gonmei1

Pamziuliu Gonmei
Dr. Gautam Chakravarty
M.A. (F) English
16 November 2015

Ambedkar and the Gita ; Modern Indian Commentary on the Bhagvad Gita
In his essay, Krishna and His Gita, Ambedkar discusses at length his views
on the Bhagvad Gita and critiques it which, in the process, essentially becomes his
critique of Hindu religion and the society based on and bred from it. As opposed to
strong religious beliefs which make the Bhagvad Gita the most revered book in
Hinduism, Ambedkar evaluates the book from a different point of view, calling it
neither a book of religion nor a treatise on philosophy 1 but rather a philosophic
defence of religion. In this light, he breaks the Gita down into an extensive
exploration of its historical background, the ideologies it represents, the emergence
of Buddhism which he calls a revolution and relates it to modern day Indian society
and its various aspects religious, social and political.
Turning to the views held by the orthodox Pandits on the Bhagvad Gita, it can
be found that there is a variety of them. One of these views states that the Gita is
not a sectarian book and that it pays equal respect to the three ways of salvation:
Karma marga or the path of works, Bhakti marga or the path of devotion, Jnana
marga or the path of knowledge and preaches the efficacy of all these three means
of attaining salvation. While making this argument the Pandits have pointed out a
distribution of chapters in the book, which, according to them preaches all three
equally. Other orthodox writers such as Shankaracharya and Tilak hold views which
are contrary to the Pandits. Shankaracharya believes that the Bhagvad Gita
preaches Jnana marga as the only true way of salvation while Tilak produces his
own views as opposed to those of other scholars. While he agrees with
Shankaracharya in saying the book has a definite doctrine that it preaches, he
differs from him too in arguing that the Gita teaches Karma yoga. Defying this whole
variety of opinions and aiming at making them void with his own arguments is

gonmei2
Ambedkar who starts off his critique of the Gita by questioning the purpose of its
existence and the message that the book is supposed to bring by comparing it to
other religious books like the Bible and the Koran. Then he states that such a
divergence of opinion exists because scholars have been misled into thinking that
the Gita has a certain message to give or teach when , in fact, according to him,
there is none. The main basis of his criticism of the book is its justification of war
and violence. Arjuna, in the book, declares himself against the war, speaking out
against killing people for the sake of property. Such dialogues can be read as
questions conveniently placed through Arjuna in order to open a way for the
defensive arguments to be asserted and preached in the book. The arguments
produced in defence of killing and war provided in the book are spoken by Krishna,
who talks about the inevitability of death, calling the manner in which a person dies
a trifle matter. He also talks about the separate existence of the soul and body in
an attempt to nullify the act of dying. Therefore, the Gita argues that, in the words
of Ambedkar, War and killing need therefore give no ground to remorse or
shame.2 From a point of view based on concern for even the most basic human
rights, such ideals and teachings become problematic. Ambedkars commentary on
this implies a formation of a gap and differences between authentic notions of
humanity and the ideals that religion seeks to uphold and impose.

By citing that the Gita only defends certain dogmas of religion on philosophic
grounds3, the religion mentioned and discussed here being Hinduism, Ambedkar
seeks to delineate the ills of Hindu philosophy by arguing against the practices and
beliefs of deeply orthodox Hindu society which are based on the teachings of the
Gita and the consequential influences on society. Besides the philosophic defence of
war, Ambedkar offers that the other dogma that the Gita next aims to defend is
Chaturvarnya. He views it as a convenient justification for the Vedic Brahmanical
society which staunchly supports the belief that man is divided and separated by
birth. In consequence, each group or rather, caste, has definite roles to play and
contributions to make towards their society failing which they are disgraced. This
notion causes these individuals to be bound by caste and duty, making all other
circumstances irrelevant. While the Gita declares that Chaturvarnya is created by
God and therefore sacrosanct, it does not make its validity dependent on that

gonmei3
concept. What it does instead is offer a philosophic basis to the theory of
Chaturvarnya by linking it to the theory of innate, inborn qualities in men. Ambedkar
keenly questions these teachings, working towards a conclusion which points
toward the hypocritical and selfish nature of such beliefs, which, in turn, questions
the authenticity of the Gita as a religious book with moral values in particular and
also brings into question the Hindu religion as a whole.
The third dogma that the Bhagvad Gita defends is Karma marga, which
means the performance of observances such as Yajna, as a means to obtain
salvation. The path it takes to defend Karma yoga is through its attempt to remove
the excrescences that had grown upon it which had made it rather ugly. The first
one was blind faith. The Gita aims to exterminate it by bringing into light the
principle of Buddhi yoga, deeming it a necessary condition for Karma yoga. Become
befitted with Buddhi and the performance of Karma kanda would be made right or
justified. The second superfluous outgrowth on the Karma kanda was the selfish
motive behind which the Karmas were performed. Here, the Gita tries to remove it
by introducing the principle of Anasakti, which is, performance of karma without any
form of attachment or to the fruits of the Karma. So, by establishing a foundation in
Buddhi yoga and dissociating it from any selfish attachment to the fruits of Karma,
the Gita justifies the dogma of Karma kand and hence, defends Karma marga.
Ambedkar makes this criticism with the objective to present the Bhagvad Gita as
what he believes it to be, a book solely created based on the selfish interests of a
certain group of people for the act of manipulation, assertion and dominance. He
expands on this criticism by questioning the source of the dogmas for which the
Bhagvad Gita offers philosophical defence and why it became necessary for them to
be defended by a book of such nature.
This brings into discussion the counter-revolution, a term given by
Ambedkar to the restoration of Brahmanism that occurred under the leadership of
Pushyamitra Sung in the history of religious Indian society after the advent of
Buddhism. Ambedkar refers to the Gita a tool that was conveniently created and
used to defend this counter-revolution. His discussion says that these dogmas which
the Gita is shown to be defending are the dogmas of the counter-revolution as put
forth in the Bible of counter-revolution 4, Jaiminis Purvamimamsa. Ambedkar
explains that, according to common understanding of the book, Karma yoga is

gonmei4
translated as action and Janga yoga as knowledge, and thus, the book has been
discussed as though it was involved in comparing and contrasting knowledge versus
action in a generalized form, which Ambedkar says, is wrong. In the very own words
of Dr. Ambedkar, The Bhagvat Gita is not concerned with any general,
philosophical discussion of action versus knowledge. As a matter of fact, the Gita is
concerned with the particular and not with the general. By Karma Yoga or action
Gita means the dogmas contained in Jaiminis karma kanda and by Jnana yoga or
knowledge, it means the dogmas contained in Badarayanas Brahma Sutras. That
the Gita in speaking of Karma is not speaking of activity or inactivity, quieticism or
energism, in general terms but religious acts and observances cannot be denied by
anyone who has read the Bhagvat Gita. 5
He goes on to say that the Gita has engaged in a controversy on petty issues
by projecting them on a false platform of a general treatise and seemingly matters
of high philosophical grounds. His conclusion regarding this issue is that, The result
has been that these false meanings have misled people into believing that the
Bhagvat Gita is an independent self-contained book and has no relation to the
literature that has preceded it. But if one were to keep to the meaning of the word
Karma yoga as one finds it in the Bhagvat Gita itself one would be convinced that in
speaking of Karma yoga the Bhagvat Gita is referring to nothing but the dogmas of
Karma kanda as propounded by Jaimini which it tries to renovate and strengthen. 6
Based on his argument that the Bhgavad Gita came into existence for the
purpose of defending the dogmas of the counter revolution, Ambedkar states that it
was driven by the need of the Brahmanical society to be saved from the attack of
Buddhism. This brings into discussion that fact that Buddha preached non-violence,
which caused the majority of the people to accept the non-violent way of life. In his
essay, Ambedkar gives a clear account of these changes: Buddha preached against
Chaturvarnya. He used some of the most offensive similes in attacking the theory of
Chaturvarnya. The frame work of Chaturvarnya had been broken. The order of
Chaturvarnya had been turned upside down. Shudras and women could become
sannyasis, a status which counter-revolution had denied them. Buddha had
condemned the Karma kanda and the Yajnas. he condemned them on the ground of
Himsa or violence. He condemned them also on the ground that the motive behind
them was a selfish desire to obtain bonus. What was the reply of the counter-

gonmei5
revolutionaries to this attack? Only this. These things were ordained by the Vedas,
the Vedas were infallible, therefore the dogmas were not to be questioned. In the
Buddhist age, which was the most enlightened and the most rationalistic age India
has known, dogmas resting on such silly, arbitrary, unrationalistic and fragile
foundations could hardly stand.7 This immediately and evidently creates a contrast
between this new set of teachings on the way of life and all that Hinduism had
initially upheld and operated upon. The awakening of new found belief in social
equality was in direct opposition to the Chaturvarnya theory of gradation and
division solely based on birth which played a role in bringing and permitting
violence under the concept of duty.
Next, based on his extensive research, Ambedkar talks about the time
periods regarding certain speculations concerning the time when the Bhagvad Gita
was written. Providing arguments based on evidence accordingly, Ambedkar states
that the Gita was written in four separate parts, all of them after the emergence of
Buddhism in India, which further substantiates his argument that many of the
philosophies presented in the Gita were conveniently placed for the support and
defence of the social order of the Brahmins. Ambedkar also explores the various
forms of karma, such as guna-karma, karma kand, karma marga and karma yoga.
His detailed exploration and discussion of these philosophies all lead to the
conclusion that they were all created by men in their excessive thirst for power and
control.
Having made his arguments which are accordingly supported by clear
historical accounts based on his research and findings, Ambedkar conducts a reexamination of the Bhagvad Gita, eventually concluding that the so-called sacred
book of the Hindu religion is nothing more than a manipulatively woven source of
defence for and by a certain group of people and their religious beliefs, which have
been implemented and asserted upon the nation over the years by views and
sentiments which have stemmed solely from the need and thirst to control,
dominate and exploit. This, in turn, proves that the Bhagvad Gita essentially exists
to consolidate Brahmanism and the hierarchy that is the caste sytem in India,
carefully planted under the wing of religion which has given it even more power to
implement its doctrines and ideologies. This has caused the reading of the religious
book in a new light, opening the way to freer criticism and also leading to a better

gonmei6
understanding of present day Indian society, its evolution in the course of the
various changes it has witnessed, and essentially a more refined understanding of
what makes up Indian society as it is presented today.

Endnotes
1

Dr B.R. Ambedkar.1987..Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and

His Gita, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India

2

Dr B.R. Ambedkar.1987..Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and

His Gita, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India

3

Dr B.R. Ambedkar.1987..Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and

His Gita, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India

gonmei7
4

Dr B.R. Ambedkar.1987..Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and

His Gita, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India

5

Dr B.R. Ambedkar.1987..Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and

His Gita, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India

6

Dr B.R. Ambedkar.1987..Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and

His Gita, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India

7

Dr B.R. Ambedkar.1987..Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and

His Gita, .Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India

Bibliography
Dr B.R. Ambedkar.1987. Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India
Dr B.R. Ambedkar.1987..Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution: Krishna and His
Gita
Nalini Pandit. 2012. Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita
Kuffir. 2011. Round Table India: What Does Ambedkar Say About the Bhagvat Gita?
Namit Arora. 2011. The Bhagavad Gita Revisited. Shunya

gonmei8