The report begins with an introduction to the Gaurakshini Societies of Bihar, detailing their origins and activities aimed at the preservation of cattle. The earliest organization for this purpose is noted to have been established in 1837 by Sankar Bhattacharji, a zamindar, and is described as a voluntary organization that has evolved over the years. The report highlights the founding of the Gaurakshini Sabha in 1839, which was influenced by the preaching of Swami Indra Nurain, leading to the establishment of a large Gaushala. The report also mentions the involvement of various prominent figures in the society, such as Babu Chakravarti and Babu Raj Kisore Narain Singh, who played significant roles in its administration.

The report outlines various incidents of communal tension and violence related to the anti-kine-killing agitation, including riots that occurred in Gaya in 1891 and 1893. It describes how the Gaurakshini Societies, while not directly responsible for these disturbances, contributed to the heightened public sentiment against cattle slaughter. The report notes that the revival of militant opposition to kine slaughter in March 1893 was attributed to inflammatory language used by agents of the Gaurakshini Societies, leading to the quartering of additional police in affected areas to maintain order.

The report further details the establishment of various Gaurakshini Sabhas across different districts, including Saran, Shahabad, and Muzaffarpur, and their activities, which included organizing mass meetings and collecting funds for the cause. It also discusses the role of influential local leaders and the impact of external agitators from neighboring regions. The report emphasizes the significance of pamphlets and anonymous letters circulated among the populace, which incited action against butchers and encouraged Hindus to boycott Muslims.

In conclusion, the report reflects on the broader implications of the anti-kine-killing agitation, noting the potential for increased communal tensions and the challenges faced by authorities in managing the situation. It highlights the necessity for careful monitoring of the activities of the Gaurakshini Societies and the importance of maintaining public order amidst rising tensions. The report serves as a comprehensive account of the agitation’s origins, developments, and the socio-political dynamics at play in Bihar during this period.

Gibbon articulates a growing sense of unrest among the local population, attributing it to a lack of trust in the government. He observes that the money market serves as a political barometer, indicating serious trouble as bankers withdraw funds and distrust permeates the bazaars. He suggests that the government should monitor the number of loans registered in the district to gauge the economic sentiment. Gibbon recalls that during the Afghan war, the money market reacted swiftly to news of military engagements, which further solidified his belief in its predictive power regarding political stability. He expresses that while he does not believe the province is ripe for rebellion, there exists a palpable feeling of insecurity and suspicion towards the government, which could be exploited by ill-disposed individuals.

The letter further discusses the religious dimensions of the agitation, noting that both Hindus and Muslims are influenced by their beliefs and grievances against the government. Gibbon warns that unless the government engages with the Muhammadan community, the potential for a religious conflict could escalate, uniting disparate groups against colonial rule. He emphasizes that the agitation is not solely driven by a desire for rebellion but is also rooted in a deep-seated resentment towards British governance. Gibbon reflects on the historical context of the government’s actions, suggesting that the current unrest is a culmination of years of perceived injustices. He highlights the role of local committees and emissaries in spreading agitation, noting that many individuals involved in the movement are from mendicant fraternities, which have been effective in rallying support.

Gibbon concludes by addressing the government’s inquiries regarding the identities of the emissaries and the individuals supporting them. He asserts that it is challenging to provide such information, as many operate under assumed names and are supported by the local populace. He notes that the agitation has garnered significant sympathy among the village population, although not all have formally pledged their support. Gibbon expresses concern over the distribution of pamphlets and the manipulation of public sentiment, indicating that while some disturbances are fomented by organized groups, the general populace is also susceptible to rumors and unrest. He cautions that the government must take decisive action to maintain order and prevent the situation from escalating further, particularly in light of the tensions between Hindus and Muslims. Overall, the letter serves as a critical reflection on the socio-political dynamics in Bihar, emphasizing the need for careful governance and engagement with local communities to mitigate unrest.

The report begins with a reference to a confidential circular from the Bengal Government and outlines the formation of the Gaurakshini Sabhas in Gaya, initiated by Babu Blikbari Shaukar Bhattacharjya in 1887. Initially, the movement was perceived as legitimate and humane, focusing on the protection of cows. However, it gained momentum following the visit of a prominent preacher, Briman Swami, in 1889, who delivered lectures that emphasized the religious and economic importance of cow protection. The establishment of a gaushala (cow shelter) in Gaya further solidified the movement’s presence in the area.

The report details the financial aspects of the Gaurakshini Sabha, noting that contributions from local Hindus were collected to support the gaushala. Despite initial enthusiasm, the movement faced challenges, including a decline in contributions and internal management issues. The report highlights a significant riot in 1891, which arose from tensions between Hindus and Muslims over the sacrifice of a cow during Bakr Id. This incident marked a turning point, intensifying communal feelings and leading to further agitation. The report indicates that while some Hindu leaders attempted to mediate, the underlying tensions remained unresolved, suggesting that the agitation had only been temporarily quelled.

In response to the growing unrest, the authorities implemented measures to maintain peace, including the deployment of additional police forces during sensitive periods such as Bakr Id. The report emphasizes the need for careful management of communal relations, suggesting that mixed committees might not be effective in resolving disputes. Instead, it advocates for a policy of mutual restraint and the presence of law enforcement to deter provocations from either side. The document concludes with an acknowledgment of the fragile state of communal harmony in Gaya, cautioning against any actions that could exacerbate tensions. The report serves as a historical record of the complexities surrounding the cow protection movement in Bihar during the late 19th century, illustrating the socio-political dynamics at play between different religious communities.

The correspondence further discusses the presence of various Gaurakhshini Sabhas in the district, detailing their establishment and the individuals involved in their formation. It is noted that these Sabhas have become largely inactive, and any previous aggressive posturing has diminished significantly. The author mentions that while there have been isolated incidents of cattle snatching by Hindus, the overall situation has calmed down, and no special measures are deemed necessary at this time to address potential emergencies. The document also highlights the importance of maintaining law and order, suggesting that existing laws are sufficient to manage any local disturbances.

In conclusion, the author expresses the belief that the agitation may subside unless provoked by local authorities’ actions. He recommends that the local police forces be strengthened to ensure readiness in case of any future disturbances. The communication reflects the complexities of communal relations in the region and the challenges faced by authorities in managing tensions between different religious communities. The document serves as a historical account of the socio-political dynamics in Bihar during the late 19th century, illustrating the delicate balance between maintaining order and addressing community grievances.

The document begins with a reference to the detrimental impact of cow slaughter on agricultural welfare and the economic well-being of impoverished peasants in India. The author emphasizes the cultural and religious significance of cows, describing them as symbols of fertility and sanctity. The communication urges consideration for the movement’s objectives, which include the protection of cows irrespective of creed, color, or nationality. The letter concludes with a commendation for the Maharaja’s indulgent consideration of the matter.

The main content is structured under several headings. The first section discusses the history of the cow protection movement, which reportedly originated in Allahabad about six to eight years prior to the letter. The movement has spread to Bihar, with various local organizations, or ‘sabhas,’ being established to promote cow protection. The Darbhanga Sabha is highlighted as a significant organization, with the Maharaja of Darbhanga serving as its president. The author notes that the movement’s objectives are ostensibly harmless, focusing on the religious and economic implications of cow slaughter.

The second section details the different sabhas in the district, including their rules and operations. It notes that elaborate rules have been drawn up for each sabha, and regular meetings are held to discuss their activities. The Darbhanga Sabha has been described as moderate in its approach, while the Madhubani Sabha has taken a more independent stance, claiming its origins separate from Darbhanga. The document also mentions the establishment of pounds for sick animals, which have reportedly flourished, indicating the movement’s success in some areas.

The third section addresses the principal supporters of the movement and the financial contributions from various individuals, including zamindars and traders. The author estimates that around 2,000 subscribers support the Darbhanga Sabha, with contributions being made voluntarily or under social pressure. The financial records of the sabha are presented, indicating a steady income and expenditure over the years.

The fourth section discusses the role of preachers and agitators in the movement. Several prominent figures are mentioned, including local and regional leaders who have contributed to the agitation through lectures and public engagements. The influence of printed literature is also noted, with references to inflammatory pamphlets that have circulated in the region. The author expresses concern over the potential for these materials to incite unrest among communities.

The concluding remarks of the document highlight the current state of affairs in the district, noting a tense atmosphere between Hindus and Muslims due to the agitation. The author suggests that the government has a responsibility to maintain order and proposes several measures to prevent disturbances, including increased police presence and monitoring of agitators. The letter emphasizes the need for a conciliatory approach between communities to avoid escalation of tensions. Overall, the document serves as a comprehensive report on the cow protection movement in Bihar, detailing its origins, development, and implications for social harmony in the region.

The document further elaborates on the establishment of the Malhubani Gaurakshini Sabha, which was inaugurated on December 2, 1888, following an influential meeting attended by boys from the Malhubani Ailad School and several Pandits from Henaica. The Sabha has held fifty meetings between its inception and September 17, 1893, and it has been noted that the organization operates on a business-like basis, with a structured committee comprising a president, joint secretaries, and a managing committee. The document lists the names of key officers and their roles within the Sabha, emphasizing the significant contributions of individuals such as Baba Durgadat Singh and Munshi Lal Behari Lal.

The report also outlines the financial aspects of the Sabha, detailing its income sources, which include monthly subscriptions, collections from shops, and contributions from local corn dealers. The total income for the year 1892 amounted to Rs. 1,213, indicating a substantial financial standing for the Sabha. The expenses incurred by the Sabha are also documented, revealing a total expenditure of Rs. 620-8 for the same year. The Sabha maintains a reserve of Rs. 1,500, showcasing its financial stability.

Moreover, the document discusses the influence of the Madhubani Sabha, noting its independence from the Darbhanga Sabha and its proactive approach in establishing other Sabhas, such as the Bitamarhi Gorakshini Sabha. The correspondence between the Madhubani Sabha and various other Sabhas in Bihar is highlighted, indicating a network of communication and influence, particularly with the Nagpur Sabha, which is regarded as a central authority. The report concludes with a call for the preservation of Hinduism and the establishment of circles to promote the faith, reflecting the Sabha’s commitment to its objectives.

The document also addresses the publications associated with the Gorakshini Society, indicating that while many books are not directly published in their name, numerous works authored by the panditas of the Madhubani Babha are dedicated to the local Babus. These publications often lament the treatment of cows by Hindus and include appeals to Queen Victoria to intervene in the killing of cattle. A translation of one such lament is included, which criticizes the perceived cowardice of the Chatras for allowing butchers to purchase cows at low prices. Despite the absence of overt calls for violence, the literature is described as inflaming the sentiments of the uneducated populace, urging them to take measures against cow slaughter.

In conclusion, the Gorakshini Sabhas, particularly in Madhubani, are acknowledged for their positive actions in caring for old and sick cows, providing them with adequate nourishment, and ensuring that they are not stolen property. The note is signed by B.K. Mullick, Sub-Divisional Officer, and dated October 9, 1893. Following this, the document provides a brief history of Bindiyachal Pershad, also known as Hane Sarup Dass, who was born in 1855 in Muzaffarpur. His father worked as an amin, and after his father’s death, he was raised by his grandfather. Bindiyachal’s education included a scholarship at the Muzaffarpur Zillah School, but he failed to pass the Entrance Examination in 1875, ending his formal education. Between 1870 and 1880, he worked as a teacher and clerk while pursuing knowledge of yoga, eventually becoming a devotee and establishing a Sabha in Muzaffarpur in 1877.

The Tirkuti Mahal Sabha, founded by Bindiyachal, aimed to explore the mysteries of human existence and spiritual salvation through yoga. The Sabha appointed preachers to disseminate its teachings, which included arguments for the protection of cows. Bindiyachal served as the President of the Sabha, with notable figures such as Bagwati Churn and Babu Dubi Purshad holding positions of leadership. The Sabha reportedly employed clerks and had a financial deposit with a local banker. Bindiyachal’s lectures were described as engaging, and he garnered a following, receiving support from various local dignitaries. The document chronicles Bindiyachal’s activities and travels, noting his engagements in preaching against cow slaughter and his interactions with local authorities. His influence and the activities of the Tirkuti Mahal Sabha are documented through various police reports and diaries, illustrating the extent of his reach and the concerns surrounding his movements and teachings.

Subsequent sections of the document are dedicated to the Darbhanga Dharma Sabha, which was established under the auspices of Maharaja Sir Lakshmishwar Singh Bahadur, K.C.I.E. The Sabha’s primary objective is to protect cows, which is framed as a significant religious duty for the Indian populace. The document emphasizes the dire condition of the country due to neglect in cow protection and calls for the establishment of local branches of the Sabha in various villages. It requests the circulation of its policies and the organization of meetings to garner public support for cow protection initiatives.

The document also includes notices for meetings and events organized by the Sabha, urging attendance and participation from the local gentry and the public. It highlights the importance of collective action in promoting cow preservation and expresses disappointment at any reluctance to engage in such virtuous activities. The text further outlines the operational framework of the Sabha, including the establishment of auxiliary associations in villages, the appointment of arbitrators to oversee cow sales, and the collection of funds through various means, including taxes on goods traded within the community.

The document details specific financial obligations for traders and community members, including contributions to the cow fund based on the sale of goods and services. It emphasizes the moral imperative for Hindus to support cow protection financially and through active participation. The text also includes a prayer from the perspective of the cows, lamenting their plight and calling for divine intervention against their slaughter. The document concludes with a letter of thanks from a local manager who visited the Sabha, expressing satisfaction with its operations and pledging financial support. Overall, the document serves as a historical record of the efforts made by the Darbhanga Dharma Sabha in advocating for cow protection and mobilizing community resources for this cause.

The first section highlights the establishment of the Chapra Gaurakhshini Sabha in 1887 and its annual anniversary celebrations, which commenced in January 1890. The Sabha aimed to unite individuals of various faiths, including Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, to participate in the cow preservation cause. The document outlines the planned activities for the anniversary, including divine services, lectures, and discussions on cow preservation, with notable speakers such as Pandit Jagat Narayan and Pandit Kishori Lal. The Sabha also expressed gratitude towards the Raja and his Manager for their support, emphasizing the importance of their contributions to the cause.

Subsequent sections provide detailed accounts of various fairs attended by the Sabha, including the Brahmapur fair and the Rath Jatra fair in Benares. Reports from these events describe the participation of numerous lecturers and the successful persuasion of individuals, including some Muslims, to renounce the consumption of beef. The document notes the collection of donations and the financial expenditures incurred during these events, highlighting the ongoing efforts to save cows from slaughter and promote the virtues of cow preservation. The reports also mention the challenges faced by the Sabha, including opposition from certain individuals and the need for greater support from the community.

The document concludes with a set of rules for the Indian Association of Goraksha Lecturers, outlining the objectives of the organization, which include educating the public on the benefits of cow preservation and the detrimental effects of cow slaughter. It emphasizes the importance of unity among supporters, regardless of caste, and encourages individuals to pledge their commitment to the cause. The final remarks reflect a hopeful outlook for the future of the cow protection movement, urging continued efforts and collaboration among all stakeholders involved.

The first opinion presented indicates that the agitation in Bihar has been created or stimulated by external influences, particularly through the establishment of associations in various villages and markets. It is noted that these associations, initially formed with legitimate objectives, have deviated from their original intents and have been incited by foreign agents. The letter mentions that while some aspects of the agitation are blameless and religious in nature, there are indications of a counter-agitation among the Muslim community, leading to significant Hindu grievances. Cotton emphasizes that the local authorities have been aware of the agitation but have abstained from taking active steps to curb it, which has resulted in the proliferation of inflammatory materials and the organization of violent actions by certain propagandists.

In the subsequent sections, Cotton outlines the need for a more proactive approach from the district authorities to manage the agitation effectively. He stresses that the quiescent attitude previously maintained can no longer be justified, given the illegal methods employed by some agitators. He calls for the enforcement of law and order, urging that both Hindu and Muslim agitators be treated equally under the law. Specific measures are recommended, including the deployment of police forces to maintain order at cattle fairs and markets, the monitoring of itinerant propagandists, and the potential removal of foreign instigators from British territory if they are found to be fomenting disturbances. Cotton also addresses the issue of government officials being connected to inflammatory societies, suggesting that such connections should be severed to preserve public peace.

Cotton concludes the letter by reiterating the importance of the instructions provided, which are intended to guide district officers in their efforts to mitigate the ongoing agitation. He expresses hope that these measures will lead to a reduction in the current excitement and violence, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that respects the sentiments of both communities while ensuring public order. The letter serves as a directive for the local authorities to take immediate and effective action against the agitation, highlighting the responsibilities of the district officers in maintaining peace and order in the region.