Author: Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar
Publisher: MJP Publishers 2019
(Originally published in 1948)
As Ambedkar claims, every Hindu is taught to believe that their civilization is not only the most ancient but also, in many respects, altogether unique. No Hindu ever tires of repeating these claims.
Yet, this ancient and unique Hindu civilization produced a mass of people who are taught to accept crime as an approved means of earning their livelihood, another mass who are left to live in the full bloom of their primitive barbarism in the midst of civilization, and a third mass whose mere touch is enough to cause pollution.
In 1948, when this book was written, there were about 20 million Criminal Tribes, about 15 million Aboriginal Tribes, and about 50 million Untouchables in India.
As he did in his first book, Who Were the Shudras?, he poses a sequence of riddles and propositions, investigates answers to these riddles, and tries to prove his propositions.
Riddles:
(1) Why do Untouchables live outside the village?
(2) Why did beef-eating give rise to Untouchability?
(3) Did the Hindus never eat beef?
(4) Did Brahmins eat beef in the past?
(5) Why did non-Brahmins give up beef-eating?
(6) What made the Brahmins become vegetarians?
Propositions:
(1) There is no racial difference between the Hindus and the Untouchables.
(2) The distinction between the Hindus and Untouchables in its original form, before the advent of Untouchability, was the distinction between Tribesmen and Broken Men from alien tribes.
(3) Just as Untouchability has no racial basis so also has it no occupational basis.
(4) All orthodox Hindu writers have identified the Impure with the Untouchables. This is an error. Untouchables are distinct from the Impure.
(5) Contempt and hatred of the Broken Men by the Brahmins arose because they were Buddhists.
(6) Continuation of beef-eating by the Broken Men after it has been given up by others made them Untouchables.
(7) While the Impure as a class came into existence at the time of the Dharma Sutras the Untouchables came into being much later than 400 CE.
Broken Men
In early India, people lived in tribes, and tribal warfare was common between them. The survivors of a defeated tribe had to flee their villages and were known as the "broken men." Thus, in primitive times, there existed two groups: the settled tribes and the broken men. The settled tribes allowed the broken men to live outside their villages, providing them with food and shelter. In return, the broken men guarded the village and provided security.
Census reports
The Census report for India published in 1870 had a column called “population by Religion”. Under this heading the population was shown (1) Muslims, (2) Hindus, (3) Christians, etc.
Sensing that this classification is disadvantageous to Muslims, His Highness The Aga Khan proposed the following new classifications to the then Viceroy, Lord Minto.
Among those who were not hundred percent Hindus were included castes and tribes who:
(AK 1) Deny the supremacy of the Brahmins.
(AK 2) Do not receive the Mantra from a Brahmin or other recognized Hindu Guru.
(AK 3) Deny the authority of Vedas.
(AK 4) Do not worship the Hindu gods.
(AK 5) Are not served by good Brahmins as family priests.
(AK 6) Have no Brahmin priests at all.
(AK 7) Are denied access to the interior of the Hindu temples.
(AK 8) Cause pollution (a) by touch, or (b) within a certain distance.
(AK 9) Bury their dead.
(AK 10) Eat beef and do not revere the cow.
As a result of Aga Khan’s proposal, the Census of 1910 introduced new classifications. For the first time it divided Hindus under three separate categories, (i) Hindus, (ii) Animists, and tribal and (iii) the depressed Classes or Untouchables. This new classification has been continued ever since.
Those that divide the Untouchables from the Hindus are AK 2, AK 5, AK 6, AK 7 and AK 10.
A list of Untouchable communities was prepared by the Government of India in 1935. This Order-in-Council listed them in an attached Schedule. Since then they are known as Scheduled Castes.
Untouchables shunned Brahmins and vise versa
AK 2, AK 5, and AK 6 shows that Brahmins shunned the Untouchables. What they do not show is the fact that the Untouchables also shunned the Brahmins.
Even to this day a Pariah is not allowed to pass a Brahmin Street in a village, though nobody can prevent, or prevents, his approaching or passing by a Brahmin’s house in towns.
The Pariahs, on their part will under no circumstances, allow a Brahmin to pass through their paracherries (collection of Pariah huts) as they firmly believe it will lead them to their ruin.
What is the explanation of this strange phenomenon? Ambedkar proposes the following theory.
This antipathy can be explained by one hypothesis. It is that the Broken Men were Buddhists.
He provides evidence to this claim quoting passages from Manu Smriti, Aparnaka Smriti, and Vradha Harit. (I omit the details here.)
If we accept that the Broken Men were the followers of Buddha and did not care to return to Brahmanism when it became triumphant over Buddhism as easily as the others did, then that is the explanation.
Beef-eating
Going back to the list of Aga Khan, the last item, number AK 10 is “Eat beef and do not revere the cow". No Hindu community, however low, will touch cow’s flesh.
This raises many questions:
What is the cause of the nausea which the Hindus have against beef eating?
Were the Hindus always opposed to beef eating?
If not, why did they develop such a nausea against it?
Were the Untouchables given to beef eating from the very start?
Why did they not give up beef eating when it was abandoned by the Hindus?
Were the Untouchables always Untouchables?
If there was a time when the Untouchables were not Untouchables even though they eat beef, why should beef eating give rise to Untouchability at a later stage?
If the Hindus were eating beef, when did they give it up?
If the Untouchability is a reflex of the nausea of the Hindus against beef-eating, how long after the Hindus had given up beef eating did Untouchability come into being?
Ambedkar proposes to concentrate on the following questions (and answers).
Did Hindus never eat beef?
Using Rig Veda and Taittiriya Brahmana as sources, Ambedkar shows that in very elaborate and festive sacrifices Brahmins did eat beef regularly.
That the Hindus at one time did kill cows and did eat beef is proved abundantly by the description of the Yajnas—ritual sacrifice—given in the Buddhist Sutras which relate to periods much later than the Vedas and the Brahmanas. The scale on which the slaughter of cows and animals took place was colossal.
What led the Hindus to give up beef eating?
The Buddhist Emperor Asoka was the first to write edicts prohibiting sacrifices.
In Rock edict 1, He says:
No animal may be slaughtered for sacrifice, nor any holiday feast be held.
In Pillar edict 5 He says:
When I had been consecrated twenty-six years the following species were declared exempt from slaughter, namely: Parrots, starlings, adjutants, Brahmany duck, geese, pandirnukas, gelatas, bats, queen-ants, female tortoises, boneless fish, vedaveyakas, ganga-puputakas, skate, river tortoise, porcupines, tree-squirrels, barasingha stag, Brahmany Bulls, monkeys, rhinoceros, gray doves, village pigeons, and all four-footed animals which are not utilized or eaten.
She-goats, eves, cows either with young or in milk, are exempt from slaughter as well as their off-springs up to six months of age. Caponing of cocks must not be done. Chaff must not be burned along with the living things in it Forests must not be burned either for mischief or so as to destroy living creatures.
The living must not be fed with the living. At each of the three seasonal full moons, and at the full moon of the month Tishya (December-January) for three days in each case, namely, the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the first fortnight, and the first day of the second night, as well as on the first days throughout the year, fish is exempt from killing and may not be sold.
On the same days, in elephant-preserves or fish-ponds no other classes of animals may be destroyed.
On the eighth, fourteenth and fifteenth days of each fortnight—a period of two weeks—as well as on the Tishya and Punarvasa days and festival days, the castration of bulls must not be performed, nor may he-goats, rams, boars, and other animals liable to castration be castrated.
On the Tishya and Punarvasa days, on the seasonal full moon days, and during the fortnights of the seasonal full moons the branding of horses and oxen must not be done.
The Laws of Manu contain following provisions regarding meat-eating
V.11: Let him avoid all carnivorous birds and those living in villages, and one hoofed animals which are not specially permitted to be eaten, and the Tithbha (Parra) Jacana.
V.12: The sparrow, the Plava, the Hamsa, the Brahmani duck, the village-cock, the Sarasa crane, the Raggudal, the woodpecker, the parrot, and. the starling.
V.13: Those which feed striking with their beaks, web-footed birds, the Koyashti, those which scratch with their toes, those which dive and live on fish, meat from a slaughter-house and dried meat.
V.14: The Baka and the Balaka crane, the raven, the Khangartaka (animals) that eat fish, village-pigs, and all kinds of fishes.
V.14: He who eats the flesh of any animal is called the eater of the flesh of that particular creature, he who eats fish is an eater of every kind of flesh; let him therefore avoid fish.
V.16: But the fish called Pathine and that called Rohita may be eaten, if used for offering to the gods, or to the manes; one may eat likewise Ragivas, Simhatundas, and Sasalkas on all occations.
V.17: Let him not eat solitary or unknown beasts and birds though they may fall under the categories of eat-able creatures, not any four-toed animals.
V.18: The porcupine, the hedge hog, the iguana, the rhinoceros, the tortoise, and the hare they declare to be eatable; likewise those domesticated animals that have teeth in one jaw exempting camels.
Analysis of Asoka and Manu Laws
Remember that we are primarily concerned with the cow.
Vincent Smith is of the opinion that Asoka did not prohibit the killing of the cow. Pillar Edict 5 does not refer to all four footed animals but only to four-footed animals, which are not utilized or eaten.
That is, Asoka felt his duty to prohibit the taking of life where taking of life was not necessary. That is why he prohibited slaughtering animals for sacrifice.
Coming to Manu, he too did not prohibit the slaughter of the cow.
On the other hand he made the eating of cow’s flesh on certain occasions obligatory.
What led the Brahmins to become vegetarians?
In Ambedkar’s view, it was a strategic move that led the Brahmins to give up beef-eating and begin worshiping the cow. The key to understanding the worship of the cow lies in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism and the methods Brahmanism employed to establish its supremacy over Buddhism. Without recognizing this fact, it is impossible to explain certain aspects of Hinduism.
Unfortunately, students of Indian history have largely overlooked the significance of this conflict.
They seem unaware of the struggle for supremacy in which these creeds were engaged—a struggle that lasted for 400 years and left indelible marks on the religion, society, and politics of India.
Salient points of the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism
(1) Buddhism was at one point the religion of the majority of the people of India. It continued to be the religion of the masses for hundreds of years. It attacked Brahmanism on all sides as no religion had done before.
(2) Brahmanism was on the wane and if not on the wane, it was certainly on the defensive. As a result of the spread of Buddhism, the Brahmins had lost all power and prestige at the Royal Court and among the people.
(3) They were smarting under the defeat they had suffered at the hands of Buddhism and were making all possible efforts to regain their power and prestige. Buddhism had made such a deep impression on the minds of the masses and had taken such a hold of them that it was absolutely impossible for the Brahmins to fight the Buddhists except by accepting their ways and means and practicing the Buddhist creed in its extreme form.
(4) When the followers of the Buddha started setting up images of the Buddha and building stupas, Brahmins followed it. They in turn, built temples and installed in them images of Shiva, Vishnu and Ram and Krishna, etc., all with the object of drawing away the crowd that was attracted by the image-warship of Buddha.
(5) That is how temples and images which had no place in Brahmanism came into Hinduism.
The Buddhists rejected the Brahmanic religion which consisted of Yajna and animal sacrifice, particularly of the cow. The objection to the sacrifice of the cow had taken a strong hold of the minds of the masses especially as they were an agricultural population and the cow was a very useful animal.
The Brahmins in all probability had come to be hated as the killer of cows in the same way the guest had come to be hated as Gognha—the killer of the cow—by the householder, because whenever he came a cow had to be killed in his honor according to Brahmanical laws.
That being the case, the Brahmins could do nothing to improve their position against the Buddhists except by giving up the Yajna as a form of warship and the sacrifice of the cow.
That the object of the Brahmins in giving up beef-eating was to snatch away from the Buddhist Bhikkhus the supremacy they had acquired is evidenced by the adoption of vegetarianism by Brahmins. Without becoming vegetarian the Brahmins could not have recovered the ground they had lost to Buddhism.
If the Brahmins had acted from conviction that animal sacrifice was bad, all that was necessary for them to do was to give up killing animals for sacrifice. It was unnecessary for them to become vegetarians. For the Buddhist Bhikkhus were not vegetarians.
Brahmins wanted to oust the Buddhists from the place of honor and respect which they had acquired in the minds of the masses by their opposition to the killing of the cow for sacrificial purposes. To achieve their purpose the Brahmins had to go a step further. The only way to beat the Buddhists was to become vegetarians.
When did Brahmins start cow-warship giving up beef-eating and became vegetarians in order to vanquish Buddhism?
It is well-known that cow-killing was not made an offense by Asoka. Buddhism was against animal sacrifice in general. It had no particular affection for the cow. Asoka had therefore no particular reason to make a law to save the cow.
What is more astonishing is the fact that cow-killing was made a Mahapapaka—a mortal sin or a capital offense—by the Gupta Kings who were champions of Hinduism which recognized and sanctioned the killing of the cow for sacrificial purposes.
Why then did the non-brahmins give up eating beef?
Ambedkar suggests that it was due to their desire to imitate the Brahmins that the non-Brahmins gave up beef-eating.
Why did beef eating give rise to Untouchability?
Unfortunately beef-eating, instead of being treated as a purely secular matter, was made a matter of Hindu religion. Once Hindus gained the upper-hand, this made beef-eating a sacrilege. The broken men and the others being guilty of sacrilege necessarily became beyond the pale of society.
When did Broken Men become Untouchables?
To answer this question we have established the time the Manu Smriti was written. It is the document that established the Chathurwarna and changed many other existing Brahmanical laws to justify the desperate moves by the Brahmins.
Upper limit for Manu Smriti
Manu Smriti in the shape in which it exists now, came into existence in the Second Century CE according to Bühker. Mr. Daphtray has also come to the same conclusion. According to him Manu Smriti came into being after the year 185 BC and not before. The reason given by Mr. Daphtary is that Manu Smriti has a close connection with the murder of the Buddhist Emperor Brihadratha of the Maurya dynasty by his Brahmin Commander-in-Chief Pushyamitra Sunga, the event that took place in 185 BC.
Having regards to its consequences, it was an epoch-making event. Its significance cannot be measured by treating it as a change of dynasty—the Sungas succeeding Mauryas. It was a political revolution as great as the French Revolution, if not greater. It was a revolution—a bloody revolution—engineered by the Brahmins to overthrow the rule of the Buddhist Kings.
This triumphant Brahmanism was in need of many things.
(1) It of course needed to make Chaturvarna the law of the land. The validity of which was denied by the Buddhists.
(2) It needed to make animal sacrifice legal, which was abolished by the Buddhists.
But it needed more than this.
Brahmanism in bringing about this revolution against the rule of the Buddhist Kings has transgressed—infringe or go beyond the bounds of—two rules of the customary law of the land which were accepted by all as sacrosanct and inviolable.
The first rule made it a sin for a Brahmin even to touch a weapon. The second made the King’s person sacred and regicide a sin.
Triumphant Brahmanism wanted a sacred text, infallible in its authority, to justify their transgressions.
The striking feature of the Manu Smriti is that it not only makes Chaturvarna the law of the land, it not only makes animal sacrifice legal, but it goes to state when a Brahmin could justifiably resort to arms and when he could justifiably kill the king.
In this Manu Smriti has done what no prior Smriti has done. It is a completely new thesis.
Having got the date of the Manu Smriti we can say that in the Second Century CE, there was no Untouchability. That is an upper limit.
Lower limit for Manu Smriti
According to Faxian’s records, there were no untouchables in India when he was in India. Faxian came to India in 400 CE during the reign of Gupta Kings.
The next Chinese traveller to come to India was Xuanzang. He came to India in 629 CE. According to his records, by that time, Untouchability had emerged.
On the basis of what has been said, we can conclude that Untouchability did not exist in 200 CE and it had emerged by 600 CE.
We can, therefore, say with some confidence that Untouchability was born sometime around 400 CE. It emerged from the struggle for supremacy between Buddhism and Brahmanism, a conflict that has profoundly shaped the history of India but has been woefully neglected by students of Indian history.
