Brahmin counter-revolution in 187 BCE hold a glimpse of India today
By Ajaz Ashraf
In his incomplete work Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient
India, Dr BR Ambedkar credits Buddha and his teachings for laying the
foundation of a revolution more than two millenniums ago. Buddha (died 486 BCE)
repudiated the authority of the Vedas, harped on good conduct for
salvation, and denounced the caste system as well as the ghastly, expensive
ritual of animal sacrifice.
Under
the Buddhist revolution, knowledge was not deemed the monopoly of the
twice-born. Into the sangha, the monastic order Buddha founded, the Shudras
were admitted – they could become bhikku, the Buddhist equivalent of Brahmins.
Salvation was not ruled out for women, who had their own order, the bhikkhuni
sangha.
Not
only was the hegemony of Brahmins challenged, they also experienced a loss of status under the Mauryan dynasty (321 BCE-187 BCE). This
was because “Ashoka made it [Buddhism] the religion of the state”, Ambedkar
writes in Revolution and Counter-Revolution. That delivered the “greatest
blow to Brahmanism. The Brahmins lost all state patronage and were neglected to
a secondary and subsidiary position”.
Ambedkar
writes that the withdrawal of state patronage affected the earnings of
Brahmins, as Ashoka banned animal sacrifice, over which only they could preside
in return for lavish gifts. “The Brahmins therefore lived as the suppressed and
depressed classes for nearly 140 years during which the Mauryan Empire lasted,”
he notes.
The Brahmin
counter-revolution
The only escape for
the Brahmins from their ignominy was to usher in a counter-revolution. The man who led the charge against Buddhism was
Pushyamitra,
commander of the Mauryan army. He assassinated
King Brihadratha, usurped the throne and inaugurated the Shunga dynasty.
Pushyamitra was a Brahmin. His aim was to “destroy
Buddhism as a state religion” and deploy the state power to facilitate
Brahmanism’s triumph over Buddhism.
Ambedkar
provides evidence to bolster his theory of counter-revolution. For one,
Pushyamitra performed the Ashvamedha or horse sacrifice on his accession,
as if heralding the restoration of Brahmanism’s preeminent status. For the
other, Ambedkar writes, “Pushyamitra… launched a violent and virulent campaign
of persecution against Buddhists and Buddhism.” Ambedkar refers to
Pushyamitra’s proclamation that set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of
every Buddhist monk.
Pushyamitra
is indeed depicted in Buddhist texts as the community’s principal tormentor.
In Political Violence in Ancient India, Upinder Singh writes of a
Buddhist legend that says that “on the advice of a wicked Brahmana, Pushyamitra
decided to rival Ashoka’s fame by destroying the 84,000 stupas that the latter had built”. Singh notes that
archaeologist John Marshall linked the “great
damage” that was “wantonly inflicted” on the famous Sanchi Stupa to Pushyamitra.
Ambedkar
also mentions two later rulers, Mihirakula
(520 CE) and Shashanka (7th century CE), who killed Buddhists to try to root
out Buddhism. “The whole history of India is made to appear as though the
only important thing in it is a catalogue of Muslim invasion,” he writes. “If Hindu India was invaded by the Muslim
invaders so was Buddhist India invaded by Brahmanic India.”
Manu Smriti and revival
There are many
similarities between the two invasions, but also one crucial difference – Islam did not supplant Hinduism, but
Brahmanism drove out Buddhism and occupied its place. Whatever remained of
Buddhism in India disappeared because of the iconoclasm of Muslim rulers.
Ambedkar then delves into the mechanism through which Brahmanism struck such deep roots that Muslim
rulers could not uproot it.
He
says it was because of the promulgation of Manu’s code of law or the Manu
Smriti. Unlike many contemporary historians who date the Manu
Smriti anywhere between 200 BCE and 200 CE, Ambedkar painstakingly
cites sources to show it was compiled between 170 BC and 150 BCE. That places
the Manu Smriti in Pushyamitra’s reign.
According
to Ambedkar, Manu’s code established the right of Brahmins to rule, turned them
into a privileged class by a margin, converted the Varna into caste, degraded
the status of Shudras and women, introduced the idea of “graded inequality”,
and created “conflict and anti-social” feelings among castes. Manu bestowed on
Brahmins monopoly over the teaching of the Vedas, apart from
re-introducing the ritual of sacrifice.
Undoubtedly, Revolution
and Counter-Revolution creates a neat binary of Brahmins and Buddhists
without the greyness implicit in any reading of the past. Perhaps Ambedkar’s
own experience of the inequality perpetuated by caste permeated into his
aborted work. His insights did indeed influence the framing of the Indian
Constitution, which signified a revolution of the democratic kind. It abolished
untouchability, recognised the equality of all citizens before the law, and
provided for positive discrimination or reservation for depressed groups.
‘Graded inequality’
It may seem
bewildering that the Sangh, undeniably the
principal sponsor of 21st-century Brahmanic thought, should repeatedly win the support of non-upper
castes. Ambedkar’s “graded inequality” explains the phenomenon well:
“… Inequality is not
half so dangerous as graded inequality. Inequality does not last long. Under
pure and simple inequality two things happen. It creates general discontent
which forms the seed of revolution. It makes the sufferers combine against a
common foe on a common grievance.”
By
contrast, graded inequality, of which the caste system is an example, prevents
the rise of general discontent that can become the “storm centre of revolution”.
Ambedkar explains: “[With] the sufferers… becoming unequal both in terms of the
benefit and the burden there is no possibility of a general combination of all
classes to overthrow the inequity.”
This
possibility is further reduced because the ruler adopts the divide and rule
policy, of which the Modi government’s position on K Mahajan is an instance. It
will soon sub-categorise the
Other Backward Classes into three groups and slice and distribute the 27%
reservation unequally among them. The government is also keen on passing the
National Commission for Backward Classes Bill, which will vest in Parliament
the power to exclude and include a social group from the reservation pool. This
may just become the route to squeeze in Jats, Marathas and Kapus into the Other
Backward Classes for reservation. The phenomenon of graded inequality will
prompt the Shudras to fight among themselves; the beneficiaries will likely
swing behind the BJP.
Co-option and communal tension
The other method of
ushering in counter-revolution is through co-option of radical forces. A resurgent
Brahmanism co-opted Buddha as the ninth avatar of Vishnu, blunting whatever
edge Buddhism retained after attacks from Pushyamitra, Mihirakula, and
Shashanka. Likewise, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has concertedly sought to
appropriate Ambedkar.
Another
favoured method of counter-revolution is to fan communal tension to spawn
affinity among castes. In his Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar
notes, “A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes, except
when there is a Hindu-Moslem riot. On all other occasions each caste endeavours
to segregate itself and distinguish itself from other castes.” It is to forge a
bond among castes that Sangh footsoldiers target Muslims in the hope the BJP
will benefit from it electorally.
Commentators
have often spoken of the “Muslim question”, the “Dalit question” and such like.
It is strange that they have never thought of discussing the “upper caste
question”. It is to the reactionary elements among the upper castes that
commentators should turn to preach, for it is their conduct that imperils the
ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity enshrined in our Constitution. The
very ideas, however rudimentary, that Pushyamitra’s counter-revolution of 187
BCE undermined.
To
read the full text of this article, click: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/secularperspective/bbGTPxCsjUA
Comments
Post a Comment