Krishna (Krishnasmercy, 2014)

The sacred cow – as a religious symbol and a subject in their own right

Therese Lilliesköld, Graduate of MA Anthrozoology

University of Exeter

Cows on their way to Kerala (VSPCA, 2014)

Subjectivity: the sense of having a perspective of one’s own, having thoughts and emotions, meaningful beliefs and desires (Corbey and Lanjouv, 2013).

1

Introduction

India has the largest amount of cattle in the world and the cow has many social values as it is considered a sacred animal among Hindus. Cow worship has persisted in India with the principle of Ahimsa (Fox, 2003). However, there is a discrepancy between the way cows are viewed as holy and the real treatment of the animals, and in some ways cow worship even has negative effects on cows’ welfare in India today (for example Fox 2003, Ava 2014). Domestication can be the best or the worst for an animal (Porscher & Schmitt, 2011) and examples on both extremes can be found for the ‘holy cows’ today.

Saving, caring for and applying the principle of Ahimsa to cows are ways to improve one’s karma in Hinduism, and to euthanize cows, even for humane reasons, is forbidden. In this essay I will be exploring the general effect that cow worship has on the animals’ welfare. Drawing on interviews and observations that I have done at Almvik Cow Sanctuary in Sweden, I will also be exploring whether the protection of cows in this type of religious setting is mainly a way to improve humans’ karma, or if the cows can also be seen as persons, themselves worthy of compassion? Are the cows companions, or viewed as ‘first and foremost a religious symbol’? (Korom, 2014:196)

Animal agency and domestication

In recent accounts on animal domestication, animals have increasingly been discussed as actors and agents in domestication processes. Agency is ‘the ability to act in the world, to make choices’ (Corbey and Lanjouw, 2013:6). One of the first who discussed this was Budiansky (1992) who argued that domestication must have been driven by opportunistic individuals who were seeking human contact to get food. In Auroch’s case, the forefather of today’s cattle, it was argued to have been for the salt that humans provided via their urine. It has later been discussed that a more likely explanation for domestication in general is that some species had certain characteristics which made them suitable for domestication (Clutton-Broock, 2012), however these two views do not necessarily contradict each other as opportunistic individuals from suitable species might have been the actors of the process. Abandoning the view of humans as the sole driving agents in this historical process creates room for viewing animals of today more as agents in the world they inhabit. Domesticated animals working for people live in a very special form of ‘natureculture’ (Haraway, 2003) and abandoning the traditional view on work as an exclusively human activity opens up for the possibility of considering cows who ‘work for’ people as active agents in the work process (Hurn forthcoming, Porcher & Schmitt, 2011). Cows are thinking and feeling animals who retain agency (Hansen, 2014), they actively engage with and affect their situation (Porcher and Shmitt, 2011). However, even if different methodologies are used, the description is almost always on their utilitarian value and they are not described ‘in their own right’ (Haraway, 2007). It is like they have lost all other meaning. Cows have evolved alongside humans and their social life in many ways mirrors our own, they have strong matrilineal ties and are very communicative (Hansen, 2014). They have personal favorites among people, form strong friendship bonds (Ott, 2013) and will form friendships with individuals of other species (Hansen 2014).

The Cow is the most sacred of all animals in Hinduism and has been celebrated as the mother of Mankind, providing milk as a surrogate mother (Agoramoorthy, 2012). Another description is that she is a microcosm of the universe (Korom, 2000:190). The sacredness of the Cow might have started as an economically sensible process (Harris, 1979, Agoromoorthy, 2012) due to the many benefits

2

cows, alive, brought to men. Simoons (1980) argue it is to be viewed as a remarkably resilient habit influenced by mixed social and cultural reasons. Though open to debate, many scholars see the first signs of the cow as sacred in the Upanishadic era (400 BCE) when the concept of Ahimsa was born, and not during Vedic times, when the cow was foremost used as a sacrificial animal (Simoons, 1980). The cow has been linked to various Hindu goddesses and mainly with the cult of Krishna (Simoons, 1980).

Religions are not free from anthropocentrism, and Hinduism, in opposition to what many believe, is innately hierarchical and anthropocentric (Nelson, 2006). All animals have their place on a hierarchical ladder, with humans at the top. Cows and elephants are described as not only closest to humans but also associated with Brahmins- priests, whereas dogs are regarded as impure and outcaste (Nelson, 2006).

Being a ‘holy’ animal – implications for animal welfare today

In India, cattle have often had more varied roles (such as for fuel and fertilizers made of manure, companionship and as ‘stock’ to grow in value for every year) than cattle within agricultural industries have (Fox, 2006). Dairy is part of the traditional Indian diet but it has traditionally been small-scale and rural production (Ava, 2014). High-tech industrial methods are however gaining pace in India today (Ava, 2014) with great implications for animal welfare. India is now a significant exporter of milk and the consumption within the country is expected to rise (Ava, 2014). The leather industry in India is also growing, and India is already one of the largest exporters of leather in the world (Vesten, 2006). Due to Hindu no-kill policies, only two states in India allow cows to be slaughtered, creating the infamous ‘death march’ of cows who are forced to walk over the country or transported in horrible conditions to be slaughtered where it is allowed. This is done to provide for the markets of both leather and beef, for export and to be sold to Christians and Muslims within the country (Fox, 2006). Due to bribery and corruption, welfare regulations are often ignored (Velten, 2007). Cows are also slaughtered illegally in other states, and thus in completely unregulated ways (Van Dooren, 2010).

Male calves in India are often simply released on the streets, together with older, unwanted cows (Ava, 2014). They often survive by eating plastic bags, to get to the contents on the inside, leading to horrible pain and suffering (Plastic cows, 2014). Harris (1979), when studying cows in Kerala, observed that the mortality rate was twice as high for male as for female calves. The farmers said they were obeying Hindu laws of not killing any cattle and offered the explanation that male calves got sick more often than females (Harris, 1979:33). Harris examines the discrepancy between the religious ideal of Ahimsa and the reality of how, when food is scarce, keeping all male calves alive would threaten the farmers’ material welfare. The farmers were aware of the sex ratio and explained that male calves ate less, thus sometimes starved, and sometimes were not even allowed to nurse from their own mothers. They explained this as out of their own control. ‘Emically the farmers were caring for their cattle in accordance with Hindu law, while etically male cattle were being systematically killed’ (Westen, 1984:645). Westen (1984) argues that this seemingly conflicting view is easy to understand by focusing on how the farmers were both aware that male calves starved, and at the same time were unaware that they were starved by the farmers themselves. This was ‘a culturally approved mechanism of denial accompanied by the systematic starvation of male calves’ (Westen, 1984:656), which also meant farmers would sanction the denial of others’ actions.

3

He argues that this produced a denial necessary to keep, due to the immense importance of widespread cultural beliefs of Ahimsa.

Due to Ahimsa, many cows are left dying or dead (sometimes after being stripped off their skin by the ‘untouchables’ - the lowest caste of people) on the roadside or outside villages, where traditionally vultures have got rid of the carcasses (Van Dooren, 2010). However, due to the introduction of the use of anti-inflammatory drugs for the cows, vultures are today dying in large numbers all over India after being poisoned by ingesting this drug from eating the cows’ bodies, creating hygienic problems with carcasses not taken care of (Van Dooren, 2010).

Hindu sanctuaries for old or homeless cows exist both in India and abroad, and many Hindu temples keep and breed cows to utilize their milk for religious purposes, as cow’s milk is considered purifying (Velten, 2006). Cow sanctuaries – Goshalas - are a tradition that goes back to fourth century BCE (Nelson, 2006). Yet sometimes, animal abuse is very evident here, as can be seen in cases of large amounts of cows left starving at temples (Times of India, 2013).

Outside of India, practicing Ahimsa and thus forbidding euthanasia even for humane reasons, can be conflicting with Animal welfare regulations. Some examples of controversies around death are the case of the bull Shamu at Skanda Vale and the cow Gongotri in London (Warrier, 2014). In both these cases, the forced euthanasia/killing of a bull and a cow (one who tested positive to tuberculosis and one who was considered suffering due to old age) created massive protests from practicing Hindus (Warrier, 2014).

Ahimsa in practice

Terminology used:

Cows: have had calves

Heifers: Have not had calves

Oxen - castrated bulls

4

Cows at Almvik (Almvik, 2014b)

’Cow protection in practice means there is a harmonious relationship between humans and cows. The cows give as a mother of her life-sustaining milk, which according to Vedic writings is very important to develop spiritual intelligence. In return it is our duty to provide them with all they need and to assist them when they get health problems. We do not eat them! They are allowed to live their full lives, as we are. (Almvik, 2014a).

In 2000, ‘Almviks gård’, a Swedish Hare Krishna community with a Cow Sanctuary, was ordered by court to euthanize two of their eldest cows for humane reasons. The community’s members objected, partly for the sake of the cows’ own future rebirth, and in the end were allowed to keep their cows. It was concluded after additional veterinary check-ups that the cows were not suffering due to their age, only that the first veterinarian had too little experience of old cattle to assess their welfare properly. However, following this case, the sanctuary has been ordered to euthanize several more old animals who were considered to suffer, which their protests have not been able to stop.

I spent a day at Almviks Gård, making some observations of the cows and did a semi-structured interview with the cows’ main keeper. I wanted to know what kind of relationship the keepers had with the animals, but I was also interested in the cow’s perspective. How ‘natural’ - meaningful for a cow- is the environment, how much room for ‘cow culture’ do they have in this particular type of human environment?

Almvik community consists of a village of 70 inhabitants with their houses built around a temple. They keep rabbits and cats as well as 13 cattle. The community was built in 1981 and they kept cows from the start. The cows were now parted in three groups; one with all five cows who gave milk, one with a mix of oxen, cows and heifers and one with heifers and oxen. They were of mixed breeds and only a few were born at the Sanctuary, of mothers who arrived there pregnant. All individuals had been saved from different circumstances, such as from zoos that were changing their animal stock or dairy cows who were ill and about to be put down for economic reasons but were treated and recovered at Almvik. The current oldest cow was 17 years old; the oldest who died (naturally) at the sanctuary was 23. The groups were described as socially peaceful with only minor quarrels, they were sometimes regrouped if any event (such as a cow starting to lactate) changed the dynamics.

As these animals have such important symbolic value, I was curious to see if the relationship could possibly be a personal one as well. On my visit, it was obvious from the start that the bond between my informant and the sanctuary’s animals was strong. She spontaneously started to describe every animal’s individual story, their emotions and special habits and perks, while touching them and encouraging me to say hello to everyone. All the animals seemed calm yet alert when we entered the pen, they had differing individual responses but in general all seemed trustful and to enjoy being talked to and touched.

There is often a clear border between pet or companion animal and livestock (Holloway, 2001). By keeping this strict boundary, we protect ourselves from the awareness that livestock animals have the same emotional and cognitive abilities as the animals we keep as pets. This allows us not to see them as persons and we can dissociate the product we eat from the animal whose flesh it is we are eating (Holloway, 2001). My informant however, described these animals much more like companion animals. ‘If they had been cats or dogs, everyone would understand our view, but cows are supposed

5

to be agricultural objects’. The comparisons with cats and dogs, classic companion animals, or as Haraway (2008) puts it ‘companion species’, is something I find interesting. I have compared my feelings for animals not normally considered companion animals to my feelings for dogs, in an attempt to validate my emotions, since having strong feelings for dogs is considered ‘normal’ (in ‘Western’ societies). Is the fact that these animals are cows one of the reasons why people seem provoked by this sanctuary, so that the community’s members become transgressors of this pet/livestock divide? Would it be more accepted had it been about dogs?

My informant said she ‘hates the ugly ear-tags, the animals are seen more as persons without them, not a thing’. Ear-tagging is a legal requirement for cattle, one of the things which could be seen as helping us to objectify these animals and making us less inclined to view them as persons. However, even in our society with its strict boundaries, sometimes specific farm animals act in such a way as to break this barrier and are granted personhood in public eyes (see for example the story about ‘Yvonne’ the German cow who lived in the woods for three months (Twine, 2013) and ‘Cinci Freedom’ who escaped from a meat-packing plant to a city park (Adams, 2006a).)

The cows are given fodder and the opportunity to graze freely, they are massaged every day and only milked by hand. ‘Braja’ the eldest cow is still lactating though she hasn’t had a calf in 12 years. Several cows are described as lactating many years after having calves, some having started spontaneously without even having had a calf first. My informant described this as common in Hare Krishna sanctuaries, even if the yield is always small. It is explained as possible due to the ‘love and demand principle’: ‘We keep an oxytocin-inducing environment; the touch makes them want to give their milk freely’. When having calves, the cows are ‘allowed’ to keep their calves and decide when to stop nursing, which usually happens when the calf is around 9-13 months of age. This is very different compared to traditional dairy farming, where the cow is often pregnant again about three months after calving (Velten, 2007). My informant says many visitors are shocked that this is possible, but ‘Cows are not affected by societal rules, and nobody asks them; are these calves not too old to suckle?’

My informant feels it is her duty to ‘protect the cows, they give their milk willingly and we are taking care of them in return’. She feels veganism is very far from her philosophy ‘they want to alienate themselves from the cows where we see cooperation’. This could be seen as an example of the ‘domesticated animal contract’ (Palmer, 1997), the ‘belief that humans have a moral responsibility to treat domesticated livestock fairly and with respect’ (Hurn, 2012: 65). To respect the cows here means to allow them to live their full lives, as she says ‘We respect our cows, we do not eat them’.

When the animals are old ‘They are given palliative care. When they are dying, we sit with them. They have lifts that help to turn them around, it gives them life back sometimes for a while. And it prevents sores’. She likens the cows to grandmothers. ‘We do not kill our grandmothers.’

In the last 7 years, the community has been ordered to euthanize four cows for humane reasons. I asked my informant how the cows are affected by being killed. ‘Their preordained spiritual existence is broken. If life is ended prematurely, she must be reborn to live the unlived amount of time as a cow, so she can’t be reborn as a human next time. That chance is taken from her.’

Within Hinduism, rebirth is not a linear process; one can fall into ‘lower’ states of existence as well as rise into ‘higher’ forms during its course (Nelson, 2006). Humans, which as my informant says is the

6

‘most sought-after incarnation’, are within Hinduism superior due to our capacity to ‘receive and appropriate revelation in the form of the Veda and thus only humans can have access to that which comes from the Veda, namely Dharma – correct ritual behavior and morality (Nelson, 2006:184). Without Dharma, humans would be like animals, only humans can have access to spiritual liberation or Moksa (Nelson, 2006). This corresponds to what my informant describes about how they try to provide their cows with that which the animals themselves cannot create in their current existence ‘we sing mantras for them and play hymns. They will use this in their future existence and it will enhance the chances for them to be born as humans to practice a spiritual life. Only humans can be spiritual because we can reflect on what we experience.’

The speciesism in this linear view is very straightforward. Yet, does a linear view always matter for the animals’ reality, or is it only important how we treat them? Some days after the interview, I happened to have a dialogue with a farmer from an organic dairy farm who told me (showing similarities with my informant’s description of the hierarchy, though this came from a completely secular view): ‘All animals have their place; we all have our roles on the ladder’. She went on to describe how ‘some animal’s role is to practice farming, and some are as food. They are to be eaten, that is their job.’ This is also speciesism, but this one has a very different outcome for the animals involved, as they end up on the family’s dinner table as soon as they are no longer productive enough. In society’s eyes though, this is the accepted way of respecting animals; treat them fairly and kill them long before they suffer from old age.1

When asked to describe her feelings on euthanasia, my informant got tears in her eyes. ‘Horrible. Like someone would call and say, we have to kill your grandmother now, she is suffering’.

She describes the first time and how she tried to pretend it did not happen. ‘It is unbearable. It cannot happen. But it cannot not happen either’

They community members always talk about hiding their animals, but they never do.

‘I realize it’s impossible. It would be a crime; they would take them all away from us then.’

‘In theory, our karma is not affected, only the ones who kill, but we feel affected as well. We are part of it, we do not save them. We cannot save them.’

She went on to talk about what the natural death, for those animals allowed to go that way, is like.

‘It is always horrible to die, you are always alone. Death is horrible here too. But it is natural and unforced. They are respected.’

‘It is such a paradox, that suddenly in the moment of death, the animal welfare aspect is so important, but otherwise one can let a pregnant cow be killed, or treat them any abusive way. Suddenly we are the bad ones! But what about those, who will let a cow suffer all her life?’

1 1 - See also Haraway (2009) Donna Haraway’s view on how to respect animals by consuming them. An important difference between her view and that of my informant’s is that Haraway’s view is mainly on species level; how to ensure the existence for domesticated species, and not on individual animals.

7

We don’t know what it is like for an animal, what they would choose, were they asked. My informant said she herself would not want someone to end her life for her; she wanted to ‘live it fully’. This is not true for all people though, but in many countries laws against human euthanasia makes choices for us.

Within animal welfare, death is often viewed as something which cannot cause suffering in itself, only if performed with inhumane methods (Dawkins, 1980). However, ‘Death is not a welfare issue´ only makes sense if the will to live is not seen as an animal rights issue. Yeates (2011) argues that death should be seen as a welfare issue in itself, based on the fact that it leads to the exclusion of the possibility of all future positive states. An old animal might not have much time left for ‘future positive states’. Yet, we must conclude that in our secular society, we allow animals to suffer in massive amounts during their lives. We know really very little about animals’ possible experience and emotions around their end of life. Sanders (1995) argues that the almost exclusive focus on valuing non-humans’ quality of life instead of sanctity of life is based on the notion of non-human animals as objects, and not persons. ‘Having no concepts, they do not possess a sense of self and, therefore, are unaware of the potential misfortune of self-loss’ (Cigman, 1980:60). If one is concerned with reducing suffering, euthanasia of a terminally ill animal is hard to argue with. Yet studies of veterinarians have shown high rates of euthanasia-related stress symptoms, even when the cause of euthanasia was terminal illness (Rohlf and Bennett, 2005). This shows a little of how complicated this issue is.

A cow’s life in a religious sanctuary

Domestic animals live within a human culture and are considered to be property, but they have their own cultures and this can differ between different places and situations (Clutton-Brock, 2012). ‘Cows learn from each other as well as from the people at the farm, people learn from each other as well as from the cows’ behavior, and ‘all interactions are influenced by the material culture of the farm environment’ (Burton, Peoples, Cooper, 2012).The Cow culture in an Ahimsa Sanctuary can thus be markedly different from a Cow culture in a traditional Dairy farm. What the culture settings is like will affect the welfare of the place’s inhabitants.

A common way to assess animals’ welfare is to compare with what the species would live like in its wild or ‘natural’ state. This is complicated when it comes to domesticated species though. Hansen (2014) argues that it is misleading to even talk about a natural state for a cow. A similar argument can be found in Halloway (2001:301) ‘What is taken to be ‘natural’ is an effect of specific human-animal relationships (both in the present and in historical domestication processes) and a set of what are viewed as ethical farming processes to which many respondents were strongly committed.’ Maybe a ‘natural’ state for this type of animal can be seen as what the animal chooses, when they do have a choice. To give animals choices and see what they best prefer is a classic animal welfare assessment technique (Dawkins, 1980) but it does not take any account of animal’s individualities and different preferences as it is taken to be true for the whole species. At Almvik, the individual cows have quite a lot of freedom to choose their own preferences. The groups of animals are changed due to social reasons and not what would be most practical for their human keepers. They can choose to go out even in the winter, if they like, and they nurse their calves until self-chosen, supposedly natural, weaning occurs, meaning they are allowed to ‘influence the development of others’ (Hurn, forthcoming:10). In industrial farming, calves are taken immediately from their

8

mothers, despite the fact that these animals have strong maternal feelings (Hansen, 2014). The more controversial aspects of the cows’ life at Almvik is whether being allowed to live one’s life until its natural end is a matter of personal rights, as my informant meant, or irresponsibility causing suffering, as opponents might say.

The Cows at Almvik are not subjected to having their bodies quickly worn out by the pressuring cycle of pregnancies, calving and having all their milk taken for human consumption (Velten, 2007) as is the case in many conventional agricultural settings. However, they do give milk for longer periods than is normally known to be possible, by the techniques described earlier, and the milk is used for human consumption. Adams (2006b) argues that all of animal industry builds on enslaved female reproduction. Can the cows’ bodies be seen as manipulated into being in constant milk production, maybe more than they have the energy for? Being a subject and not a thing means there is an importance in making decisions for your own body.

Dairy cows can be seen as actors and not just passive objects, even as having a need for recognition of their role as workers or producers, something not taken as an aspect of traditional animal welfare assessments (Porscher and Schmitt, 2012). The cows at Almvik are treated as companions and not objects, and my informant was sure that the cows knew they were appreciated and respected as they:

‘act in a much calmer and more peaceful way compared to animals within the industry, because they know we are grateful, and they know they are not here to be killed’.

Conclusion

Being considered to belong to a sacred species within a religion might bring both benefits and harm to individual animals. The view on the ‘holy cows’ and the real treatment of cattle in India are often conflicting, with animal welfare theory in mind. However, from a religious standpoint it might depend on what is considered most important for the animal and it might not be seen as a discrepancy if they are viewed as spiritual beings with a special role to fulfill.

An important aspect of practicing Ahimsa is to save and care for individual cows in sanctuaries. With the example of a Hare Krishna sanctuary in Sweden, I have seen that the animals there are viewed much as companions and persons, and thus the community members become transgressors of the commonly held strong barrier between pets and livestock. The sanctuary’s no-killing policies causes clashes with the secular society’s view on animal welfare, raising questions on society’s priorities around matters of death and welfare during an animal’s life.

Bibliography:

Adams, C (2006a) ‘A very rare and difficult thing’ in Waldau, P. (ed) Patton, C. (ed). (2006). ‘A communion of subjects: animals in religion, science, and ethics.’ New York : Columbia University Press

9

Adams, C. (2006b) Interview with Carol Adams: ‘An Animal Manifesto. Gender, Identity, and Vegan-Feminism in the Twenty-First Century´ Parallax, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 120–128

Agoramoorthy, G. (2012) ‘The significance of cows in Indian society between sacredness and economy’, Anthropological Notebooks 18, (3) pp. 5-12

Almvik (2014a) http://.almviksgard.se Accessed 03/03/2014

Almvik - Cow Protection (2014b) http://korna.krishna.se/ Accessed 03/04/2014

Ava, J. (2014) ‘Beyond the pail. The Emergence of Industrialized Dairy Systems in Asia’ Brighter green

Budiansky, S. (1992). The Covenant of the Wild: Why animals choose domestication. London: Phoenix.

Burton, S. Peoples, S. Cooper, M. (2012). ‘Building ‘cowshed cultures’: A cultural perspective on the promotion of stockmanship and animal welfare on dairy farms.’ Journal of Rural Studies 28, pp . 174-187

Cigman, R. (1980) ‘Death, misfortune, and species inequality.’ Philosophy and Public Affairs

10(1). pp47-64.

Clinton, R. Sanders, S. (1995). ‘Killing with Kindness: Veterinary Euthanasia and the Social Construction of Personhood.’ Sociological Forum Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 195-214

Clutton-Brock, J. (2012). ‘Animals as domesticates, a world view through history.’ Michigan: Michigan State University Press

Corbey R, Lanjouw, A. (2013) ‘The politics of species’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Dawkins, M.S. 1980. ‘Animal Suffering.’ London, Chapman and Hall

Fox, M (2006) ‘Agriculture, livestock and biotechnology – Values, Profits and ethics.’ In Waldau, P. (ed) Patton, C. (ed). (2006). ‘A communion of subjects: animals in religion, science, and ethics.’ New York : Columbia University Press

Fox, M. W. (2003). ‘India’s sacred cow: her plight and her future.’ In S. J. Armstrong & R. G. Botzler (Eds.), The animal ethics reader (pp. 238-241). London: Routledge

Hansen, P. (2014). ‘Hokkaido’s frontiers: Blurred embodiments, shared affects and the evolution of dairy farming’s animal-human-machine.’ Critique of Anthropology, 34(1), 48-72.

Hansen, P. (2013). ‘Becoming Bovine: Mechanics and metamorphosis in Hokkaido’s animal-human machine.’ Journal of rural studies, 33, 119-130

Haraway, D. (2003). ‘The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people and significant otherness.’ Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.

Haraway D. (2007). ‘When species meet.’ Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press

10

Haraway D (2009) Online interview with Donna Haraway. http://theconversant.org/?p=2522. Accessed 10/05/2014

Harris, M. (1979). ‘Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture.’ Oxford: AltaMira Press

Holloway, L. (2001). ‘Pets and protein: placing domestic livestock on hobby-farms in England and Wales.’ Journal of Rural Studies, 17(3), 293-307. (session 1)

Hurn S. (Forthcoming) ‘Animals as Producers, Consumers and Consumed: The Complexities of Inter-Species Sustenance’

Hurn S. (2012). ‘Humans and Other Animals: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions.’ London: Pluto Press

Korom, F.J. (2000). ‘Holy Cow! The Apotheosis of Zebu, or Why the Cow Is Sacred in Hinduism.’ Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 181-203

Krishnamercy (2014) http://krishnamercy.org Accessed 10/05/2014

Nelson, L (2006) ‘Cows, Elephants, Dogs’ in Waldau, P. (ed) Patton, C. (ed). (2006). ‘A communion of subjects: animals in religion, science, and ethics.’ New York : Columbia University Press

Ott, M (2013) ’Kühe verstehen: Eine neue Partnerschaft beginnt’ Berlin: Faro

Palmer, C. (1997). ‘The idea of the domesticated animal contract.’ Environmental Values, 6(4), pp. 411-425.

Plastic Cow (2014) http://theplasticcow.org Accessed 05/05/2014

Porcher, J. Schmitt, T. (2011) 'Dairy Cows: Workers in the Shadows'. Society & Animals Volume 20:1

Rohlf V, Bennett P. (2005) ‘Perpetration-induced traumatic stress in persons who euthanize nonhuman animals in surgeries, animal shelters, and laboratories.’ Society and Animals 2005;13(3):201-19

Sanders, C. (1995) ‘Killing with Kindness: Veterinary Euthanasia and the Social Construction of Personhood’ Sociological Forum, Vol. 10, No. 2. pp. 195-214

Simoons, F. I., & Lodrick, D. (1981). ‘Background to understanding the cattle situation of India: The sacred cow concept in Hindu religion and folk culture.’ Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. Volume 108, issue 1/2

Times of India (2014) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Cows-calves-starve-to-death-at-Tiruvannamalai-temple-allege-activists/articleshow/24350594.cms. Accessed 02/05/2014

Twine, R. (2013). ‘Is Biotechnology Deconstructing Animal Domestication? Movements toward Liberation.’ Configurations, 21(2), 135-158

Van Dooren, T. (2010). ‘Pain of Extinction: The Death of a Vulture.’ Cultural Studies Review, 16(2), pp. 271-289

11

Velten H, ‘Cow’ (2007) London: Reaktion Books

VSPCA (2014) http://vspca.org/programs/cowsanctuary.php - Accessed 01/05/2014

Warrier, M. (2009). ‘The Temple Bull Controversy at Skanda Vale and the Construction of Hindu Identity in Britain.’ International Journal of Hindu Studies , Vol. 13, No. 3

Westen, D. (1984) ‘Cultural Materialism: Food for Thought or Bum Steer?’ Current Anthropology Vol. 25, No. 5

Yeates, J. (2011) ‘Death is a Welfare Issue. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics’ (Impact Factor: 1.3). 23(3):pp.229-241

12