The sacred and the profane do not belong to the same class. There is a complete dichotomy between the two. As Prof Durkhiem observes:. The curious may want to know what has led men to see in this world this dichotomy between the sacred and the profane.
We must however refuse to enter into this discussion as it is unnecessary for the immediate purpose we have in mind. Confining ourselves to the issue the next thing to note is that the circle of sacred objects is not fixed. Its extent varies infinitely from religion to religion. Gods and spirits are not the only sacred things. A rock, a tree, an animal, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word anything can be sacred. Things sacred are always associated with interdictions otherwise called taboos.
To quote Prof Durkhiem again:. Religious interdicts take multiple forms. Most important of these is the interdiction on contact.
The interdiction on contact rests upon the principle that the profane should never touch the sacred. A look is a means of contact. That is why the sight of sacred things is forbidden to the profane in certain cases. For instance, women are not allowed to see certain things which are regarded as sacred. The word i. That is why the profane is forbidden to address the sacred things or to utter them. For instance, the Veda must be uttered only by the Brahmin and not by the Shudra.
An exceptionally intimate contact is the one resulting from the absorption of food. Hence comes the interdiction against eating the sacred animals or vegetables.
The interdictions relating to the sacred are not open to discussion. They are beyond discussion and must be accepted without question. The sacred is "untouchable" in the sense that it is beyond the pale of debate. All that one can do is to respect and obey. Lastly the interdictions relating to the sacred are binding on all. They are not maxims. They are injunctions. They are obligatory but not in the ordinary sense of the word. They partake of the nature of a categorical imperative.
Their breach is more than a crime. It is a sacrilege. The above summary should be enough for an understanding of the scope and function of religion. It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the subject further. The analysis of the working of the laws of the sacred which is the core of religion should enable any one to see that my answer to the question why beef-eating should make the Broken Men untouchables is the correct one.
All that is necessary to reach the answer I have proposed is to read the analysis of the working of the laws of the sacred with the cow as the sacred object. It will be found that Untouchability is the result of the breach of the interdiction against the eating of the sacred animal, namely, the cow. As has been said, the Brahmins made the cow a sacred animal.
They did not stop to make a difference between a living cow and a dead cow. The cow was sacred, living or dead. Beef-eating was not merely a crime. If it was only a crime it would have involved nothing more than punishment. Beef-eating was made a sacrilege. Anyone who treated the cow as profane was guilty of sin and unfit for association. The Broken Men who continued to eat beef became guilty of sacrilege. Once the cow became sacred and the Broken Men continued to eat beef, there was no other fate left for the Broken Men except to be treated unfit for association, i.
Before closing the subject it may be desirable to dispose of possible objections to the thesis. Two such objections to the thesis appear obvious.
One is what evidence is there that the Broken Men did eat the flesh of the dead cow. The second is why did they not give up beef-eating when the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins abandoned it. These questions have an important bearing upon the theory of the origin of untouchability advanced in this book and must therefore be dealt with. The first question is relevant as well as crucial.
If the Broken Men were eating beef from the very beginning, then obviously the theory cannot stand. For, if they were eating beef from the very beginning and nonetheless were not treated as Untouchables, to say that the Broken Men became Untouchables because of beef-eating would be illogical if not senseless. The second question is relevant, if not crucial. If the Brahmins gave up beef-eating and the non-Brahmins imitated them why did the Broken Men not do the same? If the law made the killing of the cow a capital sin because the cow became a sacred animal to the Brahmins and non-Brahmins, why were the Broken Men not stopped from eating beef?
If they had been stopped from eating beef there would have been no Untouchability. The answer to the first question is that even during the period when beef-eating was common to both, the Settled Tribesmen and the Broken Men, a system had grown up whereby the Settled Community ate fresh beef, while the Broken Men ate the flesh of the dead cow. We have no positive evidence to show that members of the Settled Community never ate the flesh of the dead cow.
But we have negative evidence which shows that the dead cow had become an exclusive possession and perquisite of the Broken Men. The evidence consists of facts which relate to the Mahars of the Maharashtra to whom reference has already been made. As has already been pointed out, the Mahars of the Maharashtra claim the right to take the dead animal. This right they claim against every Hindu in the village. This means that no Hindu can eat the flesh of his own animal when it dies.
He has to surrender it to the Mahar. This is merely another way of stating that when eating beef was a common practice the Mahars ate dead beef and the Hindus ate fresh beef. The only questions that arise are: Whether what is true of the present is true of the ancient past? Can this fact which is true of the Maharashtra be taken as typical of the arrangement between the Settled Tribes and the Broken Men throughout India? In this connection reference may be made to the tradition current among the Mahars according to which they claim that they were given 52 rights against the Hindu villagers by the Muslim King of Bedar.
Assuming that they were given by the King of Bedar, the King obviously did not create them for the first time. They must have been in existence from the ancient past. What the King did was merely to confirm them. This means that the practice of the Broken Men eating dead meat and the Settled Tribes eating fresh meat must have grown in the ancient past.
That such an arrangement should grow up is certainly most natural. The Settled Community was a wealthy community with agriculture and cattle as means of livelihood. The Broken Men were a community of paupers with no means of livelihood and entirely dependent upon the Settled Community. The principal item of food for both was beef.
It was possible for the Settled Community to kill an animal for food because it was possessed of cattle. The Broken Men could not for they had none. Would it be unnatural in these circumstances for the Settled Community to have agreed to give to the Broken Men its dead animals as part of their wages of watch and ward? Surely not. It can therefore be taken for granted that in the ancient past when both the Settled Community and Broken Men did eat beef the former ate fresh beef and the latter of the dead cow and that this system represented a universal state of affairs throughout India and was not confined to the Maharashtra alone.
This disposes of the first objection. To turn to the second objection. The law made by the Gupta Emperors was intended to prevent those who killed cows. It did not apply to the Broken Men. For they did not kill the cow. They only ate the dead cow. Their conduct did not contravene the law against cow-killing.
The practice of eating the flesh of the dead cow therefore was allowed to continue. Nor did their conduct contravene the doctrine of Ahimsa assuming that it has anything to do with the abandonment of beef-eating by the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins. Killing the cow was Himsa. But eating the dead cow was not. The Broken Men had therefore no cause for feeling qualms of conscience in continuing to eat the dead cow.
Neither the law nor the doctrine of Himsa could interdict what they were doing, for what they were doing was neither contrary to law nor to the doctrine. As to why they did not imitate the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins the answer is two fold. In the first place, imitation was too costly. They could not afford it. The flesh of the dead cow was their principal sustenance. Without it they would starve. In the second place, carrying the dead cow had become an obligation though originally it was a privilege.
As they could not escape carrying the dead cow they did not mind using the flesh as food in the manner in which they were doing previously. Share your perspective on this article with a post on ScrollStack, and send it to your followers. Contribute Now. Earlier in the book, Ambedkar introduces the concept of Broken Men, whom he describes as follows: In a tribal war it often happened that a tribe instead of being completely annihilated was defeated and routed.
Fasting is a regular feature of the Hindu religion but few Hindus insist on fasting in hospital. Fasting is commonly practised on new moon days and during festivals such as Shivaratri, Saraswati Puja and Durga Puja. Some fasts may only require abstinence from certain foods. Hindus will require water for washing in the same room as the toilet itself. If there is no tap there, or if they have to use a bed-pan, they will be grateful to have a container of water provided.
Hindu patients prefer to wash in free-flowing water, rather than sit in a bath. As Indian food is eaten using the fingers, hand washing before and after meals is customary. A Hindu woman will much prefer a female doctor when being examined or treated. Hindu women should be accommodated in mixed wards only in emergencies. A Hindu woman may find it difficult to accept an X-ray gown because it is short.
Hindu women may wear bangles or a thread and you should not remove them without permission. Some Hindus wear a red spot on their foreheads or scalp, which again should not be removed or washed off without permission. If a Hindu patient is dying in hospital, relatives may wish to bring money and clothes for him or her to touch before they are given to the needy.
They will wish to keep a bedside vigil — if the visitors are not allowed to go to the bedside themselves they will be grateful if a nurse can do this for them while they wait. Some relatives will welcome an opportunity to sit with the dying patient and read from a holy book.
After death the body should always be left covered. Sacred objects should not be removed. Relatives will wish to wash the body and put on new clothes before taking it from the hospital. Traditionally the eldest son of the deceased should take a leading part in this, however young he may be. Hindus consider the cow sacred and there are references in ancient spiritual texts like the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda to protecting them.
The ancient health system Ayurveda and the caste system also state that eating meat will make you feel dull and sleepy post-lunch nap anyone? But practically speaking, put yourself into the shoes of a farmer living in a small village in India.
Your cow was your livelihood, her milk kept you and your family alive over many years. You could sell her milk and make a living. So of course, your cow is going to be very important to you. On one video I posted an Indian viewer stated, that cows cry if someone dies in the family and show maternal love for their owners, similar to a dog.
Gandhi had a big influence on Indian culture as well, and he was a big fan of cows. He was a devoted vegetarian his whole life, and if you read his autobiography can learn all about the different dietary experiments he tried he swore goat milk and fasting were the key to health as he sought to become enlightened and work more effectively.
Gandhi referenced the first consecrated king in legends, King Prithu, who chased a goddess in the form of a cow who eventually let herself be milked. This symbolized how natures bounty would feed the people, similar to how some people refer to and feel comforted by the concept of Mother Earth. Our mother gives us milk for a couple of years and then expects us to serve her when we grow up. Mother cow expects from us nothing but grass and grain. Our mother often falls ill and expects service from us.
Mother cow rarely falls ill.
0コメント