The taboo on cow slaughter and beef-eating did not exist in Vedic times.+

The taboo on cow slaughter is not Vedic in origin. The taboo on cow slaughter and beef-eating did not exist in Vedic times. Criteria like taboo on beef-eating or belief in reincarnation might stamp the Vedic seers as non-Hindus”. The question, whether the Vedic people practiced cow slaughter is debated among Hindu traditionalists. 

The cow was a sacred animal that the authors of the Vedas sacrificed and ate beef on special occasions. This argument only substantiates the view that the cow was not an inviolable animal and that beef-eating was not taboo in Vedic times.

As is clear from the above, several aspects that are intrinsic to the Hinduism of today, such as the doctrine of reincarnation, avatars (‘descent’) of gods, the caste system, the taboo on cow slaughter, and beef-eating, were absent in the Vedic Religion. It was shown by a critical study of the Vedas that the Aryans had no developed idea of the caste system. (.…) The taboo on the use of beef was shown to be of later origin, that the cow was freely killed for ceremonial and other purposes in ancient India”.

Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma is distinct from Hinduism. The Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma deserves to be treated on its own as a distinct religion with its own sacred texts, rites, rules of social life, beliefs, and practices, without interlinking it with Hinduism. Perhaps it is right to maintain that the Mimamsa School, which is concerned with the investigation of the Vedic texts, their correct interpretation, and the meticulous performance of the Vedic rituals and ceremonies, has preserved and defended a part of the heritage of the Vedic tradition.

The Vedanta school may also have received a part of its inspiration from the Vedas. For the rest of the Hindu philosophical schools and religious sects, the influence of the Vedas is nominal. However, inasmuch as elements from the Vedas have influenced some aspects of Hinduism, it may be considered as one of the many factors influencing modern Hinduism.

But by no means can it be maintained that Hinduism has its direct ancestry in the Vedic religion or the Santana Dharma. Therefore, the Hinduism of Vedic times is an imagined community. Hinduism is of a much later origin, and a historical view of Indian religions would endorse a dichotomy between Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma and contemporary Hinduism.

Hinduism does not have a long ancestry as is often presumed or propagated by the Hindu ideologues. In fact, historically, religions like Buddhism and Jainism can claim greater antiquity than the Hinduism of today. Hinduism began to take a systematic form from the time of Sage Sankara (8th century A.D). In this sense, he may be considered the ‘founder’ of Hinduism, but he never called it Hinduism.

Thus, Hinduism came into existence with its own code of conduct, beliefs, and rituals after the 8th century. Hinduism, as one knows it today, is of recent origin. He states: “Hinduism did not really achieve its status as a coherent, though still baffling, religious complex until after the establishment of British rule in India.

In discussing the Vedic Religion, it is also to be remembered that in the course of history, many non-Aryan elements entered into the Vedic Religion. 

The Vedic Aryans freely borrowed elements from the culture and the society around them. But we cannot say with precision which are the non-Aryan elements in the Vedic Religion. Therefore, the thesis of the direct ancestry of Hinduism of today from Vedic Religion is to be considered as a myth purported by orthodoxy.:~Santthosh Kumaar