When Bahadur Shah Zafar banned slaughter and ordered the confinement of cows after the killing of Muslim butchers

 

When Bahadur Shah Zafar banned slaughter and ordered the confinement of cows after the killing of Muslim butchers

Dara Shikoh, the eldest son of the fifth Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, used to describe Mughal history as the ‘confluence of the two seas’, or the history of the confluence of the two oceans.

In his book ‘The Great Mughals and Their India’, historian Dirk Collier writes that Dara Shikoh used this analogy to describe the ‘fatal fusion of Islamic and ancient Hindu civilizations’ during the Mughal dynasty’s rule over India from 1526 to 1857, i.e. for almost 330 years, which gave a new dimension to the civilisational and cultural identity of the subcontinent.

Victor Lieberman’s work ‘Strange Parallels’ shows that the third Mughal emperor, Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar, adopted a more comprehensive style of governance that emphasized global harmony and was encapsulated in the concept of ‘salh-e-kul’, or ‘peace with all’.

‘Many of these policies continued under Akbar’s son Nuruddin Muhammad Jahangir (reigned 1605–1627).’

According to Lieberman, a conservative reaction did occur under Shah Jahan (1628–1658) and especially under the sixth emperor Aurangzeb (1658–1707), but practical needs remained paramount.

In his book ‘The Right to Freedom of Religion’, Kanan Gaharana writes that during the Mughal period, from Babur to Aurangzeb, some form of ban on cow slaughter was imposed.

‘This was done to win the loyalty of Hindu subjects.’

According to medieval India expert Audrey Trischke, historical records show that Mughal rulers imposed restrictions on the slaughter of cows and other animals for limited periods in certain areas of the empire.

‘Both Jains and Brahmins used to approach the Mughal emperors for such political concessions, and several farmans (royal orders) and historical texts are extant to prove that their requests were granted.’

‘For example, Jain religious leaders obtained promises from the Mughal rulers to ban animal slaughter during the Parivan festival.’

‘Akbar issued two separate edicts in this regard at an interval of 25 years, which shows that these orders were not always in force.’

‘Sanskrit books written by both Jains and Brahmins praise several Mughal emperors for their protection of cows.’

According to Herbert Charles Finshaw’s book ‘Delhi Past and Present’, by the early 19th century, the Mughal Empire had shrunk to just the city of Delhi and its environs, i.e., the area up to Palam.

In such a situation, the 20th Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar, came to power in 1837.

 

In his book The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi, 1857, William Dalrymple writes that by the 1850s Bahadur Shah Zafar had little practical day-to-day power, except for the impressive awe and prestige that still associated with the Mughal dynasty, and in many ways he had become a ‘chess king’.

Yet according to historian R. V. Smith, before 1857, in the last years of his reign, Bahadur Shah Zafar had banned cow slaughter, continuing the tradition of his grandfather Akbar the Great.

He writes: ‘This order may have been flouted in the villages, but in the urban areas the ban was strictly enforced to strengthen communal harmony.’

The real power then lay with the British East India Company.

The Encyclopedia Britannica states that for years, British political interference, oppression and occupation of states had been increasing public anger, and Lord Dalhousie’s annexation of Oudh further intensified this resentment.

‘In 1857, a great rebellion broke out in India against British rule, known in India as the ‘First War of Independence.’

‘The spark was ignited when the new Enfield rifle was introduced. Its cartridges were notorious for being greased with cow and pig fat. The soldiers had to bite them with their teeth, which was considered an insult to the religious beliefs of both Hindus and Muslims.’

‘Finally, Indian soldiers mutinied at Meerut. Soon the fire spread to Delhi, Agra, Kanpur and Lucknow.

Dr. Tarachand writes in ‘History of the Sepoys’ Freedom Movement in India’ that ‘contrary to popular belief and against the hopes and expectations of the rulers, Muslims and Hindus fought together in the war of independence.

’

Historian Rana Safavi writes that Colonel Keith Young was the Judge Advocate General of the Indian Army and was posted with the British Army in Delhi. He used to write letters to his wife in which he described the details of the rebellion. His wife was staying in a safe place in Simla. These letters were later published.

They were titled ‘Delhi 1857: The Siege, Assault and Capture as Given in the Diary and Correspondence of the Late Colonel Keith Young’.

On 29 July 1857 he wrote to his wife: ‘Hudson said that a letter had arrived from the city confirming the differences which had been reported before, and it seems that the matter may take a serious turn on the occasion of the Eid festival, as some Muslim fanatics have announced that they will slaughter cows in the Jama Masjid as per the custom. It is hoped that they will stick to this resolve with religious zeal and then there will certainly be riots between the Muslims and the Hindus.’

On 30 July he wrote: ‘All is quiet in the camp, and I think — as we all think — that the rebels are quarrelling among themselves and are unable to unite to attack us again. We hope that Eid will bring their affairs to a decisive stage and will prove to be a day of great riots between the Hindus and the Muslims.’

These two letters make it clear that the entire Raj was sitting on the hope that the sacrifice would be a means of breaking the Hindu-Muslim unity.

However, Bahadur Shah Zafar’s orders of complete prohibition dashed all these hopes.

On the day after Eid, i.e. 2 August, the Colonel wrote to his wife: ‘Our hopes of no major riots in the city on the occasion of Eid tomorrow have apparently not been fulfilled. Whereas the plan was that the King should offer his evening prayers in our camp!’