The Beefy Riddles of Ambedkar
B R Ambedkar made a valiant attempt to prove that Brahmins invented deification of cow to usurp the goodwill generated by the Buddhists amongst the masses. Ambedkar’s hypothesis is principally that indo-aryans ate beef as is evident from several rig-veda passages. The Brahmins were especially voracious beef eaters, but when buddha’s denunciation of animal sacrifices cost them to lose their self esteem amongst the masses, they adopted vegetarianism. To go one step further ahead of Buddhism, the deification of cow followed suit.
Ambedkar considers economic theories to be the reason why only milch cows were spared in the Vedas. But in the post vedic age, it was not economic theories but conspiracy theories [against Buddhism] which led to cow deification amongst Hindus. But those who persisted with eating beef, became the untouchables.
Ambedkar initially declares meat eating to be taboo within Hindus. It is a rather bold statement as only Vaishnavs, consider it so. Amongst Bengali Brahmins, meat eating is commonplace. Those involved in rajasic activities are always expected to partake meat. Except at certain religious occasions or certain yogic exercises. Patanjali advocates abstinence from meat while practicing raja yoga. [Ref: Patanjali yoga sutras] Hence, while no hindu scripture advocates meat eating, and while usually promoting the spirit of vegetarianism; only those involved in spiritual pursuits are strongly advised abstaining from meat and eating only sattwic food. Thus, Hinduism advocates vegetarianism for humanitarian reasons, but for those involved in a spiritual path, the reason is that rajasic foods, (which arouse passion) are incompatible with yoga.
Ambedkar attempts to discover the roots of untouchability through cow deification. Quoting an obscure Vyasa Smriti, which mentions the castes which subsist on beef, Ambedkar puts forward the hypothesis that broken men became Buddhists while retaining beef eating habits which rendered them helpless to the tyranny of the brahmanical religion. Unfortunately for Ambedkar; the great Buddha never spoke of emancipation of the so called broken men. Neither did any mass conversion amongst the shudras follow to escape from the ineluctable grasp of the brahmanical religion. As recent research shows that most Buddhist scriptures were actually written by converted brahmanas and few ksatriyas. This period also saw the rise of several ksatriya clans. [Kumkum Roy in her speech in a seminar ‘Casteism through history -> JMC Delhi, Sep’21-22 2006] Buddha in the dhammpada in the Brahman vagga, describes the ideal brahmana in more than 20 verses. Hence, it is unlikely that he poured vituperations against the brahmanas, either as a caste or as personalities.
Ambedkar then initiates his task of proving that indo Aryans ate beef.
However, there are later vedic verses which speak of cow as Agyna or that which is not to be killed. Ambedkar declares that it is a misinterpretation as Agyna is only supposed to be a milch cow. Milch cows were not to be killed. To support his hypothesis, he quotes Rig Veda 10.91.14 which declares among a host of animals, barren cows to be eligible for sacrifice to Agni. Hence, the evidence does seem to be heavily laden in favour of thfact that cows were indispensable for their milk but expendable sacrifice material, definitely not deification material.
However, there are two vedic verses 8.102.15/16 which declare the cow to be the cosmic forces and the giver of speech. Clearly, these verses have an esoteric significance. Sri Aurobindo says the cow is the giver of the divine light. ‘Go’ in Sanskrit connotes both cow and light. However, since historians are allergic to esoteric explanations; the only utility of these verses is to suggest elements of cow deification within the vedic religion bereft of any economic milk related utility.
Ambedkar ignores the fact, that Vedas are not the composition of a single author [the word Sruti as such is heard]. Hence, differences in opinion with regard to beef eating could have actually existed. Hence, Vedic injunctions with respect to beef eating can be self contradictory depending upon the proclivity of the verse composer. Ultimately, there is only verse which sanctions the sacrifice of barren cows. There is not a single vedic verse which directly condones beef eating! But absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence. Hence, it must be accepted that indo Aryans did use to eat beef but what is not certain is how ubiquitous it was!
Ambedkar then highlights the fact that Ashoka did not ban cow slaughter. But what if it had stopped prior to Ashoka’s reign….Ambedkar believes it to be an absurd notion…..i fail to understand what is so absurd about it….Apasthamba dharma shastras explicitly forbid beef eating and the historical consensus is that he predated Ashoka!
Ambedkar characteristically resorts to a tirade against animal sacrifice and Brahmins to greedily eat up the calves…But even if the goal of animal sacrifice was consuming delicious beef stew, how did it really matter? Ambedkar sheds copious tears on the plight of those poor animals, yet he condones beef eating for other religions…….he further claims Buddha had no reservations to anyone eating cow……that might be true, but then, he renders great Buddha susceptible to the charge of abetting the crime of eating poor calves. And yet, previously he claimed that the Vedas allowed only non milking cows to be killed. If only non-milch cows were to be eaten, then everyday certainly cannot be a brahmana ‘beef steak’ day, as Ambedkar would like to put it. The argument is hence null and void. He has the temerity to declare the brahmanas as butchers. This shows, that psychologically Ambedkar denigrated the occupation of butchers; the shudras indeed seem to be worshipping a false god.
Ambedkar’s entire thesis relies on the stand that Brahmins assimilated vegetarianism for political reasons. But Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32 proves that the seeds of vegetarianism had been sowed much earlier. Rig Veda 10.87.16 also hints at partaking of meat was not desirable. Ambedkar goes on to claim “That the object of the Brahmins in giving up beef-eating was to snatch away from the Buddhist Bhikshus the supremacy they had acquired is evidenced by the adoption of vegetarianism by Brahmins” That the Manu Smriti has several verses advising vegetarianism [V.46-49 V. 48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.are to Ambedkar later interpolations.
To quote Ambedkar again
“If these verses can be treated as containing positive injunctions they would be sufficient to explain why the Brahmins gave up meat-eating and became vegetarians. But it is impossible to treat these verses as positive injunctions, carrying the force of law. They are either exhortations or interpolations introduced after the Brahmins had become vegetarians in praise of the change”
But as verse 56 declares “There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards”
Clearly; this verse allows for moral relativism. The ultimate decision to be vegetarian or not is left on the individual. Interpolated verses edict, they rarely recommend, but they never allow space for moral relativism because interpolation must serve a purpose and non authoritative verses serve no legal/utilitarian purposes. For instance, interpolated verses of the Manu Smriti curtailed the rights of the women and shudras in late ages. Clearly, there was a definite purpose behind the exercise, unlike here.
Ambedkar further contends that Manu Smriti does not debar beef eating. That is very true, and by using this logic he digs his own grave. If pleas for meat renunciation in the Manu Smriti are later fabrications, then WHY is there no interpolated verse prohibiting beef eating, especially among the brahmanas? What stopped them from interpolating another verse banning beef eating. Why isn’t there a single interpolated verse venerating the cow?
Finally, Ambedkar misinterprets the verse where Manu enjoins one to eat even meat if offered as a guest. He believes it condones beef eating, but actually this is only a defensive verse. This law can only apply to the vegetarian…this is the sole reason, Gautama Buddha shared pork in his last meal at the Chandala’s house. Even today, it is considered bad manners for a guest to refuse to share a meal. Obviously, the poor don’t have the luxury to take into account, the dietary considerations of their rich guests. That their rich guests don’t snub them was the purpose of Manu’s enjoinment.
I do admit buddhist bhikkus gained ascendancy for reasons other than meat eating, but it is equally true that Buddha uttered the words “meat eating kills the seeds of great compassion” While he definitely did not absolutely prohibit meat eating; he definitely recommended its renunciation. Ambedkar claims that in agricultural societies, Buddhism must have become popular because they criticized animal sacrifices. That does not make any sense. To quote Ambedkar “That in an agricultural population there should be respect for Buddhism and revulsion against Brahmanism which involved slaughter of animals including cows and bullocks is only natural.” If the agricultural population, was meat eating, then why would it look down upon animal slaughter? It would have been possible, only if lingered in their memory; the past where vegetative ideals were the norm of the day as advised by the great sage Manu and vedic sacrifices were carried out in their true pristine forms.
Ambedkar finally claims “The only way for Brahmins to beat the Buddhists was to go a step further and be vegetarians.” Ambedkar hence attempts to disencumber the religion of Buddhism from vegetarianism. If it is true, then he should have further contended that Ashoka was a Hindu in disguise…..Wasn’t it Ashoka, the Buddhist convert who championed the cause of vegetarianism……..Is there any reason to disbelief the fact, that it were his Buddhist advisers who played a key role in Ashoka adopting his rigid stance on vegetarianism. Whether Buddha preached vegetarianism for the masses is uncertain, but what is certain is that it was Buddhism which brought the vegetarian revolution amongst the masses while patronized by Ashoka, blaming it on Brahmanism is silly to say the least.
Hence, it was this rigid stance of vegetarianism that Buddhism ushered through Ashoka that psychologically compelled large components of Hindu society to accept vegetarianism. But it brought a conflict with the poor who couldn’t renounce meat eating. It also was the era of compassion. It began to play a role in cow deification since the milk giving cow was equated to the human mother and eating up old cows was extrapolated to eating up one’s old mother herself! Most of the puranas were written during this period for which they seeked inspiration from the vedic texts. The several benedictory passages they found influenced the puranic scholars and played a key role in formulating future cow deification. It is also probable that the esoteric meaning of the vedic cow was long lost and only the external meanings seen. Finally, repeated attacks from mleccha invaders like the huns, forced Indians to assert their uniqueness amongst all civilization. And that they discovered in non beef eating.
Ambedkar claims the other castes mimicked the Brahmins because it is in the nature of the lower to imitate the higher class. What one fails to appreciate is how come they never mimicked other brahmanical ideals! Even if they imitated the ideal of cow veneration, it was only because they could appreciate that in their hearts. If untouchability arose, it was indirectly derived from Buddhism’s excessive purist stance, fostered by Ashoka which led to fostering of the future notions of brahmanical purity within Hinduism.
Ambedkar’s thesis is hence sophistry at its very best. It holds little objective value except that he is right about untouchability arising subsequent to cow deification.
