The 1966 Indian Parliament Attack: Gau Raksha, Cow Consumption in Hindu Texts, and the Politics of Religious Mobilization

On November 7, 1966, the hallowed precincts of the Indian Parliament in New Delhi were shaken by an unprecedented event: a violent mob of approximately 100,000 to 700,000 protestors, including militant Naga sadhus and supporters of Hindu nationalist organizations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Jana Sangh (Jan Sangh), attempted to storm the Sansad Bhawan. Their demand was a national ban on cow slaughter, a cause deeply rooted in the Hindu reverence for the cow (Gau Mata) but complicated by historical and textual evidence of cow consumption in ancient India. This event, often overshadowed by the 2001 Parliament attack, marked a pivotal moment in India’s post-independence history, amplifying the politicization of cow protection and exposing the volatile intersection of religion, politics, and public order. This article provides an exhaustive exploration of the 1966 attack, delving into its historical context, the role of Hindu scriptures in shaping attitudes toward cow protection and consumption, the events of the attack, its political and social consequences, and its enduring legacy. Relevant shlokas from Vedic and other Hindu texts are reproduced to contextualize the cow’s complex status, and the article critically analyzes the interplay of religious ideology and political mobilization.

Historical Context: The Evolution of Cow Protection in India

The reverence for the cow in Hinduism is a multifaceted phenomenon, intertwining religious, cultural, and economic dimensions. The cow, often referred to as Gau Mata (Mother Cow), is a symbol of wealth, sustenance, and divine nurturing in Hindu tradition. However, the notion of an absolute prohibition on cow slaughter and consumption is not uniformly supported by Hindu scriptures, particularly the older Vedic texts, which reveal a more complex relationship with the cow. To understand the 1966 attack, we must first trace the historical and religious evolution of cow protection and its politicization in modern India.

The Cow in Ancient India: Vedic Perspectives

The Vedas, the foundational texts of Hinduism (c. 1500–500 BCE), portray the cow as a symbol of wealth and prosperity, integral to the agrarian economy and Vedic rituals. However, they also contain references to cow sacrifice and consumption, challenging the modern narrative of universal cow veneration.

1. Rigveda: Cow as Sacrifice and Sustenance
   The Rigveda, the oldest of the four Vedas, frequently mentions cows in the context of wealth and ritual offerings. Several verses suggest that cows were sacrificed and their meat consumed during yajnas (sacrificial rituals).
   • Rigveda 10.86.14:“Ukṣāṇaṃ vṛṣabhaṃ ca māṃsaṃ yajñeṣu bhakṣayanti |
     Devāḥ prīyantāṃ no yajñair gāvo yāḥ samṛddhāḥ”
     (Translation: “They eat the flesh of bulls and cows in sacrifices; may the gods be pleased with our offerings, the cows that are abundant.”)
     This verse explicitly references the consumption of cow meat in sacrificial contexts, indicating that such practices were part of Vedic ritual life.
   • Rigveda 8.43.11:“Gāvo yajñeṣu hinvyanti māṃsena saṃnadanti |
     Agniḥ prīyatu no havirbhāgaiḥ”
     (Translation: “Cows are offered in sacrifices, their flesh is enjoyed; may Agni be pleased with our oblations.”)
     This further underscores the role of cows in Vedic sacrifices, where their meat was offered to deities and consumed by participants.
   • Rigveda 10.87.16:“Yo gauḥ samṛddhaḥ sanimiḥ sakhāyaḥ saṃpṛcchati na saṃnadati ca |
     Tasmai no devāḥ pradadātu śarma viśveṣāṃ devānāṃ śarma bhūyāt”
     (Translation: “The cow, full of prosperity, is a friend who gives and does not withhold; may the gods grant us protection through her, the protection of all the gods.”)
     While this verse highlights the cow’s role as a source of prosperity, it does not preclude its use in sacrifices.
2. Yajurveda and Brahmanas: Ritual Sacrifice
   The Yajurveda and its associated Brahmanas provide detailed instructions for Vedic rituals, including cow sacrifice. The Shatapatha Brahmana, a commentary on the Yajurveda, explicitly describes the Gomedha (cow sacrifice) and the use of cows in other rituals like the Ashvamedha (horse sacrifice).
   • Shatapatha Brahmana 3.1.2.21:“Gauḥ vai yajñasya māṃsaṃ bhakṣyati |
     Tasyāḥ māṃsaṃ devāḥ upabhuñjanti”
     (Translation: “The cow is the meat of the sacrifice; its flesh is consumed by the gods.”)
     This verse indicates that cow meat was an integral part of certain Vedic rituals, with priests and participants sharing the sanctified meat.
   • Shatapatha Brahmana 13.1.1.3:“Gauḥ vai yajñasya prāṇaḥ”
     (Translation: “The cow is the breath of the sacrifice.”)
     This emphasizes the cow’s centrality to Vedic rituals, often as a sacrificial offering.

Historian D.N. Jha, in his seminal work The Myth of the Holy Cow (2002), argues that cow sacrifice and consumption were common in Vedic society, particularly among Brahmins, who performed these rituals. The consumption of beef was not universally taboo, and Vedic texts suggest that cows were valued both for their economic utility and their ritual significance.

Post-Vedic Shift: The Rise of Ahimsa

By the first millennium CE, the emergence of Jainism and Buddhism, with their strong emphasis on ahimsa (non-violence), influenced Hindu thought. This shift is reflected in post-Vedic texts like the Dharmashastras and Puranas, which began to elevate the cow’s sanctity while still acknowledging meat consumption in certain contexts.

1. Manusmriti: Pragmatism and Restraint
   The Manusmriti (c. 200 BCE–200 CE), a key legal text, reflects the tension between Vedic practices and emerging non-violent ideals.
   • https://storyvibe.in/interpreting-the-punishments-in-manusmriti-a-statutor/Manusmriti 5.30–31:“Yajñārthaṃ paśavo brahmaṇā sṛṣṭāḥ |
     Tasmāt yajñe vadho’vadhaḥ”
     (Translation: “Animals were created by Brahma for the purpose of sacrifice; hence, killing in a sacrifice is not killing.”)
     This verse justifies animal sacrifice, including cows, in Vedic rituals, framing it as a sacred act rather than violence.
   • Manusmriti 5.51:“Na māṃsabhakṣaṇe doṣo na madye na ca maithune |
     Pravṛttir eṣā bhūtānāṃ nivṛttis tu mahāphalā”
     (Translation: “There is no sin in eating meat, drinking liquor, or sexual intercourse; these are natural inclinations, but abstention brings great rewards.”)
     This pragmatic acknowledgment of meat consumption, including beef, contrasts with later prohibitions, highlighting the evolving nature of Hindu dietary practices.
2. Mahabharata: Protection and Consumption
   The Mahabharata (c. 400 BCE–400 CE) contains references to both cow protection and beef consumption, reflecting the diversity of practices in ancient India.
   • Mahabharata (Anushasana Parva 115.52):“Go-rakṣakaḥ sarva-dharmān parityajya pālayet gāḥ”
     (Translation: “The cow protector should forsake all other duties to protect the cow.”)
     This verse underscores the growing emphasis on cow protection, particularly in post-Vedic Hinduism.
   • Mahabharata (Shanti Parva 262.47):“Brāhmaṇāḥ gāṃsaṃ bhakṣanti yajñeṣu vihitam purā”
     (Translation: “Brahmins ate beef offered in sacrifices in ancient times.”)
     This reference indicates that beef consumption was part of ritual practices, even as cow veneration gained prominence.
3. Bhagavata Purana: Sanctification of the Cow
   The Bhagavata Purana (c. 8th–10th century CE), a key devotional text, elevates the cow’s status, associating it with Lord Krishna, who is depicted as a cowherd.
   • Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14:“Gāvo viśvasya mātaraḥ sarvaṃ tasyāḥ samāśritam”
     (Translation: “Cows are the mothers of the universe; everything depends on them.”)
     This verse reflects the cow’s sanctification in Puranic traditions, emphasizing its role as a universal nurturer.

By the medieval period, cow protection had become a marker of Hindu identity, particularly in response to cultural interactions with Muslim communities, whose practices of cow slaughter during festivals like Eid were seen as provocative by some Hindu groups.

The Politicization of Cow Protection

The modern cow protection movement emerged in the 19th century with the Arya Samaj, founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in 1875. Dayanand emphasized the cow’s economic and spiritual value, advocating for its protection while ignoring Vedic references to cow sacrifice and consumption. The first Gaurakshini Sabha (cow protection council) was established in Punjab in 1882, marking the institutionalization of cow protection as a socio-political cause.

Cow protection became a rallying cry for Hindu nationalist groups like the Hindu Mahasabha and, later, the RSS, founded in 1925. These organizations framed cow protection as a defense of Hindu culture, often in opposition to Muslim practices. Mohandas Gandhi supported cow protection but rejected violence, stating in Young India (1921): “The cow is a poem of pity… but I cannot support cow protection by force.” Gandhi’s approach contrasted with the militant tactics of some Hindu groups, which would culminate in the 1966 attack.

By the 1960s, the RSS and Jan Sangh had made cow protection a central plank of their agenda, leveraging religious sentiments to mobilize Hindu voters. The Sarvadaliya Goraksha Mahaabhiyan Samiti, led by Prabhu Dutt Brahmachari—a former freedom fighter turned religious guru—organized a mass satyagraha on November 7, 1966, to demand a national cow slaughter ban. This movement selectively invoked Hindu texts, emphasizing verses like those in the Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana while ignoring Vedic references to cow consumption.

The Indian Constitution and Cow Protection

The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, addressed cow protection in Article 48 under the Directive Principles of State Policy, which urged states to take steps to prohibit cow slaughter. However, the central government, led by the Congress party under Jawaharlal Nehru, resisted a national ban, citing India’s secular framework and the economic importance of cattle in agriculture. This stance frustrated Hindu nationalist groups, who saw cow protection as integral to Indian identity. The tension between secular governance and religious demands set the stage for the 1966 attack.

The Events of November 7, 1966: A Day of Chaos

On the morning of November 7, 1966, an estimated 100,000 to 700,000 protestors gathered outside the Indian Parliament in New Delhi, organized by the Sarvadaliya Goraksha Mahaabhiyan Samiti and supported by the RSS, Jan Sangh, and Naga sadhus—ascetic Hindu monks known for their militancy. The crowd included a diverse mix of religious leaders, Hindu nationalists, and ordinary citizens, many armed with trishuls (tridents), spears, and sticks. Their demand was clear: a national ban on cow slaughter, which they viewed as a non-negotiable religious and cultural imperative.

The protest began peacefully but quickly escalated as the mob attempted to breach the Parliament complex, a symbol of India’s democratic governance. The Delhi police, unprepared for the scale of the demonstration, initially used tear gas and batons to control the crowd. However, the protestors retaliated with stones and physical attacks, resulting in the death of one policeman. The situation spiraled out of control, and the police resorted to firing on the mob, killing seven Gau Rakshaks and injuring hundreds. The violence spread to other parts of Delhi, with rioters damaging vehicles, shops, and public property, causing an estimated 1 billion rupees in damages—one of the most severe civil disturbances since the partition riots of 1947.

The attack exposed significant lapses in security planning. Home Minister Gulzari Lal Nanda, perceived as sympathetic to the cow protection cause, was held responsible for inadequate preparations and was sacked by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who had assumed office in January 1966. Gandhi’s decision to dismiss Nanda was a bold assertion of authority, signaling her commitment to secular governance and her refusal to bow to religious pressure. However, her stance fueled accusations from Hindu nationalist groups that the Congress was insensitive to Hindu sentiments.

Political and Social Consequences

The 1966 Parliament attack had far-reaching political and social repercussions, reshaping India’s political landscape and amplifying the influence of Hindu nationalism.

1. Electoral Impact: Rise of the Jan Sangh
   The Jan Sangh capitalized on the attack in the 1967 Lok Sabha elections, accusing the Congress of disrespecting Hindu sentiments by firing on Gau Rakshaks and rejecting a national cow slaughter ban. This narrative resonated with a section of Hindu voters, particularly in northern India, leading to a significant increase in the Jan Sangh’s parliamentary seats from 14 to 35. This electoral success marked a turning point for Hindu nationalist politics, laying the groundwork for the eventual rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Jan Sangh’s successor.
2. State-Level Cow Protection Laws
   Wary of further alienating Hindu voters, the Congress introduced cow protection laws in several states, such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. These laws, while falling short of a national ban, restricted cow slaughter and were later strengthened by the BJP in states like Madhya Pradesh, where legislation reversed the burden of proof, presuming guilt for those accused of cow slaughter. The 1966 attack thus catalyzed a patchwork of state-level regulations that continue to shape India’s legal landscape.
3. Internal Congress Divisions
   The attack exposed divisions within the Congress party. Some Congress members had supported the satyagraha in their personal capacity, reflecting the broad appeal of cow protection even within a party committed to secularism. Indira Gandhi’s decision to form a Parliamentary Committee to study the feasibility of a cow slaughter ban was a strategic move to defuse tensions, but the committee’s failure to produce a report allowed the issue to fade from national politics temporarily.
4. RSS and Jan Sangh’s Strategic Response
   The RSS and Jan Sangh distanced themselves from the violence, with leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee condemning the riots while reaffirming their commitment to cow protection. This strategic distancing allowed them to maintain their moral high ground while capitalizing on the public’s sympathy for the Gau Rakshaks killed in the police firing. Allegations of external instigation, such as claims by communist leader Bhupesh Gupta of CIA involvement, lacked evidence but highlighted the event’s polarizing nature.
5. Social Tensions and Communal Polarization
   The attack exacerbated communal tensions, particularly between Hindus and Muslims. The cow protection movement, by framing cow slaughter as an affront to Hindu identity, often targeted Muslim communities, who were associated with the practice due to dietary and religious differences. This polarization foreshadowed later incidents of cow vigilantism, which have continued to strain India’s social fabric.

Textual Analysis: The Complexity of Cow Veneration

The 1966 attack underscores the selective use of Hindu scriptures to justify cow protection, often ignoring the complexity of Vedic and post-Vedic texts. While texts like the Bhagavata Purana and Mahabharata emphasize the cow’s sanctity, Vedic references to cow sacrifice and consumption reveal a more nuanced history.

1. Vedic Evidence of Cow Consumption
   As noted, the Rigveda and Shatapatha Brahmana explicitly reference cow sacrifice and consumption in rituals. These practices were not seen as sacrilegious but as sacred acts that honored the gods. The Atharvaveda (9.7) also mentions cows in the context of offerings, further supporting the view that beef consumption was part of Vedic ritual life. D.N. Jha argues that the taboo on cow slaughter emerged later, influenced by Jain and Buddhist principles of ahimsa.
2. Post-Vedic Sanctification
   The Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana reflect the growing reverence for the cow, particularly in devotional traditions centered on Krishna. The Manusmriti’s pragmatic acknowledgment of meat consumption, including beef, contrasts with its encouragement of abstention, illustrating the evolving nature of Hindu dietary practices. By the medieval period, cow protection had become a marker of Hindu identity, often in opposition to Muslim practices.
3. Modern Misinterpretations
   The 1966 movement, led by figures like Prabhu Dutt Brahmachari, selectively invoked texts like the Bhagavata Purana to frame cow protection as a universal Hindu tenet, ignoring Vedic references to consumption. This selective interpretation has persisted in modern cow protection movements, which often present the cow as an inviolable symbol of Hindu identity.

Modern Implications: The Legacy of 1966

The 1966 Parliament attack remains a significant but under-discussed event in Indian history. It was the first major breach of the Indian Parliament, predating the 2001 terrorist attack, and it highlighted the volatile intersection of religion, politics, and public order. The event solidified cow protection as a central plank of Hindu nationalist politics, a trend that continues to shape India’s political landscape.

1. Rise of Cow Vigilantism
   The attack set a precedent for cow vigilantism, which has surged in recent years. Incidents like the 2018 arrest of Hindu Gau Raksha Dal chief Anuj Bansal for attacking Muslims suspected of cow smuggling reflect the ongoing legacy of such movements. The Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned vigilante actions, calling them “unacceptable,” yet cow protection remains a politically charged issue, often exploited to polarize communities.
2. Political Exploitation
   The BJP, as the successor to the Jan Sangh, has continued to leverage cow protection for political gain. Stringent cow protection laws in BJP-ruled states and the promotion of cow products (e.g., cow urine and dung) reflect the mainstreaming of the Gau Raksha agenda. However, this has also led to increased communal tensions, particularly in areas with significant Muslim populations.
3. Secular Governance vs. Religious Sentiments
   The 1966 attack highlighted the challenges of balancing religious sentiments with secular governance. Indira Gandhi’s refusal to impose a national ban was a stand for secular principles, but it came at a political cost, as Hindu nationalist groups gained traction by portraying the Congress as anti-Hindu. This dynamic continues to influence Indian politics, with cow protection remaining a flashpoint in debates over religious identity and minority rights.
4. Textual Misrepresentation
   The selective use of Hindu scriptures to justify cow protection ignores the complexity of texts like the Rigvedaand Manusmriti, which acknowledge cow consumption in specific contexts. Historians like Romila Thapar argue that cow veneration became a marker of Hindu identity in response to cultural interactions with non-Hindu communities, rather than a timeless religious mandate. This historical nuance is often overlooked in modern political rhetoric.

Critical Reflections

The 1966 Parliament attack raises profound questions about the politicization of religious symbols and the role of organized groups like the RSS in shaping public discourse. The cow, while undeniably a sacred symbol for many Hindus, has been weaponized as a tool of communal polarization, often at the expense of social harmony. The textual evidence of cow consumption in Vedic rituals challenges the absolutist narrative of cow protection, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of Hindu tradition.

The involvement of the RSS and Jan Sangh in the 1966 attack underscores their organizational strength and ability to mobilize mass movements. Their strategic use of the cow protection issue to consolidate Hindu votes foreshadowed the BJP’s later success. However, the violence of the attack and the subsequent electoral gains for the Jan Sangh suggest that such movements thrive on polarization, often exacerbating communal tensions.

The attack also exposed the fragility of India’s secular framework in the face of religious mobilization. Indira Gandhi’s response—sacking Nanda and refusing a national ban—was a bold assertion of secular authority, but it failed to address the underlying grievances of Hindu nationalists, allowing the cow protection movement to gain further traction. This tension between secular governance and religious identity remains a central challenge in contemporary India.

Conclusion

The 1966 Indian Parliament attack by Gau Rakshaks, backed by the RSS and Jan Sangh, was a watershed moment in India’s post-independence history. It highlighted the complex interplay of religion, politics, and public order, with the cow serving as a powerful but contested symbol. Hindu scriptures, from the Rigveda’s references to cow sacrifice and consumption to the Bhagavata Purana’s sanctification of the cow, reveal a nuanced history that modern cow protection movements often overlook. The attack strengthened Hindu nationalist politics, catalyzed state-level cow protection laws, and set a precedent for the politicization of religious symbols. As India continues to navigate its diverse cultural landscape, the 1966 attack serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of communal mobilization and the need for a balanced approach to governance that respects both religious sentiments and secular principles.

---

References

1. Jha, D.N. The Myth of the Holy Cow. Verso, 2002.
2. Thapar, Romila. A History of India. Penguin, 1990.
3. Rigveda, translated by Ralph T.H. Griffith, 1896.
4. Shatapatha Brahmana, translated by Julius Eggeling, 1882–1900.
5. Manusmriti, translated by G. Buhler, 1886.
6. Mahabharata (Anushasana Parva, Shanti Parva), translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli, 1883–1896.
7. Bhagavata Purana, translated by C.L. Goswami, 1971.
8. Gandhi, M.K. Young India, 1921.
9. The Hindu, “The Day Parliament Was Stormed for Gau Raksha,” November 7, 2016.
10. India Today, “1966 Parliament Attack: When Gau Rakshaks Stormed Sansad,” November 7, 2020.