Of Beef, Brahmins and Game Theory

Disclaimers: This post may be quite (in)sensitive, reader discretion is strongly advised. All opinions presented here are my own and inspired by a lecture I attended today. I do not make any guarantee of the veracity of the facts presented. Interested readers can conduct their own research to verify the facts for themselves.

Today’s class by Prof. D’souza brought up a few interesting observations about how consumption of Beef has become such a taboo in India. The Aryans, during their migration of India, were non-vegetarians. According to Pota, the pulse-based tamil dishes were introduced into the diet to ensure sufficient proteins in the meals when the brahmins shifted from their non-vegetarian to vegetarian diet. There seems to be enough evidence to suggest that Aryans consumed beef. All stories speak about ancient kings donating cattle to brahmins in the land, and about cattle being offered as sacrifice. In Greek mythology such as The Iliad, animals offered to gods as sacrificed were then consumed by the heroes who made the sacrifice. If similar behaviour existed in India too, then these seem to suggest that beef was indeed an acceptable and perhaps preferred part of the meal in India.

If that was the case, when did beef suddenly become a prohibited meal item in India? This aversion to slaughter of cattle has reached such highs that it is being compared to cannibalism, and the directive principles of state policy recommend prohibition of cattle slaughter to be enforced by the state governments. Turns out, Game Theory has an elegant explanation to this change.

In the early 6th century, draughts used to be quite common in India. Given the dependence of the early civilizations on agriculture, periods of draughts were quite difficult to handle. Most households had their own stock of cattle used to plough the farm land. Since cattle can survive for much longer periods with limited supply of food and water, the cattle had a higher probability of making it through the draught than their human owners. When food supply ran out, the people went on to consume the tubers, then the seeds earmarked for sowing in the next season, and finally, turned to slaughtering their cattle for food. However, killing their cattle ensured certain doom for the household, as they would not have cattle to help them plough the land when the next rains occur. 

This left the people in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. If a man and his neighbour both did not kill their cattle, then both have a chance of surviving in the long term. If both killed their cattle, both are unlikely to survive in the long run. If one man killed his cattle but his neighbour did not, then he might make it through the draught. However, his unlucky neighbour might not make it through, and his cattle could be picked up by the surviving neighbour to plough his land. Thus, irrespective of the actions of the neighbour, a man is better off by killing and consuming his cattle. This logic, however, takes the society to the Nash Equilibrium, where both men would kill their cattle and thus lead the society to a total disastrous end. 

Whenever similar situations occur, the natural course of events would take the society to the Nash Equilibrium, unless the society formulates a set of guidelines to prevent the people from acting the way they would normally have done. In this case, considering cattle as holy animals and slaughter of cattle a sin was the society’s way of ensuring that the livestock are saved from slaughter and are preserved until farming could be resumed with the next rains. This ensured that agriculture formed a key part of successful Indian civilizations.

So, considering the changed circumstances, does it still make sense to stick to the old traditions for the sake of preserving them? Maybe it’s time to start asking questions.