Vol. 7 · pages 346–350

THE UNTOUCHABLES : DID THE HINDUS... BEEF ? 327 18. The son (of the deceased person) should take the under and the upper mill-stone for himself. 19. And the implements made of copper, iron and earthenware. 20. Taking out the omentum of the she-animal he should cover therewith the head and the mouth (of the dead person) with the verse, ‘But on the armour (which will protect thee) against Agni, by that which comes from the cows.’ (Rig Veda. X.16.7). 21. Taking out the kidneys of the animal he should lay them into the hands (of the dead body) with the verse, escape the two hounds, the sons of Sarma (Rig Veda X 14.10) the right kidney into the right hand and the left into the left hand. 22. The heart of the animals he puts on the heart of the deceased. 23. And two lumps of flour or rice according to some teachers. 24. Only if there are no kidneys according to some teachers. 25. Having distributed the whole (animal), limb by limb (placing its different limbs on the corresponding limbs of the deceased) and having covered it with its hide, he recites when the Pranita water is carried forward (the verse), ‘Agni do not overturn this cup,’ (Rig Veda, X.16.8). 26. Bending his left knee he should sacrifice Yugya oblation into the Dakshina fire with the formulas ‘To Agni Svaha, to Kama Svaha, to the world Svaha, to Anumati Svaha’. 27. A fifth (oblation) on the chest of the deceased with the formula ‘from this one verily thou hast been born. May he now be born out of thee. To the heaven worlds Svaha.’ ” From the above passage quoted from the Ashvalayan Grahya Sutra it is clear that among the ancient Indo-Aryans when a person died, an animal had to be killed and the parts of the animal were placed on the appropriate parts of the dead body before the dead body was burned. Such is the state of the evidence on the subject of cow-killing and beef-eating. Which part of it is to be accepted as true? The correct view is that the testimony of the Satapatha Brahmana and the Apastamba Dharma Sutra in so far as it supports the view that Hindus were against cow-killing and beef-eating, are merely exhortations against the excesses of cow-killing and not prohibitions against cow-killing. Indeed the exhortations prove that cow-killing and eating of beef had become a common practice. That notwithstanding these exhortations cow-killing and beef-eating continued. That most often they fell on deaf ears is proved by the conduct of Yajnavalkya, the great Rishi of the Aryans. The first passage quoted above from the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES328 Satapatha Brahmana was really addressed to Yajnavalkya as an exhortation. How did Yajnavalkya respond? After listening to the exhortation this is what Yajnavalkya said :– “I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender” That the Hindus at one time did kill cows and did eat beef is proved abundantly by the description of the Yajnas 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. It is not possible to give a total of such slaughter on all accounts committed by the Brahmins in the name of religion. Some idea of the extent of this slaughter can however be had from references to it in the Buddhist literature. As an illustration reference may be made to the Kutadanta Sutta in which Buddha preached against the performance of animal sacrifices to Brahmin Kutadanta. Buddha, though speaking in a tone of sarcastic travesty, gives a good idea of the practices and rituals of the Vedic sacrifices when he said: “And further, O Brahmin, at that sacrifice neither were any oxen slain, neither goats, nor fowls, nor fatted pigs, nor were any kind of living creatures put to death. No trees were cut down to be used as posts, no Darbha grasses mown to stress around the sacrificial spot. And the slaves and messengers and workmen there employed were driven neither by rods nor fear, nor carried on their work weeping with tears upon their faces.” Kutadanta on the other hand in thanking Buddha for his conversion gives an idea of the magnitude of the slaughter of animals which took place at such sacrifices when he says :- “I, even I betake myself to the venerable Gotama as my guide, to the Doctrine and the Order. May the venerable One accept me as a disciple, as one who, from this day forth, as long as life endures, has taken him as his guide. And I myself, O, Gotama, will have the seven hundred bulls, and the seven hundred steers, and the seven hundred heifers, and the seven hundred goats, and the seven hundred rams set free. To them I grant their life. Let them eat grass and drink fresh water and may cool breezes waft around them.” In the Samyuta Nikaya (III,1-9) we have another description of a Yajna performed by Pasenadi, king of Kosala. It is said that five hundred bulls, five hundred calves and many heifers, goats and rams were led to the pillar to be sacrificed. With this evidence no one can doubt that there was a time when Hindus –both Brahmins and non-Brahmins –ate not only flesh but also beef. zz

THE UNTOUCHABLES : WHY DID NON-BRAHMINS... 329 CHAPTER XII WHY DID NON-BRAHMINS GIVE UP BEEF-EATING? THE food habits of the different classes of Hindus have been as fixed and stratified as their cults. Just as Hindus can be classified on their basis of their cults so also they can be classified on the basis of their habits of food. On the basis of their cults, Hindus are either Saivites (followers of Siva) or Vaishnavites (followers of Vishnu). Similarly, Hindus are either Mansahari (those who eat flesh) or Shakahari (those who are vegetarians). For ordinary purposes the division of Hindus into two classes Mansahari and Shakahari may be enough. But it must be admitted that it is not exhaustive and does not take account of all the classes which exist in Hindu society. For an exhaustive classification, the class of Hindus called Mansahari shall have to be further divided into two sub-classes : (i) Those who eat flesh but do not eat cow’s flesh; and (ii) Those who eat flesh including cow’s flesh; In other words, on the basis of food taboos, Hindu society falls into three classes : (i) Those who are vegetarians; (ii) Those who eat flesh but do not eat cow’s flesh; and (iii) Those who eat flesh including cow’s flesh. Corresponding to this classification, we have in Hindu society three classes : (1) Brahmins; (2) Non-Brahmins; and (3) The Untouchables. This division though not in accord with the fourfold division of society called Chaturvarnya, yet it is in accord with facts as they exist. For, in the Brahmins 1 we have a class which is vegetarian, in the non-Brahmins the class which eats flesh but does not eat cow’s flesh and in the Untouchables a class which eats flesh including cow’s flesh. This threefold division is therefore substantial and is in accord with facts. Anyone who stops to turn over this classification in his mind 1 The Brahmins of India fall into two divisions (1) Pancha Dravid and (2) Panch Gauda. The former are vegetarians, the latter are not.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES330 is bound to be struck by the position of the Non-Brahmins. One can quite understand vegetarianism. One can quite understand meateating. But it is difficult to understand why a person who is a flesheater should object to one kind of flesh namely cow’s flesh. This is an anomaly which call for explanation. Why did the Non-Brahmin give up beef-eating? For this purpose it is necessary to examine laws on the subject. The relevant legislation must be found either in the Law of Asoka or the Law of Manu. II To begin with Asoka. The edicts of Asoka which have reference to this matter are Rock Edict No.I and Pillar Edict Nos.II and V. Rock Edict No.I reads as follows :- “This pious Edict has been written by command of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King. Here (in the capital) no animal may be slaughtered for sacrifice, nor may the holiday feast be held, because His Sacred and Gracious Majesty, the king sees much offence in the holiday feasts, although in certain places holiday feasts are excellent in the sight of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the king. “Formerly, in the kitchen of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King, each day many hundred thousands of living creatures were slaughtered to make curries. But now, when this pious edict is being written, only three living creatures are slaughtered (daily) for curry, to wit, two peacocks and one antelope: the antelope, however, not invariably. Even those three living creatures henceforth shall not be slaughtered.” Pillar Edict No.II was in the following terms : “Thus saith His Sacred and Gracious Majesty, the King :- “The Law of Piety is excellent. But wherein consists the Law of Piety? In these things, to wit, little piety, many good deeds, compassion, liberality, truthfulness and purity. The gift of spiritual insight I have given in manifold ways: whilst on twofooted and four-footed beings, on birds and the denizens of the waters, I have conferred various favours-even unto the boon of life; and many other good deeds have I done. For this purpose, have I caused this pious edict to be written, that men may walk after its teaching, and that it may long endure; and he who will follow its teaching will do well.” Pillar Edict V says : “Thus said His Sacred and Gracious Majesty, the king : When I had been consecrated twenty-six years the following species were declared exempt from slaughter, namely : Parrots, starlings adjutants, Brahmany ducks, geese, pandimukhas, gelatas, bats, queen-ants, female tortoises, boneless fish, vedaveyakas, gangapuputakas,

THE UNTOUCHABLES : WHY DID NON-BRAHMINS... 331 skate, (river) tortoise, porcupines, tree-squirrels, barasingha stag, Brahmany bulls, monkeys, rhinoceros, grey doves village pigeons, and all fourfooted animals which are not utilised or eaten. She-goats, ewes, cows, that is to say, those either with young or in milk, are exempt from slaughter as well as their off-spring up to six months of age. The 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 fortnight, 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, 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. During the time upto the twenty-sixth anniversary of my consecration twentyfive jail deliveries have been effected.” So much for the legislation of Asoka. III Let us turn to Manu. His Laws contain the the 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.l5. He who eats the flesh of any (animals) 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.