वळश्वदमनीं वऩब ऴुर्द्मुदकममचरदिी ||

"O Aghnya (destroyer of sins), may you be rich in milk through abundant

fodder; that we also may be rich (in abundance); eat grass at all seasons,

and roaming (at will), drink pure water."

Notice that now this verse speaks nothing about not killing cows. A cow may be called 'destroyer of

sins' due to the very fact that it was sacrificed as a burnt offering for cleansing a person's sins. This is

not a far fetched conclusion. However, the primary point is that in no terms in this verse and other

verses like it implying any prohibition of cow slaughter. Even if 'Aghnya' is taken to mean 'not fit to be

killed', it can only be taken to mean a particular kind of cow.

Thus, this argument also is not valid.

Some Hindus still try to show more mantras. which according to them, prohibit the killing of cows.

However, when we look at those mantras, we find that they are again quoted out of context. One most

commonly used mantra of that sort is Atharvaveda 1/16/4 which says,

"If you destroy a cow of ours, a human being, or a steed, We pierce you with

this piece of lead so that you may not slay our men."

Even on a simple reading of this mantra, one cannot conlude that it is prohibiting killing cows for food.

It is a merely threat for the enemies to not kill any cow, horse or people of the Vedic people so as to

cause loss to them. For example, we know that chicken are bred in poultry farms so that they can later

be sold in the market and people can consume them as food. Any owner of such a farm knows this.

But still, if someone would want to harm his chicken unnecessarily, it would mean loss of wealth for

him. As such he is ready to take protective action and ensure the safety of his chicken. He makes sure

that no one steals any chicken from his farm to kill them, even though chicken are meant for food. So,

he will ensure that such theieves are punished. Also, there is threat from many animals who might eat

the chicken when he is unaware. For that he even kills the harmful animals to save his chicken.

Consider that chicken owner saying, "if anyone will harm MY chicken, I will punish him". Will the

Hindutvavadis interpret his statement to mean that the chicken are not meant to be eaten? No. That

would be totally ridiculous.

Similarly, in the verse of Atharvaveda, it is a threat of punishment for those who harm the cattle of

Aryans. It is in no way a prohibition on slaughtering a cow for food. Considering all the evidences

presented in this article, insisting that cows and other animals are not meant for food will be illogical.

Other evidences of beef eating

Brihadaranyak Upanishad 6/4/18 suggests a 'super-scientific' way of giving birth to a super intelligent

child. It says,

"If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous

scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of

all the Vedas and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice

cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in

years and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they

should be able to beget such a son."

Some Hindutvavadis try to play tricks even here by trying to twist the translation of few words like

'Auksha' and 'Aarshabh". They say they refer to certain medicinal plants and not a bull. To refute them,

we are fortunate to have available the most ancient commentary on this mantra by none other than Adi

Shankaracharya, revered by Hindus as the reviver of Hinduism in India and finishing off Buddhism and

Jainism. Commenting on this verse he writes,

ममंशतमसमोदनं ममंशौदनम.् िदममंशतनयममथाममष - औसेण ळम ममंशेन. उसम

शेचनशमथा् ऩंुगळस्िदीयं ममंशम.् ररवभस्ििो.अप्यतधकळयमस्ि दीयममवाभं

ममंशम.्

"Odan' (rice) mixed with meat is called 'Mansodan'. On being asked whose

meat it should be, he answers 'Uksha'. 'Uksha' is used for an ox, which is

capable to produce semen. Or the meat should be of a 'Rishabh'. 'Rishabh' is

a bull more advanced in years than an 'Uksha'."

Thus people trying to twist the mantras have no ground to stand on except deceit and fraud. This verse

of Brihadaranyak Upanishad is clearly encouraging the eating of beef.

Animal Sacrifices in Mahabharata

The Anushasan Parv (Book 13); section 88 mentions many animal sacrifices which are can be done to

please the Pitris (fathers). I will quote the significant sholkas

1 [य]

हकं शवळद दत्तं वऩिभृ्यॊ ळै भळत्य असयम ईश्वर

हकं षवळऴ तचररमत्रमय हकम आनदत्यमय कल्ऩिे

"Yudhishthira said, 'O you of great puissance, tell me what that object is

which, if dedicated to the Pitris, becomes inexhaustible! What Havi

(oblation), again, (if offered) lasts for all time? What, indeed, is that which (if

presented) becomes eternal?'"

[भ]

5 दळौ ममशौ िु भळेि ितृप्तर मत्स्यै् वऩिगृणस्य ष

िरीन ममशमन आवळकेनमषुऴ चमिुममास्यं ऴऴेन िु

6 आजेन ममशमन ऩरीयदिे ऩञ्चैळ वऩिरॊ नऩृ

ळमरमषेण िु वण ममशमन शप्त ळै ऴमकुनेन िु

7 ममशमन अष्टौ ऩमवािेन रौरळेण नळैळ िु

गळयस्य िु ममंशेन ितृप्त् शयमद दऴ ममतशकी

8 ममशमन एकमदऴ ऩरीति् वऩिॄणमं ममहषवेण िु

गव्येन दते्त ऴरमरे्द् िु शंळत्शरम इषॊच्यिे

9 यथम गव्यं िथमयुकं्त ऩमयशं शवऩावम शष

ळमध्रीणशस्य ममंशेन ितृप्तर दळमदऴ ळमववाकी

10 आनदत्यमय भळेद दत्तं खड्गममंशं वऩिसृये

कमऱऴमकं च ऱौषं चमप्य आनदत्यं छमग उच्यिे

Bhishma said, "With fishes offered at Sraddhas, the Pitris remain gratified

for a period of two months. With mutton they remain gratified for three

months and with the flesh of the hare for four. With the flesh of the

goat, O king, they remain gratified for five months, with bacon for six

months, and with the flesh of birds for seven. With venison obtained

from those deer that are called Prishata, they remain gratified for

eight months, and with that obtained from the Ruru for nine months, and

with the meat of the Gavaya for ten months. With the meat of the

buffalo their gratification lasts for eleven months. With beef presented

at the Sraddha, their gratification, it is said, lasts for a full year. Payasa

mixed with ghee is as much acceptable to the Pitris as beef. With the meat

of the Vadhrinasa the gratification of the Pitris lasts for twelve years. The

flesh of the rhinoceros, offered to the Pitris on the anniversaries of the

lunar days on which they died, becomes inexhaustible.

Clearly there can be no doubt that meat of all kinds was extensively used in sacrifice rituals to please

one's fathers who had died.

Sacrificial slaughter of cows is also mentioned in Mahabharata, Shalya Parv, Section 41. A king called

Rantidev is mentioned in the Vana Parv, section 207 as well as section 199, as follows

7 रमहॊ मषमनशे ऩूळ ंरग्दिदेळस्य ळै दवळज

दळे शषसे्र िु ळध्येिे ऩऴूनमम अदळषं िदम

8 शममंशं ददिॊ षय अदनं रग्दिदेळस्य तनत्यऴ्

अिुऱम कीतिार अभळन नऩृस्य दवळजशत्तम

"And in days of yore, O Brahmana, two thousand animals used to be killed

every day in the kitchen of king Rantideva; and in the same manner two

thousand cows were killed every day; and, O best of regenerate beings, king

Rantideva acquired unrivalled reputation by distributing food with meat

every day."

Some Hindus bigots try to claim that these are interpolation and later additions in Mahabharat.

However, there is no evidence to conclude that. This is only a bogus claim of those who are unwilling

to accept that their ancestors used to eat beef.

Nowadays an effort is being made in India to establish the society based on the principle of Manu,

however, no clear-cut picture or its implementation is drawn out. It is interesting that the same Manu

permits eating of meat and does not list the killing of cows in the major sins.

Manu Smriti 5/35 mentions,

"But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite),

refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one

existences."

Manu Smriti 5/56 says

"There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal

intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention

brings great rewards."

The testimony of ancient Indian medical texts

Modern Hindus usually are seen boasting about India's scientific heritage, especially of medical texts

like Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita, which they think are proof of the advancement of science

in the ancient Hindu society. No doubt that like other nations of the word ancient Hindus too have

contributed to our knowledge, epecially science and mathematics. I will now reveal before you the

medicinal benefits of cow meat as enshrined in ancient Indian medical texts. I will not be commenting

on the medical validity of the passages. They are only given to prove that cow meat was consumed.

"Cow meat is beneficial in curing breathing problems, Ozaena, Ague, dry

cough, fatigue, diseases due to burns and marasmus."

[Charaka Samhita, Sutra Sthaanam, 27/79-80]

Charaka Samhita, Chikitsa Sthaanam 8/163 says,

"A person of magnanimous heart who eats meat along with a wine named as

'Maadhveek', is quickly relieved of tuberculosis.

Charaka Samhita, Chikitsa Sathaanam 8/165 says,

"While consuming the above mentioned kinds of meat, one may have a dose

of whichever wine is appropriate such as 'Prasanna', 'Vaarooni', 'seedhu',

'arisht', 'aasava' and 'madhu'."

Besides the cow, meat of other animals is also prescribes for various diseases. For example, Sutra

158 of the same chapter says,

"Meat of a peacock, patridge, rooster, goose, swine, camel, donkey, cow and

buffalo is beneficial for developing one's body."

Although there are numerous other references from Charaka Samhita prescribing meat for various

other ddiseases, I feel the above mentioned passages are sufficient to prove that no meat was

prohibited in ancient Indian society. It was freely taken as cure for various diseases and improving

one's health.

The testimony of classical scholars

To conclude my article establishing that the Vedas and the subsidiary texts permit beef eating as well

as sacrificing animals, I will post the testimony of renowned classical Hindu scholars, besides the other

notale scholars I have already quoted.

1. Adi Shankaracharya

Adi Shankaracharya has written an extensive commentary on the famous Brahma Sutras. In his

commentary on Brahma Sutra Adhyaai 3, Paada 1, Sutra 25 he writes,

"None therefore can know, without scripture, what is either right or wrong.

Now from scripture we derive the certain knowledge that the gyotishtoma-

sacrifice, which involves harm done to animals (i.e. the animal sacrifice), is

an act of duty; how then can it be called unholy?--But does not the scriptural

precept, 'Do not harm any creature,' intimate that to do harm to any being is

an act contrary to duty?--True, but that is a general rule, while the precept,

'Let him offer an animal to Agnîshomau,' embodies an exception; and

general rule and exception have different spheres of application. The work

(i.e. sacrifice) enjoined by the Veda is therefore holy, being performed by

authoritative men and considered blameless;"

2. Acharya Ramanuja

Acharya Ramanuja also has written a very famed commentary on the Brahma Sutras called 'Sri

Bhasya'. Commenting on the same Sutra 25 he writes,

"Scripture declares that the killing of sacrificial animals makes them to go up

to the heavenly world, and therefore is not of the nature of harm. This is

declared in the text, 'The animal killed at the sacrifice having assumed a

divine body goes to the heavenly world'; 'with a golden body it ascends to the

heavenly world.' An action which is the means of supreme exaltation is not of

the nature of harm, even if it involves some little pain; it rather is of

beneficial nature."

3. Sikand Swami

This 7th century commentator of the Vedas, while commenting on Rigveda 1/1/4 writes,

"Yajna is good for everyone, and no one is injured. The animals who are

sacrificed, also gain ultimate good. The ancestors say, "the animals that are

sacrificed in the Yajna, obtain the higher worlds"

There must remain no doubt in the anyone's mind after seeing all these testimonies that the Vedic

religion permits beef eating and also sacrificing the animals is considered as an investment for greater

good.

Note: I have refuted the most popular Hindu arguments to deny beef eating in the Vedas. If any

other 'VEER' displays some other 'VEERTA', it would be dealt with at that time.