Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

The Bhagwat Gita is the most revered religious book in Hinduism. It is

acceptable to people of many different religious denominations. It has been
translated into many different languages. It is considered to be a book not only
of religion but also of ethics, espousing eternal moral values. In the medieval
period Shankaracharya and Dnyaneshwar wrote commentaries upon it. In
modern times, great political leaders such as Tilak, Aurobindo and Gandhi have
been inspired by this book. It is, therefore, natural that Ambedkar, who was a
serious scholar and critic of Hindu religion and society, should take cognizance
of this great book.

Ambedkar was a champion of the shudras and ati-shudras in our society. He,
therefore, has evaluated the Gita in an entirely different way. His comments on
the Gita essentially summarize his critique of Hindu religion and society.

Ambedkar's views on the Gita are found in his unpublished book Revolution
and Counter-revolution in Ancient India (the text of which is included in Vol 3
of the Speeches and Writings of Dr Ambedkar now being published by the
government of Maharashtra). The book is incomplete and what is available is
only a first draft. There are many gaps and repetitions. Yet it gives a clear
indication of his views on the subject.

According to Ambedkar the Bhagwat Gita is neither a book of religion nor a

treatise on philosophy. What the Bhagwat Gita does is to defend certain dogmas
of religion on philosophic grounds. It is a philosophic defence of the counter-
revolution.

To understand what Ambedkar means by revolution and counter-revolution, it is

necessary to take note of Ambedkar's interpretation of the changes in ancient
Indian society. After making a detailed study of the ancient religious books,
Ambedkar came to the conclusion that the Aryan community of pre-Buddhist
times did not have a developed sense of moral values. Buddhism caused a moral
and social revolution in this society. When the Mauryan emperor Ashoka
embraced Buddhism, the social revolution became a political revolution. After
the decline of the Mauryan Empire the Brahmins, whose interests had suffered
under the Buddhist kings initiated a counter-revolution under the leadership of
Pushyamitra Sung.

The counter-revolution restored Brahmanism. The Bhagwat Gita, says

Ambedkar, was composed to-give ideological and moral support to this counter-
revolution.
Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

The Aryan society of Buddha's time suffered from many social evils. Drinking
and gambling were very common. Liquor was of two kinds - soma and sura.
Soma was a sacrificial wine permitted only to Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Sura
was open to all and was drunk by all. The Mahabharata mentions an occasion
when both Krishna and Arjun were dead drunk. Even Aryan women were
addicted to drink. For instance Sudeshna the wife of king Virat tells her maid
Sairandhri to go to Kichaka's palace and bring sura as she was dying to have a
drink.

Gambling was another common vice. Every king had a gambling hall attached
to his palace. King Nala staked his kingdom in gambling with Paskkar and lost
it. Yudhishtir went further. He staked not only his kingdom, but himself, his
brothers and their common wife Draupadi in a game of dice. Gambling was a
matter of honor with the Aryans and any invitation to gamble was regarded as
an injury to one's honor and dignity.

The Aryans of pre-Buddhist days had no rules to govern their sexual

relationships. A father could marry his daughter, a grandfather his grand-
daughter. Vashishta married his own daughter Shatrupa. Manu married his
daughter Ila. Daksha gave his daughter in marriage to his father Brahma. There
was prevalent among the Aryans the practice of renting out their daughters to
others for a while. King Yayati gave his daughter Madhavi as an offering to his
guru Galava. Galava rented out the girl to three kings, each for a period.
Thereafter he gave her in marriage to Vishvamitra. She remained with him till a
son was born to her. Thereafter Galav took away the girl and gave her back to
her father Yayati. [1]

The religion of the Aryans consisted of yajna or sacrifice. The principal sacrifice
was the animal sacrifice. It often became a regular carnage of cattle. It is stated
in Suttanipat, a Bhuddhist scripture that at a sacrifice to be performed by king
Pasenadi, there were tied to the poles for slaughter five hundred oxen, five
hundred cows, five hundred goats and five hundred lambs.

The Aryan religion was a series of observances. Behind these observances there
was no yearning for a good and virtuous life. The religion was without any
spiritual content. The hymns of the Rig Veda praise Indra for having brought
about destruction of the enemies of the Aryans. These hymns are saturated with
wicked thoughts and wicked purposes. [2]

The Buddhist Revolution

Buddha was the first great reformer in this ancient society. Ambedkar believed
that Buddhism could be called a revolution. Though it began as a religious
Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

revolution its sphere of influence went on expanding and it ended as a social

and political revolution.
Ambedkar has compared it to the French revolution, because, he felt, it
transformed the whole social order.

Buddha himself followed the highest standards for a moral life, which an
individual could follow. He also tried to mold the character of ordinary men and
women in society. A follower of Buddha had to observe certain moral precepts.
They were (1) not to kill, (2) not to steal, (3) not to lie, (4) not to be unchaste,
(5) not to drink intoxicants. For the monks there were additional precepts (6) not
to eat at forbidden times, (7) not to sing, dance, or attend theatricals, (8) to
abstain from the use of garlands, scents and ornaments, (9) to abstain from the
use of high or broad beds, (10) never to receive money.

Two cardinal virtues of Buddhism are love and wisdom. Universal pity,
sympathy for all suffering beings, goodwill to every form of sentient life, these
were the main characteristics of his teaching. [3]

Buddha carried on a campaign against three things. First, he repudiated the

authority of the Vedas. He denounced yajna as a form of religion. He ridiculed
the idea that the sacrificial animal slaughtered according to prescribed rites goes
to heaven irrespective of its good or bad deeds. In that case, he asked, why do
the Brahmins not offer themselves for sacrifice? Buddha was against caste. His
religion was open to all, to shudras, women and even repentant criminals. The
Buddhist scriptures were available to all men and women. He proclaimed that
any person who has knowledge and the ability to teach can become a teacher. A
teacher should teach anyone desirous of getting knowledge and should not hold
any part of knowledge from anyone. [4]

When emperor Ashoka embraced Buddhism, it became a state religion. The

Brahmins, then, lost all state patronage and were reduced to a secondary
position. Ashoka prohibited all animal sacrifices in his kingdom. The Brahmins
who officiated at these sacrifices lost their chief source of income.
Consequently a rebellion of Brahmins against the Buddhist state took place
under Pushyamitra Sung who came from a Brahmin dynasty. Pushyamitra
destroyed the Buddhist state and established in its place a Brahmin political
order. This is what Ambedkar calls a counter-revolution. The Brahmin rulers
made Brahmins a class of privileged persons. The king was not supposed to
give a Brahmin capital punishment for any offence committed. Now varna was
turned into caste. The Brahmins brought about a system of graded inequality
based on birth. Inter-caste dining and marriages were prohibited. The position of
women and shudras was degraded. Manusmriti lays down the laws of this
Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

counter-revolution. The Bhagwat Gita gives philosophic defence of the new

social order. [5]

According to Hindu tradition the Gita is a part of Mahabharata and both were
written by one and the same author, namely, Vyasa. Lokamanya Tilak, in his
book Gitarahasya has accepted this opinion. Ambedkar, however, does not
endorse this view. Vyasa is reputed to be the author not only of the Mahabharata
but also that of the Puranas and the Brahmasutras. As these works were
separated by a long span of time extending over several centuries they could not
have come from the same author. It is well known how some obscure authors
wishing to hide their own identity or to claim a greater credibility for their work
adopted some well-known author's name, such as that of Vyasa, as their pen-
name.

There is another decisive consideration against Tilak's proposition, namely, the

relative position of Krishna in the Mahabharata and in the Bhagwat Gita. In the
Mahabharata, Krishna is nowhere represented as a god accepted by all. The
Mahabharata itself shows that all the people were not prepared to give him the
first place. When at the time of the Rajsuya Yajna, Dharma offered to give
Krishna priority in the matter of honoring the guests, Shishupal protested and
abused Krishna. He not only charged him with low origin, but also with loose
morals, an infringer who violated rules of war for the sake of victory. So
abhorrent but so true was this record of Krishna's foul deeds that when
Duryodhan flung them in the face of Krishna, the Mahabharata itself in the
Gada Parva records, that Yakshas and Kinnars came out from heaven to listen to
the charges made by Duryodhan against Krishna and after listening showered
flowers as a token of their views that the charges contained the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. On the other hand, the Bhagwat Gita presented Krishna as
god, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, pure, loving, essence of goodness.
Two such works, containing two quite contradictory estimates about one and the
same personality, says Ambedkar, could not have been written at one and the
same time and by one and the same author. [6]

Ambedkar seems to agree with the views of D. D. Kosambi that the Gita was
composed in the reign of the Gupta king Baladitya. Baladitya came to the throne
in the year AD 467. Kosambi's reasons for so late a date for the composition of
the Gita are two. Before Shankaracharya (788 AD to 820 AD) wrote his
commentary on the Gita, it was an unknown composition. It was certainly not
mentioned in the Tattavasangraha by Shantarakshit who wrote his treatise only
50 years before the advent of Shankaracharya.

His second reason is this: Vasubandhu was the originator of a school of thought
known as Vijnan Vad. The Brahma Sutra contains a criticism of Vijnan Vad. The
Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

Gita contains a reference to the Brahma Sutra. The Gita must, therefore, date
after Vasubandhu and after the Brahma Sutra. Vasubandhu was the preceptor of
the Gupta king Baladitya. That being so the Bhagwat Gita, or at least portions of
it must have been composed during or after the reign of Baladitya. [7]

Nature of the Bhagwat Gita

Ambedkar's reading of the Bhagwat Gita led him to the conclusion that there
were four separate parts of the Gita. They are so distinct that in the treatise as it
stands today they can be easily marked out.

(i) The original Gita was nothing more than a heroic tale told or a ballad recited
by the bards of how Arjuna was not prepared to fight and how Krishna forced
him to engage in battle, how Arjuna yielded and so on. This part will be found
embedded in chapters I, II and XI.

(ii) The first patch on the original Gita is the part in which Krishna is spoken of
as Isvara, the god of the Bhagwat religion. This part is embedded in those verses
of the present Gita which are devoted to Bhakti Yoga.

(iii) The second patch on the original Gita is the part which introduces the
Sankhya and Vedanta philosophy as a defence of the doctrines of Purva
Mimamsa which they did not have before. The philosophical portion of the Gita
was a later intrusion and as such can be proved quite easily from the nature of
the original dialogue.

In chapter II the first questions asked by Arjuna are natural questions and the
answers are also natural. Then suddenly Arjuna asks whether it is good to kill
the Kauravas or be killed by them. This is not a natural question. It is a
deliberate departure designed to give Krishna an opportunity to give a
philosophical defence of war in terms of Vedanta philosophy.

With regard to the introduction of the Sankhya philosophy the case is quite
obvious. Often it was expounded without its being a response to a question by
Arjuna and whenever it was propounded in answer to a question that question
had nothing to do with the war. This shows that the philosophic parts of the
Bhagwat Gita were not parts of the original Gita but have been added later on
and in order to find a place for them, new appropriate and leading questions
have been put in the mouth of Arjuna which have nothing to do with the
mundane problems of war.

(iv) The third patch on the Bhagwat Gita consists of verses in which Krishna is
elevated from the position of ishwar to that of parameshwar. This must be
placed in the reign of the Gupta kings. The Gupta kings made Krishna Vasudeva
Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

their family deity.

The Brahmins to whom religion has been a trade, who were never devoted to
one god but came forward to worship the deity of the ruling race thought of
pleasing their masters by making their family deity into a high and mighty
parameshwar. This must have been done in the 5th century AD. [8]

The Gita is considered by most Hindus as a book of ethical teaching. Ambedkar

does not agree with this view. He, on the other hand, criticizes a few positions
on moral questions taken by the Gita. The first doctrine he criticizes is the
justification of war.

Arjun had declared himself against the war, against killing people for the sake
of property. Krishna offers a philosophic defence of war and killing in war. The
philosophic defence of war offered by the Bhagwat Gita proceeds along two
lines of argument. One line is that anyhow the world is perishable and man is
mortal. Things are bound to come to an end. Man is bound to die. Why should it
make any difference to the wise whether a man dies a natural death or whether
he is done to death as a result of violence? Life is unreal, why shed tears
because it has ceased to be?

The second line of justification of war is that it is a mistake to think that body
and soul are one. They are separate, not only are the two quite distinct, but they
differ inasmuch as the body is perishable while the soul is eternal and
imperishable. When death occurs it is the body that dies. The soul never dies.
Not only does it never die, but air cannot dry it, fire cannot burn it, and weapon
cannot cut it. It is therefore wrong to say that when a man is killed, his soul is
killed. What happens is that his body dies. His soul discards the dead body as a
person discards his own clothes wears new ones and carries on. As the soul is
never killed, killing a person can never be a matter of any moment. War and
killing need, therefore, give no ground to remorse or to shame, so argues the
Bhagwat Gita. [9]

This defence of a kshatriya's duty to kill, Ambedkar thinks, is puerile. To say

that killing is no killing because what is killed is the body and not the soul, is an
unheard of defence of murder. If a lawyer acting for a client who is being tried
for murder pleads the defence set out by Krishna in the Gita, there is not the
slightest doubt that he would be sent to the lunatic asylum.

Defence of Chaturvarnya
Another dogma to which the Bhagwat Gita comes forward to offer a
philosophic defence is chaturvarnya. Ambedkar is at his best when he analyses
this defence. The Bhagwat Gita, he says, no doubt, mentions that chaturvarnya
Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

is created by god and therefore, sacrosanct. But it does not make its validity
dependent on it. It offers a philosophic basis to the theory of chaturvarnya by
linking it to the theory of innate, inborn qualities in men. The fixing of the varna
of men is not an arbitrary act, say the Gita. But it is fixed according to his innate
inborn qualities.

Ambedkar's first criticism of the theory is that it is illogical. In the chaturvarnya,

there are four varnas. But the gunas according to Sankhyas are only three. How
can a system of four varnas be defended on the basis of a philosophy which
does not recognize more than three varnas?

Ambedkar's main objection is to the basic principles underlying this social

system. The system of chaturvarnya which the Gita defends was in existence
from the Vedic times. Though the Hindus regard it as the unique creation of
their Aryan ancestors, it is in no sense unique. The Egyptians and the Persians
had a similar system. Plato was so convinced about its excellence that he
presented it as an ideal form of social organization. However, the ideal of
chaturvarnya is faulty. The lumping together of individuals into a few sharply
marked off classes is a very superficial view of man and his power. The ancient
Aryans as well as Plato had no conception of the uniqueness of every
individual, of his incommensurability with others and of each individual
forming a class of his own. They had no recognition of the infinite diversity of
active tendencies and combination of tendencies of which an individual is
capable. To them there were types of faculties or powers in the individual
constitution and all that is necessary for social organization is to classify them.
All that is demonstrably wrong. Modern science has shown that lumping
together of individuals into a few sharply marked off classes each confined to
one particular sphere does injustice both to the individual and to society. The
stratification of society by classes and occupations is incompatible with the
fullest utilization of the qualities which is so necessary for social advancement
and is also incompatible with the safety and security of the individual as well as
of society in general. [10]

There is another mistake which the ancient Hindus as well as Plato made. There
is probably some truth in saying that there is among human beings a
diamorphism or polymorphism as there is among insects, though in the former it
is only psychological while in the latter it is both physical as well as
psychological. But assuming that there is psychological polymorphism among
humans, it is wrong to separate them into those who are born to do one thing
and others to do another, some born to command, i.e., to be masters and some
born to obey, i.e., to be slaves. It is wrong to suppose that in a given person
some qualities are present and others absent. On the contrary the truth is that all
qualities are present in every person and this truth is not diminished in any way
Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

by that, some tendency predominates to the extent of being the only one that is
apparent. So well established is this truth that a tendency which may be
dominant in a man at one time may be quite different from and even the direct
opposite of the tendency that may be dominant at another time. It has happened
that in times of revolution, totally unassuming citizens, who were up to the
moment of the revolution humble and obedient, wake up one fine day with
pretensions to be leaders of men. [11]

The soul of the, Bhagwat Gita seems to be the defence of chaturvarnya and
securing its observance in practice. Krishna does not merely rest content with
saying that chaturvarnya is based on guna-karma but he goes further and issues
two positive injunctions.

The first injunction is contained in chapter 111, verse 26. In this Krishna says
that a wise man should not by counter-propaganda create a doubt in the mind of
an ignorant person who is a follower of karma kand which, of course, includes
the observance of the rules of chaturvarnya. In other words, you must not
agitate or excite people to rise in rebellion against the theory of karma kand and
all that it includes.

The second injunction is laid down in chapter XVIII, verses 41-48. In this
Krishna tells that everyone should do the duty prescribed for his varna and no
other and warns that those who worship him and are his devotees will not obtain
salvation by mere devotion but by devotion accompanied by observance of duty
laid down for his varna. In short a shudra however great he may be as a devotee
will not get salvation if he has transgressed the duty of the shudra, namely, to
live and die in the services of the higher classes.

The third dogma for which the Bhagwat Gita offers a philosophic defence,
Ambedkar continues, is the karma marga. By karma marga the Bhagwat Gita
means the performance of the observances, such as yajna as a way to salvation.
The Bhagwat Gita most stands out for the karma marga throughout and is a
great upholder of it. The line it takes to defend Karma Yoga is by removing the
excrescences which had grown upon it and which had made it appear quite
ugly.

The first excrescence was blind faith. The Gita tries to remove it by introducing
the principle of buddhi yoga as a necessary condition for karma yoga. Become
sthithapradnya, i.e., be fitted with buddhi, there is nothing wrong in the
performance of karma kand. The second excrescence on the karma kand was the
selfishness which was the motive behind the performance of the karma. The
Bhagwat Gita attempts to remove it by introducing the principle of anasakti, i.e.,
performance of karma without any attachment for the fruits, of the karma.
Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

Founded in buddhi yoga and dissociated from selfish attachment to the fruits of
karma what is wrong with the dogma of karma kand? This is how the Bhagwat
Gita defends the karma marga.

The dogmas which the Gita defends are the dogmas put forth in Jaimini's Purva
Mimamsa. A confusion has arisen in this regard because many writers have
attached a wrong meaning to the word karma yoga. Most writers on the
Bhagwat Gita translate the word karma yoga as action and the word jnana yoga
as knowledge and proceed to discuss the Bhagwat Gita as though it was
engaged in comparing and contrasting knowledge versus action in a generalized
form. This is quite wrong. The Bhagwat Gita is not concerned with any general
philosophic 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 the Gita means the dogmas contained in Jaimini's karma kand and by
jnana yoga or knowledge it means the dogmas contained in Badarayana's
Brahmasutras. That the Gita in speaking of karma is not speaking of activity or
inactivity, quieticism or energism in general terms, but with religious act and
observances cannot be denied by anyone who has read the Bhagwat Gita.

Some people, argues Ambedkar, might say that the Gita is anterior to Jaimini's
Purva Mimamsa. There is a tendency among Hindu scholars to believe in a very
high antiquity of Bhagwat Gita. It is therefore necessary to find the
probabilities. It is true that the Bhagwai Gita does not refer to Jaimini by name.
But there can be no doubt that chapter III, verses 9-19 of the Gita deal with the
doctrine formulated by Jaimini. Even Tilak had to admit that here the Gita is
engaged in the examination of Purva Mimamsa doctrine. Jaimini however
preaches pure and simple karma yoga. The Bhagwat Gita on the other hand
preaches anasakti karma. Thus the Gita preaches a doctrine which is
fundamentally modified. Not only does the Bhagwat Gita modify the karma
yoga, but it attacks the upholders of pure and simple karma yoga in somewhat
severe terms. If the Gita is prior to Jaimini one would expect Jaimini to take
note of this attack of the Bhagwat Gita and reply to it. But we do not find any
reference in Jaimini to this anasakti karma yoga of Gita. Why? The only answer
is that this modification came after Jaimini and not before [12]

Why did the Bhagwat Gita feel it necessary to defend the dogmas of counter-
revolution? Ambedkar thinks that the answer is clear. It was to save them from
the attack of Buddhism that the Bhagwat Gita came into being. Buddha had
preached non-violence. The people had accepted non-violence as a way of life.
Buddha preached against chaturvarnya. He allowed shudras and women to
become sanyasis. Buddha had condemned the karma kand and the yajna. He
condemned them on the ground of violence and also on the ground that the
motive behind them was a selfish desire to obtain boons. What was the reply of
Ambedkar and the Bhagwat Gita

the counter-revolutionaries? Only that, these things were ordained by the Vedas,
the Vedas are 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. So the Bhagwat Gita came to their
support. It resuscitated counter-revolution and if the counter-revolution lives
even today, it is entirely due to the plausibility of the philosophic defence which
it received from the Bhagwat Gita. [13 ]

Most historians of ancient India will not agree with Ambedkar on the use of the
terminology of revolution and counter-revolution for the rise of Buddhism, its
decline and the consolidation of Brahmanism. The word social revolution
implies a fundamental change in the social structure. Ambedkar has relied
mainly on the teaching of Gautam Buddha. He has not given any evidence to
prove his contention that there was a change in the social system under the rule
of Buddhist kings and the conditions of the shudras and women had improved.
However his conclusion that the Bhagwat Gita by its philosophical defence of
the chaturvarnya helped the consolidation of Brahmanism and the hierarchical
system of caste cannot be disputed.

Notes
I Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar-Writings and Speeches, Vol 3, pp 153-56.
2 Ibid, pp 175-76.
3 Ibid, p 187.
4 Ibid, p 221.
S Ibid, pp 270-75.
6 Ibid, pp 375-76.
7 Ibid, pp 244-45.
8 Ibid, pp 376-79.
9 Ibid, p 361.
10 Ibid, p 321.
11 Ibid, p 321.
12 Ibid, pp 362-63.
13 Ibid, pp 363-64.

Source of this article:

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 27, No. 20/21 (May 16-23, 1992), pp.
1063-1065