FLORENCE BURGAT1

NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS IN THE THINKING OF

GANDHI: THE PROBLEM OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

(Accepted in revised form August 25, 2003)

ABSTRACT. The question of the imperatives induced by the Gandhian concept of

non-violence towards animals is an issue that has been neglected by specialists on the
thinking of the Mahatma. The aim of this article is to highlight the systematic – and
significant – character of this particular aspect of his views on non-violence. The first
part introduces the theoretical foundations of the duty of non-violence towards
animals in general. Gandhi’s critical interpretation of cow-protection, advocated by
Hinduism, leads to a general reflection on the duty of non-violence towards animals,
the cow being transformed into the representative of all ‘‘dumb creation.’’ The ap-
proach adopted by Gandhi to solving the problem of cow-protection focuses on its
practical dimensions and is based primarily on reforming animal husbandry. What
limits should be imposed on the exploitation of farm animals within the framework
of non-violence? Gandhi devoted nearly 30 years to elaborating an animal hus-
bandry system that would be both economically viable and in conformity with the
universal ethical principles he drew from religions (especially Hinduism). The
interdiction to kill is absolute, since Gandhi not only rejects the breeding of farm
animals for the purposes of butchery but also the slaughtering of animals that are no
longer capable of providing the services required of them. He therefore concentrated
his efforts on drawing up a scheme to reorganize this activity on a national scale
while taking into consideration these constraints, which are less contradictory than
they may seem to be at first sight. Reviewing the age-old activity of animal hus-
bandry in the light of non-violence is clearly based on the specific nature of Hindu
traditions. However, it goes far beyond cultural or religious relativism, since it is also
founded on universal ethical principles.

KEY WORDS: ethics, farm animals, Gandhi, non-violence

1. INTRODUCTION

The vast literature devoted to Gandhi pays scant attention to duties towards
animals despite the fact that this is a component of his concept of non-vio-
1
This article has been translated from the French by Nieves Claxton.

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14: 223–248, 2004.

2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
224 FLORENCE BURGAT

lence.2 The extension of non-violence to animals is usually presented as a

secondary consideration, an additional aspect, or a feature of the personal
sensitivity of the Mahatma, and not as an integral part of the system without
which it would lose its coherence and profound meaning. And yet it is not, by
any means, an emotional propensity that governs this extension of non-vio-
lence to animals but his moral perception of man. Indeed, the Gandhian vision
of animality bears little weight, because its basic premise is subservience to
‘‘the laws of nature.’’ Although Gandhi is not at the origin of including the
animal world in the duty to be non-violent (it is consubstantial with the defi-
nition of ahimsâ3), he nevertheless draws practical inferences as to the different
circumstances confronting humans with animals.
Animal husbandry is one area in which non-violence seems, by its very
nature, impossible to avoid since it is so closely linked to slaughter. And even
when this is not the case, farmers are faced with the problem of putting
unproductive animals out to grass. We shall focus our attention on how the
duty of non-violence towards farm animals is applied. Although the imper-
ative of non-violence is difficult to put into practice, in the case of animal
husbandry it does not suffer from the casuistry that can affect other types of
situations, which we will mention briefly. The slaughter of farm animals is
not due to any threat or vital necessity, since proteins can be found in milk.
For Gandhi, the interdiction to kill is absolute. Not only does he condemn
the slaughter of animals for food but he also refuses to accept the killing of
animals that are no longer able to provide the services required of them. This
is why he made such great efforts to draw up a plan to re-organize this
activity on a national scale, designed to meet two requirements: non-violence
on the one hand, and the production of a sufficient quantity of inexpensive
and good quality milk, on the other.4

2
As there are no specific studies on this question or anthologies on duties towards
animals (with the exception of a brief anthology of the writings of Gandhi and other
authors entitled in Kumrappa, (1954), we will frequently quote comments by Ghandi
that can only be found in his complete works (CWMG, 1958–1984).
3
This Sanskrit term is translated by non-violence in English in the above-men-
tioned reference edition. Unfortunately, this translation does not take into account
the active aspect characterizing the term, as ahimsâ signifies active love, that is to say,
compassion, rather than a curbed propensity for violence. However, as will be seen, it
is not restricted to this definition. We have, therefore, decided to use the term ahimsâ.
4
Agricultural reform is another problem. See the line of thought that emerges
from the article by Guha (1997).
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 225

Questioned about situations in which the presence or activity of animals

might endanger subsistence (monkeys that devastate crops5) or human lives
(stray dogs that are carriers of rabies6), Gandhi had several opportunities to
express himself on what, in his opinion, could be done to comply with a just
view of ahimsâ. Broadly speaking, the preservation of life (one’s own and that
of people and animals under one’s responsibility) inevitably leads to violence
but it should be limited to strict necessity.7
If I were faced with the option of killing a tiger or a snake, or otherwise being killed by it, I
would rather be killed by it than take its life. But that is a personal position, not to be put

5
Gandhi devoted several articles to the harmful effects caused by monkeys that
destroy crops or other animals. Without calling into question the principle of the
equal right to life of all creatures, given the means then available, he did not see any
solution other than putting these animals to death (see, among others, ‘‘The Monkey
Nuisance,’’ Harijan, 5-5-1946). Gandhi makes a clear distinction between the vio-
lence suffered by an individual and the kind of violence that threatens the survival
and safety of a group. In the latter case, it is a question of protecting the crops
intended to feed a group of individuals. The level of responsibility is therefore dif-
ferent.‘‘I cannot freely choose to sacrifice the interest of a whole group, when I can
do so, if the attack only threatens what belongs to me, my possessions or my life.’’
(See ‘‘Why Kill,’’ Harijan, 7-7-1946). In any event, violence should only be used as
the very last resort.
6
Gandhi had occasion to explain himself on the subject of how to deal with stray
dogs that could spread rabies. He was criticized by some people for having chosen
their destruction on the grounds that this was inevitable and that such violence could
prevent the even greater violence of allowing the reproduction of countless animals
condemned to living in particularly miserable conditions. He therefore recommended
not feeding these animals in order to limit their proliferation (see, among others, ‘‘Is
This Humanity?,’’ Young India, 4-11-1926 and’’ Is This Humanity?-V,’’ Young India,
11-11-1926). The massive electrocution of stray dogs, carried out by the municipal
authorities of the major Indian towns, was gradually replaced by sterilization and
vaccination operations conducted by animal protection associations. The latter were
able to prove through statistics that killing animals had in no way curbed their
increasing numbers. Gandhi obviously preferred this non-violent solution, as he
wrote in his ‘‘Letter to N.’’ of June 30, 1933 (CWMG, vol. L, p. 230), in which he
deplored the lack of organization and means of existing associations to carry out
such operations. It is only in the past ten years that these associations have
accomplished this work successfully. They managed to persuade town councils of the
validity of their methods, and received assistance from the Animal Welfare Board of
India (Ministry of the Environment and Forests). Cooperation between the dog
pound and the associations was introduced in several big cities, such as Delhi,
Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, under the name of the ‘‘Animal Birth Control
Programme.’’
7
Cf. Young India, 4-11-1926.
226 FLORENCE BURGAT

forward for adoption for others. If I had the fearless power to tame these dangerous creatures
by the force of my love and my will, and could show others how to do likewise, then I should
have the right to advise other people to follow my example.8

Even though Gandhi did not apply this principle of limitation to himself,
in his opinion, only a danger threatening one’s safety could remove the
interdiction to kill, on condition, of course, that there were no other means.
This is why his condemnation of both dissection9 and vivisection is abso-
lute.10 These cases do not, in fact, fall under the above-mentioned situations,
and assuming that it is possible to argue in favor of such a use on the pretext
of saving human lives, the theory is still unacceptable for two other reasons.
First of all, the assimilation of both the end and the means constitutes a
cornerstone in the thinking of Gandhi, and secondly, he rejects the utili-
tarian position whereby it is legitimate to sacrifice a small number of
interests, and even individuals, for the benefit of the largest number.11 No
just aim can be achieved through violent means, and any possible gains
would merely be transient, having been obtained from corrupted matter.
I will start by focusing on the Gandhian definition of ahimsâ, the out-
come of a diversity of spiritual and intellectual heritages, in order to outline
the theoretical framework of his project for non-violent animal husbandry.
Gandhi’s concept of human nature and of animal nature should be carefully
examined from two angles. First of all, it is almost a caricature because of its
opposing approaches to defining the ‘‘law of the Man’’ and the ‘‘law of the
beast.’’12 Secondly, it is profound when it turns the cow into the represen-
tative of all ‘‘dumb creation.’’ Thus, although Gandhi considers the animal
world to be violent and coarse, for him it is the object of great compassion
because of its vulnerability and silence. It therefore comes as no surprise to
see that his plan to reform animal husbandry is based on reviewing the
protection of bovines advocated by Hinduism. Gandhi criticizes in the
clearest of terms the superstitious worship of the cow (that is to say, an
abstract entity or religious symbol) to the detriment of a genuine interest in
cows (that is to say, the actual treatment and future of these animals).

8
‘‘Talk with Mirabehn,’’ November 8, 1943 (CWMG, vol. LXXVII, pp. 207–
208).
9
See ‘‘Letter to H.S.L. Polak,’’ September 8, 1909 (CWMG, vol. IX, p. 395).
10
See ‘‘Interview of Captain Strunk,’’ Harijan, 3-7-1937.
11
‘‘Followers of ahimsâ cannot claim as their own the utilitarian formula whereby
the greatest good is that which suits the greatest number. ‘‘Quoted in Tous les
hommes sont fre`res, UNESCO, 1958, republished by Gallimard, Folio/Essays, 1990,
translated into French by Guy Vogelweith, p. 160.’’ This text is an excerpt from a
compilation (the original reference is not included) (Bose, 1948).
12
‘‘Letter to V.N.S. Chary,’’ Ashram, Sabarmati, April 9, 1926 (CWMG, vol.
XXX, p. 262).
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 227

What clearly emerges here is Gandhi’s role as a reformer of Hinduism, as

he perceived it, based on a search for ethical universalism that forms the
foundation of all religions. A protection worthy of this name needs to have
the appropriate means to ‘‘save the cow from the butcher’s knife,’’13 an issue
that, as Gandhi demonstrates, is of no concern to cow worshippers. An
ethical understanding of the duty to protect cows must be based on an
economic solution to the problem. In particular, this implies overcoming
certain feelings of repulsion about handling carcasses. Indeed, it is only by
using all the products of animals while they are alive (milk, dung, and urine)
and by exploiting their carcasses after they die (skin, gut, and fat) that it is
possible to build up a non-violent and economically viable system. This is
the real challenge, and in order to meet it successfully goshalas and
the pinjrapoles14 – ancient institutions providing shelter for unproductive,
aged, disabled, or abandoned animals, the first forms of which go back to
3000 years – should be completely re-organized on a scientific basis. They
should not be restricted to the simple function of serving as a home for
animals but should also have a dairy and a tannery attached to them.

2. THE GANDHIAN DEFINITION OF AHIMSÂ

The sources of Gandhi’s thinking have been the subject of numerous studies,
particularly in English. A few words should be mentioned about the influ-
ence of Tolstoy, responsible for shifting the principle of ahimsâ towards its
aspect of love, in an active interpretation of non-violence and not just mere
abstention. For both these thinkers, non-violence also applies to the
behavior of human beings towards animals, leading in particular to vege-
tarianism (but on this particular point, it was his meeting with Henry Salt

13
‘‘To save the cow from the butcher’s knife’’ is an expression frequently used by
Gandhi to mean that the main imperative of protection is to save animals from being
slaughtered.
14
Traditionally, goshalas (or gaushalas) sheltered mainly cattle, while pinjrapoles
were homes for all kinds of animals. These two terms have tended to acquire a
similar meaning (as in Gandhi’s writings), in that they do not define the assigned
protection roles for one type of animal or another. According to Dashrathbhai M.
Thaker, it is the influence of the Jain culture, together with financial support of
goshalas from this community, that gradually led these establishments to extend their
shelters to all animals. (‘‘Goshla Movement in India,’’ Animal Citizen, July–Sep-
tember 1998, Chennai, India, pp. 21–23). For the history of these institutions, we
refer to the remarkable (and unique) study on this subject by Lodrick (1981).
228 FLORENCE BURGAT

that turned out to be decisive15). Gandhi also owes a lot to Tolstoy for his
concept on the ethical unity of religions,16 the outcome of a process of
expurgation, in which myths, rituals, and the numerous gods and their
images are reduced to dross, only to be tolerated as long as they do not
conflict with fundamental ethical principles, those that are dictated to us by
that ‘‘small inner voice.’’ To take two examples that are particularly dear to
Gandhi, no religion, understood in this sense, can justify either untouch-
ability or animal sacrifices, these being the two thorns of Hinduism, as he
says.
What is ahimsâ in the way Gandhi understands it? He defines its meaning
through a series of hints and adjustments, and by integrating closely con-
nected notions, and when comparing various texts, these turn out to be
inter-linked. At first glance, what distinguishes the doctrine ahimsâ from the
biblical commandment, ‘‘thou shalt not kill,’’ as Gandhi stresses, is the
extension of the notion ‘‘neighbor’’ to the world of animals. The restricted
application of the biblical notion of ‘‘neighbor’’ to human beings can be
seen as one of the imperfections clouding the ethical message of religions
but, above all, it is a distinctive feature of the West, an attitude he criticizes.
‘‘The West (with the exception of a small school of thought) thinks that it is
no sin to kill the lower animals for what it regards to be the benefit of man.
It has, therefore, encouraged vivisection. The West does not think it wrong
to commit violence of all kinds for the satisfaction of the palate. I do not
subscribe to these views. According to the Western standard, it is no sin, on
the contrary it is a merit, to kill animals that are no longer useful.’’ 17 While
the extension of non-violence to cover all living creatures capable of suf-
fering (including insects, and even plants18) is a contribution of Jain phi-
losophy,19 Gandhi perceives it as a pillar of universal ethics, which must
necessarily be incorporated in all religions once they are rid of everything

15
See Autobiography on My Experiences of Truth (Autobiographie ou mes expe´-
riences de ve´rite´), translated into French by Georges Belmont, Quadrige Collection,
PUF, 1994, p. 65.
16
See Clément (1985).
17
‘‘Is this Humanity?,’’ Young India, 14-11-1926.
18
It is in terms of himsâ (violence) that Gandhi, referring to an aspect of Jainism,
talks of the utilization of plants; but this is part of the violence inherent in the fact of
living.
19
‘‘The ahimsâ advocated by Gandhi was not restricted to human beings only. It
is the cultivation of an attitude towards all life. It would be universal and extend to
even subhuman life. Here Gandhi is in line with Jain philosophy, which is prevalent
especially in Gujarat, his native state.’’ (Backianadan, 1991).
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 229

that runs counter to conscience and reason, in other words, the moral sense
and internal coherence of judgment.20
Thus, it is impossible to understand correctly the meaning of ahimsâ
without incorporating: (1) compassion, (2) love, (3) truth, and (4) God.
While ahimsâ and compassion form a couple (both sides of the same coin, as
Gandhi puts it), the circularity that governs relations between the other
three concepts is more complex.

2.1. Ahimsâ and compassion

‘‘Compassion and ahimsâ are not two different things. […] We can describe
compassion as the concrete expression of ahimsâ,’’ writes Gandhi.21 In a
nutshell, compassion is the act of ahimsâ, its manifestation. This is why he
frequently stresses the idea that non-violence is, in its active form, goodwill
towards any living creature: love, in its pure form, the kind found in the
teachings of Hindu texts, as well as the Bible and the Koran. Compassion is
an easy way to understand the nature of non-violence.
This notion is not the prerogative of any culture, it belongs to both the
East and the West. It implies the presupposed capacity to suffer when
identifying with the other, which forms part of this moral experience. It also
echoes the feelings of human beings when faced with the suffering of a
sensitive living creature. Furthermore, it appeals to the conscience and has
no need for a transcendent law. It would be pertinent, with respect to this
point, to examine the analyses of Schopenhauer, a reader of the Upanishads,
who sees in the experience of identifying with the suffering of the other the
real foundation of morality. When Gandhi points out that ahimsâ is situated
at the extreme end of humility, it is difficult not to think of the diluted feeling
of individuation that, according to Schopenhauer, co-exists with the expe-
rience of compassion. By going beyond the phenomenal form of things, it is
possible to identify with any suffering, erasing the distinction between the
self and the non-self and equalizing the conditions. In the experience of
compassion, the ‘‘I’’ disappears as a separate being to become anything else,
even the smallest. Gandhi adds a theological dimension to the interdiction
to kill, which goes against the biblical permission to kill if it is for the
20
Gandhi put forward this criticism within the framework of his condemnation of
animal sacrifices, perpetrated ‘‘in the name of religion’’. He discussed this point in
1905 (‘‘Hinduism,’’ The Star, 10-3-1905) under a dual aspect: the disputes over
interpretations in favor of religions that carry out sacrifices and the fight against this
practice (especially in the temples dedicated to Kali, the goddess of death). Here, he
is the heir of the criticism and rejection of animal sacrifice by Buddha, but partic-
ularly by Mahavira in India and Zarathustra in Iran.
21
‘‘Letter to Purushottam Gandhi,’’ May 12, 1932 (CWMG, vol. XLIX, pp. 429–
432).
230 FLORENCE BURGAT

purposes of eating meat. ‘‘I consider that God has not created lower forms
of animal life for man to use them as he will […]. I have no right to destroy
animal life if I can subsist healthily on vegetable life.’’22

2.2. Ahimsâ and the ‘‘law of the beast’’

What is at the origin of man’s predisposition to violence, if it is indeed what
Gandhi perceives as the law of the beast? It is in these terms, somewhat
exaggerated it must be admitted, that he sets forth a principle of opposition to
which he almost gives a value of theodicy, in other words, he defends God’s
goodness despite the existence of evil. According to Gandhi, evil was intro-
duced into the world by animals, and when man acts violently, it is the animal
in him that reveals itself. But by what twists and turns does this essence
succeed in contaminating his opposite, man? This is a problem Gandhi ne-
glected to investigate. There seems to be an attempt to save the human being,
to recognize the evil that inhabits him, by blaming it on the very mysterious
‘‘animal nature of man,’’ a reservoir of vile and uncontrollable impulses.
However, the superiority of humans does not generate any right over
inferior species. Quite the contrary, the strong must protect the weak be-
cause the evil inherent in the latter is a mark of their imperfection and
limitations For Gandhi, animals are, above all, creatures that are impla-
cably submitted to predatory forces. In recalling the spectacle of a lizard
eating a cockroach, Gandhi noted that violence (or should one say evil?) had
invaded the animal world to the extent of becoming a law. This is the
starting point for a reflection on their difference. ‘‘I do not claim to pene-
trate into the awful mystery but from watching these very operations, I learn
that the law of the beast is not the law of the Man.’’ Thus, the elevation of
man towards non-violence is a victory over his animal nature. ‘‘Man has by
painful striving to surmount and survive the animal in him […]. Man must,
therefore, if he is to realize his dignity and his own mission, cease to take
part in the destruction and refuse to prey upon his weaker fellow crea-
tures.’’23 The distinctive feature between man and beast resides in a capacity
to attain a moral plane, that is to say, non-violence. Man must make this
choice in order to be genuinely human. As for the rest, man is an animal in
the eyes of Gandhi.24

22
‘‘Letter to Asaf Ali,’’ January 25, 1920 (CWMG, vol. XVI, p. 509).
23
‘‘Letter to V. N. S. Chary,’’ April 9, 1926 (CWMG, vol. XXX, p. 262).
24
He expresses himself most clearly on this point: ‘‘In eating, sleeping and in the
performance of other physical functions, man is not different from the brute. What
distinguishes him from the brute is his ceaseless striving to rise above the brute on the
moral plane. Mankind is at the cross-roads.’’ ‘‘Speech at a Prayer Meeting,’’ Bom-
bay, March 11, 1946, published in Harijan, 7-4-1946.
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 231

For those who are familiar with Western thinking and believe that the
moral promotion of animals is often achieved through cognitive promotion,
it is striking to see how different the picture is in this particular instance. It is
not because animals are capable of a given performance that they have the
right to respect but only because they are capable of suffering. Looking
upon animality in any other way is, in no circumstances, a precondition for
an attitude of compassion. It is surprising to note the baseness by which the
animal world is characterized yet at the same time included, without hesi-
tation, in the moral community. Morals relating to respect towards animals,
which could summarily be described as Eastern, go hand in hand with an
elevated vision of man, one of the characteristics being to include animals in
the duty to be non-violent. Western concerns over the treatment of animals
have a tendency to level the ontology between humans and animals so as to
reduce the disastrous gap separating them (since it is this distance that
excludes them from the moral community), while emphasizing that the
achievements of the mind are not morally relevant criteria for discrimina-
tion, or at the very least, they do not exhaust the subject. Jeremy Bentham
illustrated this point in the frequently quoted question he raised in the
Introduction to the Principles of Moral and Legislation, 1789, when he
pointed out that the problem is not so much ‘‘Can they speak?’’ but ‘‘Can
they suffer?’’
The affirmation of such a violent opposition between man and animal is
nevertheless tempered by a completely different view when the cow becomes
the representative of ‘‘dumb creation.’’ From the unremarkable ‘‘law of the
brute,’’ reducing the animal world to blind and stubborn violence, one ar-
rives at the cow as a ‘‘poem of pity.’’ Although his attachment to this animal
is obvious from the cultural point of view, Gandhi does not confine his
compassion for the cow as a symbol of the nourishing mother. ‘‘Cow-pro-
tection to me is not mere protection of the cow. It means protection of all
that lives and is helpless and weak in the world.’’25 Gandhi describes in
moving terms the creatures that are unable to defend themselves or com-
plain:
Cow-protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. It takes the
human being beyond his species. The cow to me means the entire sub-human world. Man
through the cow is enjoined to realize his identity with all that lives. Why the cow was selected
for apotheosis is obvious to me. The cow was in India the best companion. She was the giver of
plenty. Not only did she give milk, but she also made agriculture possible. The cow is a poem of
pity. […] Protection of the cow means protection of the whole dumb creation of God.26

25
‘‘Cow-protection,’’ Young India, 7-5-1925.
26
‘‘Hinduism,’’ Young India, 6-10-1921.
232 FLORENCE BURGAT

‘‘[…] she cannot complain, she has no voice to raise against what may be
against her interests. […] the cow is entirely at our mercy.’’27 This con-
demnation to silence gives particular weight to the imperative not only to
refrain from ill-treating animals but also to protect them. It has been
understood – but it should nonetheless be stressed – that Gandhi’s idea of
protection has nothing to do with the usual meaning given to this term. It is
not restricted to treating animals well until they are slaughtered but basically
implies protecting them from being put to death. Such moral rectitude (and
in Gandhi’s view, only human beings are capable of this) is manifested, in
particular, by complying with this duty.

2.3. ‘‘Truth is God’’ or the path of ahimsâ

As already mentioned, love, truth, and God are caught in a circle, and
although these notions can be distinguished in terms of reasoning, their
distinction is purely conceptual since they are in reality one and the same
thing. In Gandhi’s quest for spirituality, the discovery of truth occupies a
prominent position and in fact he discovered non-violence by searching for
the truth. Love is the first name of God but a more appropriate name would
be truth, he adds after a long process of thought. However, because of its
polysemy, he returns to this notion of love, replacing it by a more in-depth
reflection on the essence of God. Although Gandhi comes round to the
assertion that God is love, he admits feeling in his deepest meditation that
the fundamental attribute of God is, above all, truth. He is truth before
being love. He consequently makes a subtle distinction between two
apparently identical formulas but that are nevertheless identical in appear-
ance only, ‘‘God is Truth’’ and ‘‘Truth is God,’’ and gives, primacy to the
second notion. It is easy to understand why the only possible interpretation
of religions is an ethical one, with principles that, by their very nature, can
be applied universally.
This inversion is one of the main keys to Gandhi’s thoughts, which are
mainly of a moral and political nature. This is the precise formula of the
priority he gives to the ethical dimension of all religions. It is the underlying
moral universality uniting them that makes it feasible to reach an under-
standing among humans, based on non-violence, that is to say, on love and
truth. In his autobiography, Gandhi confesses that for him, truth is the only
God. But this brings us to the difficulty of grasping the meaning of truth.
According to Gandhi, it is none other than the ‘‘small voice.’’ There does

27
‘‘Speech at the All-India Cow-protection Conference,’’ Bombay, April 28, 1925,
published in Young India, 7-5-1925.
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 233

not appear to be much difference between that ‘‘small voice’’ and the ‘‘voice
of conscience’’ used by Rousseau to describe an instant knowledge of what
is just, before various motives emerge to blur the surge of compassion. In
this sense, the human morals running counter to it are not insurmountable
obstacles: individuals find the path to truth through different means but all
men and women who are aware of the dictates of their conscience will
discover the truth. To hear this small voice, it is necessary to decide to ‘‘no
longer be anything,’’ according to Gandhi. To understand both the nature
of truth and ahimsâ, it is necessary to reach the extreme limit of humility, he
adds, a disposition that, as I understand it, is closely linked to the principle
of individuation and its dissolution.
With respect to just action, truth is the end and ahimsâ the means, so that
there is the same reciprocal relationship between truth and ahimsâ as there is
between ahimsâ and compassion, but it is truth that characterizes the essence
of ahimsâ, and not its manifestation.

3. THE DUTY TO PROTECT COWS ACCORDING TO GANDHI

Gandhi frequently broached the subject of cow protection from various

points of view: political in terms of the way it has been used by Hindus in
their conflict with Moslems; ethical in terms of justifying this duty; and
economical in terms of the practical consequences of this exigency con-
cerning the breeding of farm animals. As a ‘‘gift of Hinduism to the
world,’’28 cow protection is synonymous with a very high exigency in the
eyes of Gandhi: ‘‘I refuse to call anyone a Hindu if he is not willing to lay
down his life in this cause. It is dearer to me than my very life.’’29
The first – and political – aspect is the one that has caught the attention
of Indianists, who have incorporated it into a broader analysis of relations
between Hindus and Moslems.30 Criticizing a completely perverted inter-
pretation of this duty, Gandhi studies this question within the framework of
the behavior of Hindus towards animals to demonstrate that their tendency
to defame Moslems overrides by far their concern to protect animals. This is
the first abusive interpretation deplored by Gandhi: ‘‘Unfortunately today

28
‘‘Hinduism,’’ Young India, 6-10-1921.
29
‘‘Speech at Bettiah Goshala,’’ December 8, 1920 (CWMG, vol. XIX, pp. 91–
92).
30
See Parel (1969), Assayag (1997, 2001).
234 FLORENCE BURGAT

we seem to believe that the problem of cow-protection consists merely in

preventing non-Hindus, especially Mussalmans, from beef-eating and cow-
killing.’’31 In fact, Hindus resort to an ineffective remedy to solve this
problem by persisting in opening shelters (goshalas and pinjrapoles) for cast
animals. Apart from being economically obvious, Gandhi clearly believes
that increasing such protection societies will not prevent widespread
slaughter on a long-term basis. The solution lies in re-organizing the system
of animal husbandry on scientific and rational foundations in such a way
that killing animals would become an economic absurdity.
Gandhi’s condemnation of the political use of the cow as a symbol is part
of an overwhelming series of critical observations that clearly indicate an
extremely paradoxical situation. Although the protection of cows is a reli-
gious obligation in India, it is nevertheless the country where, more than
anywhere else, the condition of its livestock is appalling and, as a result, is
considered to be a burden. There are numerous references to this state of
affairs. ‘‘In no country in the world are cattle so ill-fed and ill-kept as in
India.’’32 In accusing a tradition that worships the wrong object, Gandhi
writes, ‘‘If we look at the way we treat our cows, it would be clear to us that
even though we claim to worship the cow, in our hearts we have no true
respect for her.’’33 Gandhi goes as far as to point out that in Europe, al-
though animals are raised for food, they receive better care.34
He goes even further, directly blaming Hindus for the pitiful state of the
Indian livestock and its massive slaughter. The following quotation sum-
marizes his arguments.
Those who want to stop others from sinning must be free from sin themselves. Hindu society
has been inflicting terrible cruelty on the cow and her progeny. The present condition of our
cows is a direct proof of this. My heart bleeds when I see thousands of bullocks with no blood
and flesh on them, their bones plainly visible beneath their skin, ill-nourished and made to carry
excessive burdens, while the driver twists their tails and goads them on. I shudder when I see all
this and ask myself how we can say anything to our Muslim friends so long as we do not refrain
from such terrible violence. We are so intensely selfish that we feel no shame in milking the cow
the last drop. If you go to dairies in Calcutta, you will find that the calves there are forced to go

31
‘‘Presidential Address at the Cow-protection Conference,’’ Young India 29-1-
1925.
32
‘‘Cow-protection,’’ Young India, 4-8-1920. ‘‘Nowhere in the world you find
such skeletons of cows and bullocks as you do in our cow-worshipping India. No-
where are bullocks worked so beyond their capacity as here.’’ (‘‘Presidential Address
at the Cow-protection Conference,’’ The Searchlight, 9-10-1925).
33
‘‘Speech at a Prayer Meeting,’’ Patna, April 25, 1947 (CWMG, vol. LXXXVII,
p. 357).
34
‘‘Talk to Villagers’’ September 1st, 1940, published in Harijan, 15-9-1940:
‘‘Cows are in the West also, and they are kept very well indeed. But their male
progeny is not used for agricultural purposes, it is turned into beef. From time
immemorial this idea has been repugnant to us […].’’
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 235

without the mother’s milk and that all the milk is extracted with the help of a process known as
blowing.35 The proprietors and managers of these dairies are none other than Hindus and most
of those who consume the milk are also Hindus. So long as such dairies flourish and we
consume the milk supplied by them, what right have we to argue with the Muslim brethren? It
should be borne in mind, besides, that there are slaughter-houses in all the big cities of India.
Thousands of cows and bullocks are slaughtered in these. It is mostly from them that beef is
supplied to the British. Hindu society keeps silent about this slaughter, thinking that it is
helpless in this matter.36

3.1. The cow as a venerated symbol of ill-treated animals

Gandhi’s reproaches to Hindus can be classified under four points:
(1) Hindus denounce Moslems who slaughter cattle for consumption,37
but not the English, even though some 30,000 cows and calves are slaugh-
tered every day in India for consumption by the latter.38 Nor do they crit-
icize European and Christian residents for whom a very large number of
animals are killed for the same purpose. What is more, those who sell
animals to the abattoirs are Hindus. In keeping with the idea that one
cannot obtain good from evil, Gandhi criticizes violence against a Moslem
on many occasions in order to save a cow on the point of being killed
(during the Bakr-Id feast, for example). The only acceptable sacrifice is the
sacrifice of oneself.39 ‘‘I would not kill a human being for protecting a cow,
as I will not kill a cow for saving a human life, be it ever so precious. […] To
attempt cow-protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism and
to prostitute to a base end the grand significance of cow-protection.’’40 Cow
protection only has a chance of a durable solution if Hindus succeed in
changing the attitudes of those who slaughter animals by persuading them
to abandon this practice. This is why Gandhi questions the efficiency and

35
This is a procedure that consists of blowing into the uterus to provoke
inflammations. Milk is extracted until the first beads of blood appear.
36
‘‘Speech on Cow-protection,’’ Bettiah, around October 9, 1917 (CWMG, vol.
XIV, p. 4); see also ‘‘To the People of Bihar,’’ Hindi Navajivan, 2-9-1921.
37
‘‘We say nothing about the slaughter that daily takes place on behalf of
Englishmen. Our anger becomes red-hot when a Mussalman slaughters a cow.’’
(‘‘Hindu–Muslim Tension: its Cause and Cure,’’ Young India, 5-6-1924).
38
‘‘Speech at Muzzaffarpur,’’ November 11, 1917, CWMG, vol. XIV, p. 80.
39
‘‘I believe myself to be an orthodox Hindu and it is my conviction that no one
who scrupulously practices the Hindu religion may kill a cow-killer to protect a cow.
There is one and only one means open to a Hindu to protect a cow and that is that he
should offer himself a sacrifice if he cannot stand its slaughter.’’ (The Vow of Hindu–
Muslim Unity,’’ CWMG, vol. XV, p. 202).
40
‘‘Let Hindus Beware,’’ Young India, 18-5-1921.
236 FLORENCE BURGAT

validity of legally prohibiting the slaughter of cows, being aware of the fact
that if attitudes are not consistent with the regulations, pure and simple
interdiction cannot solve any problems in the long run.41 Cows can only be
saved through the unconditional cooperation of Moslems themselves, by
friendship and not by concluding a bargain.42
(2) On the whole, the livestock is badly treated. This state of affairs is due
to negligence (animals left without care, under-nourished, over-burdened,
etc.), but also to constantly inflicted brutality (by being goaded, hit, or
uncomfortably attached, etc.). It is mainly bullocks that are involved, and
Gandhi describes their suffering: ‘‘If the bullock in question had a tongue to
speak and were asked which fate he preferred – instantaneous death under
the butcher’s knife or the long-drawn agony to which he is subjected, he
would undoubtedly prefer the former.’’43 The same fate is reserved for
buffaloes and horses used as draft animals in towns.
How can we say anything whatever to others so long as we have not rid ourselves of sin? Do we
not kill cows with our own hands? How do we treat the progeny of the cow? What crushing
burdens do we not lay on bullock! To say nothing of bullocks, do we give enough feed to the
cow? How much milk do we leave for the calf? And who sells the cow [to the butcher]? What can
we say of the Hindus who do this for the sake of a few rupees? What do we do about it?44

41
He was reproached for this position, particularly by cow-protection societies in
Mysore, to whom he replied in ‘‘The Cow in Mysore’’ (Young India, 7-7-1927). This
question was debated for a long time. During the summer of 1947, 50,000 postcards
and about 30,000 letters were sent to Gandhi, in addition to thousands of telegrams,
asking him to introduce a prohibition to slaughter cows. One can cite, among others,
an address he delivered in Delhi on July 25, 1947 (‘‘Speech at a Prayer Meeting,’’
CWMG, vol. LXXXVIII, p. 424) in the course of which he reiterated the idea that
nobody can be prevented from killing if he is so disposed. It would be an erroneous
struggle to focus on legal prohibition without changing attitudes, especially since it is
only knowledge, education, and kindness towards animals that can put an end to
slaughter, he stated in ‘‘Cow Slaughter,’’ Harijan, 15-9-46.
42
Gandhi insisted on this on many occasions because he wished to arrive at a
genuinely durable solution, ‘‘Speech at the Cow-protection Conference in Belgaum,’’
Young India, 29-1-1925); ‘‘How to Protect the Cow,’’ Navajivan, 23-11-1919; ‘‘Save
the Cow,’’ Young India, 8-6-1921; ‘‘Hindu-Muslim Unity,’’ Young India, 28-7-1921;
‘‘Hindu-Muslim Tension: its Cause and Cure,’’ Young India, 5-6-1924.
43
‘‘Presidential Address at the Cow-protection Conference,’’ Young India, 29-1-
1925, op. cit.. The problem of the ill treatment of bullocks was tackled several times
by Gandhi. On this point, see also, ‘‘Thoughtful Living,’’ Navajivan 5-4-1921;
‘‘Speech at a Prayer Meeting, Patna,’’ 25 April 1947 (op. cit.). The same issue is
raised about horses, ‘‘Cruelty to Animals,’’ Young India, 21-5-1925.
44
‘‘To the People of Bihar,’’ Hindi Navajivan, 2-9-1921, op. cit.
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 237

Gandhi also tried to fight against the cruel and frequently used practice
(known as phooka, meaning to blow) for extracting milk, which he con-
sidered to be ‘‘loathsome.’’45 The Secretary of the Anti-Phooka Association
of Calcutta describes this extremely painful process. Twice a day, at each
milking session a piece of bamboo is introduced into the uterus of the cow to
blow air into it and to distend the walls. The resulting inflammation causes
pressure on the glands, enabling the milker to extract milk to the very last
drop until blood starts to flow from the udder. Even though it is illegal, this
practice, which has been common in India for a long time, still persists.46
(3) The most hypocritical behavior is probably the exportation of
thousands of living animals to Australia and Europe, where they are
slaughtered for their hide to make shoes that are then resold in India.47
(4) Finally, even the remedies for dealing with cast animals suffer from
lasting negligence and incompetence. The homes where animals are sheltered
(the goshalas and pinjrapoles) are not in a position to provide the minimum
care necessary. What is more, the urban location of most of these institutions
is an additional cause of their ineffective functioning due to lack of space. As
a first step, Gandhi recommended equipping them with their own means to
ensure the well-being of unproductive animals, and then transforming them
into efficient establishments equipped with a dairy and tannery. In short,
from being pitiful and costly establishments, they should become profitable.
‘‘Look at the condition of our pinjrapoles,’’ Gandhi writes,
I have respect for the kindness of the managers, but I have very little
respect for their capacity for managing things. I do not believe that the
pinjrapoles protect cows and their progeny. […] I would expect to see in
them ideal cows and bulls. Pinjrapoles should be located, not in the heart of
cities but in big fields and they should bring, instead of consuming, plenty of
money.48

45
See in particular, ‘‘Letter to the Statesman,’’ Motihari, January 16, 1918
(CWMG, vol. XIV, p. 151); ‘‘Presidential Address at the Cow-protection Confer-
ence,’’ The searchlight, 9-10-1925, op. cit.; ‘‘Speech at the All-india Goseva Sangh
Conference,’’ Wardha, February 1st, 1942, published in Harijan, 8-2-1942 and 15-2-
1942 and The Hindu, 2-2-1942.
46
Once again, Gandhi pleads for the education of those who commit bad deeds in
view of the unfeasibility of banishing this practice (‘‘Man’s Inhumanity,’’ Harijan,
19-6-1937). Today, associations continue to denounce this method, as well as the
Indian Bureau for the Protection of Animals, attached to the Ministry of the
Environment (personal letters collected in the course of a study among twenty five
organizations for the protection of animals in Delhi, Bombay, and Madras in
February 1998). On this point, see also the pamphlet of Gandhi (1996).
47
See ‘‘Speech at a Prayer Meeting,’’ Delhi, 25 July 1947. Gandhi denounces an
old situation.
48
‘‘Cow Protection,’’ Navajivan, 8-8-1920.
238 FLORENCE BURGAT

Observing the duty to protect cows should go much further. Although

for Gandhi, the Hindu, the duty of protecting cattle should be carried out in
an exemplary manner in India, for those who believe in universal ethics it is,
above all, a duty that should be extended to all animals not only in India but
in the rest of the world. Far from being some kind of cultural relativism,
ethical universalism is the foundation of Gandhian thinking.
When I pledge myself to save the cow, I do not mean merely the Indian cow, but the cow all the
world over. […] My ambition is no less than to see the principle of cow-protection established
throughout the world. But that requires that I should set my own house throughout in order
first.49

Another aspect of the misunderstanding over the duty to protect cows, as

it has already been seen, is the restriction of this duty to cows only. The
Hindi word goseva literally means ‘‘cow service,’’ but go designates livestock
in general and not just cows. For Gandhi, all weak and helpless creatures
deserve this service.
The duty of not killing animals generally and, therefore, protecting them must be accepted as an
indisputable fact. It is then so much to the credit of Hinduism that it has taken up cow-
protection as a duty. And he is a poor specimen of Hinduism who stops merely at cow-
protection when he can extend the arm of protection to other animals. The cow merely stands as
a symbol, and protection of the cow is the least he is expected to undertake.50

However, if the so-called venerated cows are, in actual fact, victims of ill-
treatment and slaughter via unavowed means, there is a total disinterest in
the fate of buffaloes on the part of Hindus. In many goshalas, where the duty
to protect cows is interpreted to such a narrow extent that it corrupts the
spirit, these animals are not sheltered but are sent to the abattoir without
arousing the slightest indignation on the part of cow worshippers. Contrary
to what Gandhi advocates, certain goshalas only shelter stray cows or those
bound for the abattoir (the exception being a few young males born after
cows in calf are taken in) and they even organize ritual feasts in their honor.
When they die, these animals are buried in a place referred to as ‘‘sacred,’’
and their carcasses are therefore not exploited.51 It should be noted that
these shelters do not even accept cow-buffaloes.
According to Gandhi, this is the worst interpretation given to the prin-
ciple of goseva. For a Hindu, cow protection, considered in its highest
meaning, should be a primary duty, but it should also serve as an intro-
duction to a non-violent and compassionate attitude towards animals.

49
‘‘Presidential Address at the Cow-protection Conference,’’ Young India, 29-1-
1925.
50
‘‘Cow Protection,’’ Young India, 11-11-1926.
51
This is the model followed, for example, by the goshalas in Madras (which I
visited in March 2001).
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 239

4. BREEDING WITHOUT VIOLENCE

The field of animal husbandry is so vast that only an economic solution can
be envisaged. Solving this problem – how to protect animals while meeting
production needs – cannot depend on isolated initiatives, no matter how
generous, on the part of peasants or donors. In order to ‘‘save the cow from
the butcher’s knife,’’ slaughtering must become economically absurd. ‘‘Cow-
slaughter will cease if every Hindu understood the economics of cow-pro-
tection.’’52 Although giving up a meat-based diet is an ethical prerequisite, it
should also become an economic necessity. It should be more profitable to
keep animals alive up to the very end if good use is made of all the products
they supply during their lifetime, and once they are dead, rather than to kill
them. This is what Gandhi sought to achieve for over thirty years.53
Rejecting Western models of agriculture – since Gandhi did not believe
in the motorization of India but in its rural reconstruction, even when it
would become independent54 – he elaborated a plan to reform animal
husbandry that was only feasible within the framework of traditional
agriculture. The value of cow dung (as a fuel or fertilizer) or the improved
driving power of oxen, for example, is only relevant in the context of tra-
ditional methods, which continue to have their followers. The booklet
written by the former chief Minister of Gujarat, Babubhai J. Patel, and
published by the Bombay Humanitarian League, Cow in Indian Economy
(20 p, 1982), defends and illustrates these methods on the grounds of the
necessary ecological and economic dependence of agriculture on animals.
Their replacement by tractors is an expensive and inadequate solution (the
need to build roads, pollution, imports of fuel oil or kerosene, etc.), the use
of chemical fertilizers instead of cow dung and urine, and the rejection of
cow pats as domestic fuel, go against the interests of rural India. Slaugh-
tering bovines is condemned in the name of economic arguments put for-
ward by Gandhi, but also for ethical reasons, in a context of growing
capacities for the slaughter of cows and meat exports.55 (quarterly review of
the Animal Welfare Board of India), July-September 1998, Chennai, India,
p. 9, and the well-documented article by Vandana Shiva, ‘‘Shadow Acres

52
‘‘Cow-protection,’’ Navajivan, 6-9-1925.
53
His speeches on this subject (articles, lectures) cover the years 1917 to 1947.
54
Cf. Tendulkar (1951). The motorization of Indian agriculture only started in
earnest after the second World War. There were 5000 tractors in 1947 and 50,000 in
1960; most of them were imported. The justification for this motorization (to the
detriment of animal power) in terms of gains in milk production, immediately be-
came a controversial topic (See Randhawa, 1986a).
55
In the same spirit, see ‘‘A Recent Study: Indian Cattle are Environment-
friendly’’ (unsigned editorial), Animal Citizen
240 FLORENCE BURGAT

and Mad Cows’’ that demonstrate the economic absurdity of abandoning

traditional methods (ibid., pp. 26–27; the continuation of this article ap-
peared in Animal Citizen, October–December 1998, pp. 25–26).
The re-organization of goshalas and pinjrapoles is, in Gandhi’s opinion,
the foundation of this reform. However, the prevailing negligence, due to a
lack of savoir-faire and a strong determination to protect animals, on a wide
scale and in the long term, make these charitable establishments even more
inappropriate to carry out the broad reaching task that should be their role
in a national economic development program (planning reproduction of
animals, improving their profitability as milk producers and as a working
force, understanding and treating diseases, etc.).

4.1. The importance of an economic and ethical alliance

The key to Gandhi’s reasoning consists in shifting the question towards
enlightened management methods based mainly on knowledge and reason.
Failure to do this would make it impossible to introduce the kind of non-
violent alternative that is needed to protect cattle.
The problem, therefore, is to study the question calmly and without sentiment. Religion without
the backing of reason and enlightenment is a worthless sentiment and it is bound to die of
inanition. It is knowledge that ultimately gives salvation. Devotion to the cow divorced from
knowledge is the surest way of imposing premature death on her. Therefore, one man with an
accurate knowledge of the cattle problem, if he has the heart for the cow, represents in his own
person all the cow-protection societies that were and will be ever formed.56

An alliance between ethical principals and economic imperatives is put

forward by Gandhi as an association that in no way runs counter to nature.
On the contrary, provided the latter are not tied to unwarranted profits, they
are the appropriate means to be placed at the service of a deserving cause
and, as it has already been seen, these terms (the end and the means) are
interchangeable in the view of Gandhi. His position can be understood in
the light of this interchangeability. ‘‘I believe,’’ he writes, ‘‘that from its very
nature religion embraces economic, political and other problems.’’57 The use
of animals should therefore be studied under a different angle, because, at
present, peasants are either forced into a suicidal situation by having to keep
their unproductive livestock or else they infringe on the principle of ahimsâ
by selling it for food. However, there is one unavoidable economic reality:
only useful animals can be saved on a long-term basis, that is to say, in a
way that is inherent to the production system itself.

56
‘‘Cow-protection,’’ Young India, 7-5-1925.
57
‘‘Cow-protection,’’ Navajivan, 6-9-1925.
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 241

This is why Gandhi feels it is difficult to save buffaloes. The milk from
cow-buffaloes has a higher fat content and is not superior from the nutri-
tional point of view (cow milk is richer in carotene), and Gandhi, therefore,
deplores its consumption by Indians.58 Furthermore, the male animals are
unsuitable for working the land even though this does not apply to certain
regions, particularly in southern India. These drawbacks make their pro-
tection (that is to say, good care and an absence of slaughter) impossible.59
Faced with such cases, Gandhi suggests that already domesticated animals
should be protected but that their reproduction should be stopped, since
there does not appear to be a solution to the dual imperative of production
and protection, both being closely interdependent.
My article was not intended to throw the buffalo by the board, it suggested the stopping of
buffalo-breeding in her own interest. In other words it meant freedom of the buffalo from its
bondage. […] We must, of course, make use of the existing stock of buffaloes […]. But our duty
is clear. We must not increase our responsibility by breeding the buffalo where we can do with
the cow alone. We must therefore content ourselves with the use of cow’s milk only.60

Efforts, therefore, should be collective and concentrate on cows and bulls

that offer the products and services India needs. Gandhi adds a very high
moral value to this national problem. It is an area in which Indian civili-
zation should become a model for the world, and this age-old and non-
violent alliance between peasants and their animals should continue in order
to avoid a danger that goes far beyond its cultural aspect, although this
notion has no normative value in the eyes of Gandhi. This is the question of
ethical identity (non-violence extended to cover animals), the aim of which is
to make it universal, and because of its fundamentally Indian origin, it
allows him to reiterate his criticism of Western methods.
Today the cow is on the brink of extinction, and I am not sure that our efforts will ultimately
succeed. But if she dies, we also die along with her – we, i.e., our civilization. I mean our
essentially non-violent and rural civilization. We have, therefore, to make our choice. We can
choose to be violent and kill all uneconomic cattle. Like Europe we should then breed our cattle

58
‘‘We should use nothing but cow’s milk and ghee [clarified butter] made from
cow’s milk. Cow’s milk is better and more nourishing than buffalo’s milk. Nothing
but cow’s milk should be given to children. Ghee made from this is easier to digest.
The testimony of doctors and vaids regarding these two points has already been
published in Harijanbandhu. Despite this, many people use buffalo’s milk […].’’
(‘‘Some Ways of Serving the Cow,’’ Harijanbandhu, 3-11-1935). The preference for
buffalo milk is an old one, on this point see Randhawa (1986b).
59
On the subject of difficulties related to protecting buffaloes, see ‘‘Conditions of
Cow-protection,’’ Young India, 31-3-1927; ‘‘The Cow and the Buffalo,’’ Navajivan,
22-5-1927; ‘‘Speech at the Goseva Sangh Meeting,’’ Nalwadi, Sarvodaya, December
1941; ‘‘Speech on Cow-protection,’’ Tithal, Harijan, 19-6-1937.
60
‘‘Cow versus Buffalo or Cow-cum-Buffalo?,’’ Young India, 19-5-1927.
242 FLORENCE BURGAT

for the purposes of milk and meat. But our civilization is fundamentally different. Our life is
wrapped up in our animals. Most of our villagers live with their animals, often under the same
roof. Both live together, both starve together. Often enough the owner starves the poor cattle,
exploits them, ill-treats them, unmercifully extracts work out of them. But if we reform our
ways, we can both be saved. Otherwise we sink together, and it is just as well that we swim or
sink together.61

4.2. Obtaining ahinsak (non-violent) products

Let us now focus on the economic mechanism itself. To put an end to the
practice of slaughtering animals (for the butchery and tannery industries),
animals must be more productive alive than dead. According to Gandhi,
slaughter should become expensive and useless, and he tries to demonstrate
that it ‘‘puts the country to huge economic losses.’’62 Other uses – non-
violent – would respond more broadly to various demands, including for
leather. The basic conditions are to improve the health and production of
milk cows, the labor of oxen, which are the auxiliaries of farmers, and to use
every part of the carcass of animals that have died naturally.
The social and religious implications of secularizing the duty to protect
cows thus emerge. Economic solutions capable of solving the ethical
problem come into conflict with certain beliefs, denounced by Gandhi,
concerning the status of the dead body and the impurity of those who work
with hides and extract meat (according to an infernal reciprocity, the vicious
circle of untouchability that Gandhi tried to break). And yet slaughter can
be avoided by making maximum use of animals. In practice, the carcasses of
animals in the goshalas are not exploited, and the urine and dung of cows
are frequently thrown away. Likewise, Gandhi deplores the fact that only
one single tannery in India refuses to accept the hides of slaughtered ani-
mals.63 It is because the hides that can be obtained from non-violent pro-
cesses are thrown away that the ones from slaughtered animals are
recuperated. The skin of animals that have died naturally must be system-
atically removed, and this is why a tannery should adjoin all establishments.
Since all parts of the animal can be used, efforts should be made to dem-
onstrate their value.
Another problem of concern to Gandhi is the habit of abandoning
carcasses in the middle of fields. As a result, untouchables remove the meat
from dead animals, in other words, it leads to the practice of carrion-eating,

61
The importance of this passage is obvious, as can be seen by the number of his
publications: ‘‘Speech at the All-india Goseva Sangh Conference,’’ Wardha, Feb-
ruary 1st, 1942, published in Harijan, 8-2-1942 et 15-2-1942, The Hindu, 2-2-1942.
62
History of Satyagraha Ashram, CWMG, vol. L, p. 230.
63
‘‘Speech at Marwari Agarwal Sabha,’’ Bhagalpur, The Searchlight, 9-10-1925.
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 243

thus creating an additional social and religious stigma. Gandhi partly

blames the non-untouchables because of their refusal to exploit the carcasses
of cattle.64 Untouchables also acquire meat by poisoning animals. Gandhi
sees only one way of putting an end to such practices, as well as to the
wretched status of untouchables. All dead cattle should be declared as being
the property of the State, which should give adequate compensation to
untouchables for skinning the bodies of dead animals and for the money
earned by exploiting the different parts of the carcasses.65
The industry of leather obtained in a non-violent way (ahinsak leather)
should be developed. The very idea of ahinsak leather seems to have been
introduced by Gandhi himself.66 Greater efforts are required to improve its
quality, which is still lower than the leather obtained from slaughtered
animals. It is important to continue the research undertaken since the 1920s
by the Indian government (especially by The Calcutta Government Research
Tannery) to improve the quality of leather from animals that have died
naturally. Experts assured Gandhi that it was possible to obtain a finished
product of a similar good quality, and he himself worked to achieve this in
the tannery adjoining his ashram.67 It goes without saying that Gandhi only
wore this kind of leather. However, in order to create this kind of leather
industry, Hindus would have to accept the duty to retrieve the hides and to
look upon the rational and maximum use of carcasses as a ‘‘sacred duty,’’68
because this would be the way to save animals from being slaughtered. ‘‘At
present, we refuse, in the name of religion and through sheer superstition, to
utilize the hides of cattle that die in goshalas. We thereby encourage the
slaughter of other cattle […].’’69 It is contrary to the interest of bovines to

64
He could not put it more clearly: ‘‘We despise the Harijans [‘the Children of
God’, as Gandhi called the untouchables] who eat carrion, but we forget that it is due
to our fault. If we treated the hide properly, if we knew the manurial value of the
flesh, and the use of the bone and the entrails – which are demonstrating at Nalwadi
– there would be no carrion-eating.’’ (‘‘Speech at the All-india Goseva Sangh
Conference,’’ Wardha, February 1st, 1942, op. cit.
65
Gandhi points out that in the course of the last four months of the year 1932,
there were at least twenty-four cases of poisoned cattle. ‘‘Aundh State and
Untouchability,’’ Harijan, 25-3-1933.
66
‘‘Gandhi was the first one to discriminate between types of leather depending
upon the circumstances of their origin. […] Ahinsak products are characterised by
the absence of the wilful and conscious intent of predation when obtaining the
substances.’’ (Ratnagar and Konkar, (1999).
67
‘‘Means of Cow-protection,’’ Navajivan, 29-5-1927.
68
‘‘Letter to Chunilal,’’ March 11, 1926 (CWMG, vol. XXX, p. 105).
69
‘‘About Marwaris,’’ Navajivan, 18-10-1925. During the 1920s, Marwaris was
the place with the highest number of goshalas in India.
244 FLORENCE BURGAT

bury them, as is the practice in many goshalas, where those in charge are
under the impression that they are fulfilling their duty to protect animals.
However, turning a dead body into a sacred object deprives tanneries of
hides obtained through non-violent means. If the animal hides (to be used
for making leather articles), and if the bones, guts, and fat (to be trans-
formed into fertilizers, cords for various instruments, lubricants, etc.70) are
not removed in the goshalas, animals will continue to be killed for these
purposes. Their export to Australia where they are slaughtered and then
used to make products (including leather) that will be imported by India, is
once again described by Gandhi as the perversion of a false protection
system, frequently limited to ensuring that Hindus do not have to kill with
their own hands.71

5. THE FUTURE OF NON-VIOLENCE

Gandhi, therefore, bases his program on a national reform of goshalas and

pinjrapoles.72 Such places should not be restricted to caring for cast animals
but should be turned into production and educational centers. Cow pro-
tection societies would have a role to play in these establishments by sup-
porting their activities, heightening public awareness, providing education
and training, and raising funds.73 Despite the fact that huge benefits could
be derived from these establishments, the situation deteriorated. Gandhi
noted that the number of animals slaughtered was on the rise while the
quality of milk declined. From 1925 to 1947, that is to say, until the end of
his life, Gandhi devoted much of his time to the implementation of the
animal husbandry reform. In various articles and lectures, he describes the
necessary conditions for an effective production and protection program,
the main points being:

70
‘‘Means of Cow-protection,’’ Navajivan, 29-5-1927.
71
History of Satyagraha Ashram, CWMG, vol. L, p. 231.
72
There were 1,500 in 1927: ‘‘Means of Cow-protection,’’ Navajivan, 29-5-1927,
op. cit. and ‘‘How to Protect the Cow,’’ Young India, 2-6-1927. There was double that
number in 1955 (Lodrick, 1981b); the same figure is given for the current period
(Joshi and Singh, 1998a).
73
See’’ Draft Constitution of the All-India Cow-protection Sabha,’’ Young India,
9-4-1925: Gandhi summarizes in ten points the means for achieving true protection
of animals. See also, ‘‘Scheme for Cow-protection,’’ Navajivan, 1-11-1925, in which
Gandhi insists on the educational aspect: goshalas should have a library devoted to
breeding and to the processing of milk and leather.
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 245

– Goshalas and pinjrapoles should be located outside towns, with large

spaces at their disposal;
– Good use should be made of cow urine and dung;
– They should have model dairies and tanneries;
– They should be organized in a scientific way;
– Zootechnics should be taught at these centers;
– Cruel castration methods should be replaced by the techniques practiced
in the West;
– They should be self-sufficient and only use donations for the purpose of
expanding;
– The protection of cows and oxen is not economically feasible unless
Indians stop breeding buffaloes as the latter do not provide enough
services to benefit from real protection.74
This rationalization of goshalas and pinjrapoles, aimed at transforming them
into economically viable institutions rather than remaining simple shelters,
was undertaken on a national scale as of the 1940s. I would like to conclude
this presentation of the breeding reform program recommended by Gandhi,
which draws its sources from the oldest Indian philosophy (advocates of this
model date the existence of goshalas back to five thousand years, i.e., the
Vedic period) with a few indications as to the outcome.
The first national police attached to the Ministry of Agriculture for the
development of goshalas and pinjrapoles goes back to 1942. Its representa-
tives were invited to Delhi in 1944 by The Imperial Council of Agricultural
Research to examine the future. It was decided that these institutions would
be inspected (working methods, improved production, increased value of
products, etc.) and their resources evaluated. Measures were taken to
implement their development on the basis of this agreement. This policy
grew in importance at the time of the independence of India.75 In 1946, the
Indian Council for Agronomic Research at the Ministry of Agriculture
recognized the valuable role played by goshalas and pinjrapoles, as well as
their federations, in coordinating various activities (improvement of dairies

74
These points are mentioned in: ‘‘Conditions of Cow-protection,’’ Young India,
31-3-1927; ‘‘Reform of Pinjrapole,’’ Young India, 14-7-1927; ‘‘Speech at the All-india
Goseva Sangh Conference,’’ Harijan, 8-2-1942 et 15-2-1942, The Hindu, 2-2-1942, op.
cit.; ‘‘How to Save the Cow?,’’ Harijan, 31-8-1947.
75
Cf. Lodrick (1981c). Federations of these institutions were created thanks, for
example, to the Bihar Goshala Act, 1950 (amended in 1960). A study of their role in
agricultural development would require a separate study.
246 FLORENCE BURGAT

and animal husbandry, promotion of the products of dead animals, etc).

The following year, a committee of experts approved the interdiction to
slaughter cattle, but it was in vain.76 In 1949, the Central Gaushalas
Development Board was set up in order to rationalize the improvement of
production thanks to financial assistance from the government. During the
second and third five-year plans (1955-1966), the results were encouraging
but then declined during the next phase and ended up by being excluded
from the list of priorities. Nevertheless, the National Dairy Development
Board gave significant scientific support at the beginning of the 1970s to
improve indigenous milk-producing species and to set up model dairies.77
The promoters of Goshala Movement have drawn attention to the dangers of
cross-breeding between indigenous cows and exotic species. Although a
better output of milk can be obtained, the young males often lack the
qualities expected of draft animals, and because of their uselessness they risk
being slaughtered for their meat. Furthermore, these cross-bred animals are
less hardy and consequently need expensive veterinary care and a more
sophisticated diet. Other groups, however, work in the opposite direction by
adopting methods of intensive agriculture, using growth hormones, and
abandoning indigenous species, in short, what Vandana Shiva refers to as
the McDonaldization of the world.78

6. CONCLUSION: WAITING FOR THE ‘‘RED REVOLUTION’’ …

It is with the words, ‘‘the Red Revolution,’’ that Bruno Dorin and Frédéric
Landy, French authors of a recently published book on agriculture and food
in India, express their hopes for the development and production of meat in
this country. After describing the measures taken in the 1940s by the gov-
ernmental authorities to give shape to Gandhi’s plan, it seemed useful to
conclude with a brief review of the current situation.

76
Cf. Thaker (1998). The author stresses that Article 48 of the Indian Constitu-
tion (28 November 1948), concerning the organization of agriculture and breeding,
was never honoured since animals were slaughtered or exported for this purpose.
This article states that ‘‘the State should seek to organize agriculture and breeding on
a modern and scientific basis and should, in particular, take steps to protect and
improve species, and to prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves, as well as other
milk producing and draft animals.’’
77
‘‘Joshi and Singh (1998b).
78
Vandana Shiva is the Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Tech-
nology and Ecology, New Delhi. This expression can also be found in her article
‘‘Shadow Acres and Mad Cows,’’ Animal Citizen, July–September 1998, op. cit., p.
27, which is taken from George Ritzer’s book The McDonaldization of Society.
 NON-VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANIMALS 247

Although resistance to the productivist model and meat production

persists in India, the prevailing trend runs in the opposite direction. Despite
the fact that article 48 (dated 28 November 1948) of the Indian Constitution
states that ‘‘The State shall (…) prohibit[ing] the slaughter of cows, calves
and other milch and draught cattle,’’ it is a difficult and sensitive matter for
the authorities to officially promote the objectives of an expanding meat
production (especially beef). And yet this has been clearly under way since
the 1960s. According to FAO estimates, in 1998 beef and veal production
(1.4 million tons) was almost equal to that of buffalo meat and seven times
higher than mutton.79 This production accounts for the growing exports,
even if the exportation of beef (but not that of buffalo meat) is in theory
forbidden. Since the two Communist States (Kerala and West Bengal) re-
fused to comply with the recommendations of article 48, they slaughter one
million bovines from neighboring States every year. Furthermore, clandes-
tine slaughterhouses are, so to speak, public knowledge. Out of the 34,700
slaughterhouses identified in the country in 1996, 90% are small units
operating without a license, even though they produce about 40% of the
meat in India!80
The purpose of these brief remarks is to draw attention to two points.
The first is the need to clearly distinguish between the reality of practices and
the texts that uphold beliefs about India as a country where the fate of
animals appears to be idyllic. The second point is the victory of what can be
called the ‘‘violent model’’ in a country where the words of its liberator has
been relegated to history.

REFERENCES

Assayag, J., ‘‘The Body of India,’’ Etnografica, Vol. I(1) (1997), 33–56.
Assayag, J., L’Inde, de´sir de nation (Paris, Odile Jacob, 2001), pp. 89–133.
Backianadan, J. F., Love in the Life and Works of Mahatma Gandhi (St. Peter’s
Pontifical Institute of Theology, Bangalore, 1991), p. 84.
Bose, N. K. (ed.), Selections from Gandhi (Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad,
1948), pp. 38–39.
Clément, O., ‘‘Tolsto et Gandhi,’’ Cahiers Le´on Tolsto 2 (Institute of Slavic Studies,
1985), p. 52.
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG), Government of India, Ahmedabad,
90 volumes (1958–1984).
Dorin, B. and F. Landy, Agriculture et Alimentation de l’Inde. Les vertes anne´es
(1947–2001), (INRA, Paris, 2002), p. 15.
Gandhi, M., Heads & Tails, 13th edn. (The Other India Press, in Association with
People for Animals, 1996), pp. 2–3.

79
Dorin and Landy (2002).
80
Ibid., p. 117.
248 FLORENCE BURGAT

Guha, R., ‘‘Mahatma Gandhi and the Ecological Movement in India,’’ Écologie
politique, n20 (Springer, 1997), pp. 117–134.
Joshi, B. K. and A. Singh, ‘‘Prospective Potentials of Gaushalas,’’ Animal Citizen,
July–September (1988), p. 24.
Kumrappa B. (ed.), How to Serve the Cow (Navajivan Publishing House, Ahme-
dabad, 1954), p. 119.
Lodrick, D. O., Sacred Cows, Sacred Places. Origins and Survivals of Animal Homes
in India (University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1981a).
Lodrick, D. O., op. cit. (1981b), p. 13.
Lodrick, D. O., op. cit. (1981c), pp. 186–187.
Parel, A., ‘‘The Political Symbolism of the Cow in India,’’ Journal of Commonwealth
Political Studies, 7(3) (1969), 179–200.
Randhawa, M. S., A History of Agriculture in India, Vol. IV (Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, New Delhi, 1986a), pp. 317–337.
Randhawa, M. S., A History of Agriculture in India, op. cit., Vol. III (1986b), pp.
239–245.
Ratnagar, D. and Konkar, R., A vegetarian lifestyle, edited by Beauty without
Cruelty, (Pune, India, 1999), p. 135.
Tendulkar, D. G., Mahatma. Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Vol. 4 (Bom-
bay, 1951), pp. 202–203.
Thaker, D. M., ‘‘Goshala Movement in India,’’ Animal Citizen, July–September
(1998), pp. 21–23.

INRA-TSV
65, Boulevard de Brandebourg
94205 Ivry-sur-Seine
E-mail: burgat.florence@wanadoo.fr