Where’s the Beef?: Prominent Mythologist Deconstructs the Myth That Vegetarianism is Inherent to Hinduism

Devdutt Pattanaik, one of India’s most prominent mythologists and scholars of Hindu philosophy, has spent decades challenging a widespread misconception: that vegetarianism is an essential, defining characteristic of Hinduism. Pattanaik argues that vegetarianism is neither historically inherent to Hinduism nor a commandment of Hindu philosophy — and that the conflation of vegetarianism with Hindu identity reflects modern politics rather than ancient wisdom.

“You can’t equate vegetarian food with Hinduism,” Pattanaik states directly, posing a fundamental challenge to contemporary Hindu nationalist ideology that equates vegetarianism with Hindu purity.

 The Vegetarian Myth

Pattanaik’s core argument is straightforward: most Hindus are not, and have never been, vegetarian. “The idea of a vegetarian diet has spread throughout the world, thanks to many Hindu and Jain immigrants in the USA and the UK and the popularity of yoga. However, not all Hindus are vegetarian. In fact, most aren’t,” he writes on his website.

He identifies a historical irony: “Since vegetarian practices distinguish Hindus from other communities, and was seen as ‘quaint’ in Western societies until recent times, it has become the defining trait of Hinduism, statistics notwithstanding,” according to his essay “Are Hindus vegetarian?”

What happened, Pattanaik explains, is that immigrant communities emphasized their vegetarian practices in the Western context because these practices seemed exotic and distinguished them culturally. Over time, this visible minority practice became conflated with Hinduism itself — a conflation that modern Hindu nationalist politics has reinforced.

 The Vedic Evidence: Animal Sacrifice and Meat-Eating

Pattanaik grounds his argument in historical and textual evidence. When examining ancient Hindu texts, the picture becomes clear: Vedic rituals explicitly included animal sacrifice. “If we look at early religious texts, the picture changes. Vedic rituals included animal sacrifice. Horse meat, goat meat and other meats are mentioned,” Pattanaik writes in his essay “Are vegetarians kinder people?”

The Vedas themselves contain numerous references to meat consumption and sacrifice. According to Pattanaik, “In Vedic times, animal sacrifice was very much part of the ritual. In fact, many Brahmins would not touch meat unless it was an offering in the sacred ritual,” he states in his essay “Uniting Hindus With Pure Food.”

One striking example from the Rigveda involves the god Indra. “In this reading, Agni roasts three hundred buffaloes (mahisha) for Indra, who drinks vast quantities of Soma before slaying the serpent-demon Vrtra. The verses are seen as reflecting the sacrificial rituals and warrior culture of the Vedic age,” according to Pattanaik’s essay “Did Indra Eat Buffaloes?”

However, Pattanaik notes that later interpreters reinterpreted these texts. “Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati in the early 20th century rejected this interpretation. He argued that the Vedas contain eternal spiritual and scientific truths, not mythology, meat-eating, or intoxication,” according to Pattanaik’s analysis. Dayanand reinterpreted key words through Sanskrit etymology — transforming mahisha (buffalo) into “mighty cloud formations” and Soma into “life-giving moisture.”

The Goddess Kali and Blood Sacrifice

Pattanaik’s discussion of goddesses further complicates the vegetarianism narrative. Traditionally, goddesses in Hindu practice were — and still are in certain communities — offered blood sacrifices of goats, buffaloes, and birds.

“For devis, traditionally, there would be blood sacrifices — goats, buffaloes, birds. These days it is not popular because of animal rights. A devi is Raktavilasini, one who loves rakt, blood,” Pattanaik writes in his essay “Food is truth: What the Hindu gods are given to eat and why.”

He explains the metaphorical significance: “Bhudevi, the earth goddess, is considered to be a cow whose milk sustains everyone. But how will she sustain herself? In the form of Gauri, she gives milk, and in the form of Kali, she drinks blood — the cycle of life, as it were. This is to emphasise the idea that whenever you eat, you’ve killed something, sacrificed someone, offered bali.”

Notably, goddesses like Kali remain deeply venerated in Hindu practice, and blood offerings continue in certain communities despite modern animal rights concerns.

“Hinduism is a plural religion, an umbrella term for many jatis, sampradayas and paramparas, some of whom may be vegetarian some of the time, or not at all. There is no such thing as a Hindu commandment telling Hindus what to eat or not to eat.” 

Hindu Pluralism: No Commandments About Food

Central to Pattanaik’s argument is his emphasis on Hindu pluralism. “Hinduism is a plural religion, an umbrella term for many jatis, sampradayas and paramparas, some of whom may be vegetarian some of the time, or not at all. There is no such thing as a Hindu commandment telling Hindus what to eat or not to eat,” he states, according to his essay “Were Our Hindu Gods Meat-eaters?”

He illustrates this pluralism through the story of a Tamil saint. “Two kinds of devotees visited a Shiva temple — a vegetarian priest who followed all the rituals and a tribal hunter who did not know any ritual. Every dawn, the priest would conduct the rituals as prescribed by the scriptures. At dusk, the hunter would reach the temple and give the deity there all that he had found in the forest that day: Flowers, water from mountain springs and the best portion of the game he had hunted that day,” Pattanaik recounts.

The implication is clear: both devotees were equally valid expressions of Hindu spirituality, regardless of their dietary practices.

The Caste and Political Dimensions

Pattanaik identifies modern vegetarianism as intimately connected with caste politics and historical processes of Sanskritization. “In North India, eating meat was linked with Muslims and low castes. And so during the decline of Mughal rule, when Rajput kings were asserting independence and declaring their Hindu identity, they promoted vegetarianism as a sign of differentiating themselves from their former masters,” according to his essay “Uniting Hindus With Pure Food.”

He notes that “Low caste peasants changed dietary patterns in order to be seen as high caste, a process known as Sanskritisation. Thus, diet defined not just religion but also caste.”

More provocatively, Pattanaik connects vegetarianism to the creation of untouchability. “This third variety of vegetarianism contributes to the creation of ‘untouchables’, those involved in ‘dirty’ professions involving leather, dirt, garbage and dead bodies, and who are just too poor to restrict themselves to a pure vegetarian diet, who get their proteins from easily available, relatively cheap, innards of chicken and goat that the ‘upper’ castes deem unfit to eat,” according to his essay “Vegetarianism and the idea of untouchability.”

Vegetarianism as a Form of Violence, Not Virtue

Pattanaik challenges the modern assumption that vegetarianism represents a more ethical path. “To stay alive we have to eat. Eating is violent. Consumption is violent,” he writes in his essay “Vegetarianism is Not About the Environment, But About Caste.”

He explains the paradox: “Plant food comes from farms which were created after decimating forests, destroying mountains and rivers, killing countless creatures in the process.” Therefore, vegetarianism does not avoid violence — it simply obscures it.

“The Devi always reminds you that to build your civilization, sanskriti, you destroy prakriti, nature,” Pattanaik argues, suggesting that Hindu philosophy acknowledges this fundamental paradox rather than pretending it away through dietary choices.

Furthermore, he notes that “A vegetarian diet does not automatically cleanse greed, prejudice or exploitation. Ethical life cannot be reduced to ingredients. Within Indian history, there are vegetarian bankers and merchants who funded Islamic sultanates and the East India Company. They earned wealth through systems that enabled war and conquest,” according to his essay “Are vegetarians kinder people?”

Influence of Buddhism and Jainism

Pattanaik traces the shift toward vegetarianism to the influence of Buddhist and Jain philosophies, which explicitly rejected Vedic sacrifice. “Hermit orders such as Buddhism and Jainism popularized ideas of compassion, non-violence and vegetarianism. They opposed Vedic rituals that at one time included animal sacrifices,” according to his essay “Why do Hindus worship cows?”

He notes that “according to Jayadeva, Vishnu descended as Buddha out of compassion for animals that were being killed as part of rituals.” However, he emphasizes that Hinduism, unlike Buddhism and Jainism, never became prescriptive about vegetarianism: “However, Hinduism, unlike Buddhism and Jainism, has never been prescriptive. Castes and communities created rules for themselves. Not for all.”

 The Contemporary Danger

Pattanaik expresses concern about how modern Hindu nationalism weaponizes vegetarianism. “This obsession with reducing Hinduism to a single behavior is common among two groups of people: Loud Hindutva radicals and their sworn enemies, the Hinduphobes,” he writes.

He is particularly critical of those who use vegetarianism as a marker of Hindu superiority or authenticity. “Brahminism is but a tiny subset of Hinduism, and not all Brahmins are vegetarian,” he emphasizes, noting that the attempt to equate Brahminical practices with universal Hindu practice is historically inaccurate.

Ultimately, Pattanaik’s argument about vegetarianism exemplifies his broader approach to Hindu mythology and history: questioning assumptions, examining evidence, acknowledging plurality, and resisting attempts to reduce complex traditions into simple, monolithic rules.

His message is particularly relevant in contemporary India, where debates over vegetarianism have become increasingly politicized, with cow protection and vegetarianism often used as markers of Hindu identity and Hindu superiority. Pattanaik’s scholarship suggests that such claims are modern inventions with limited historical or textual basis.

Through extensive essays, videos, and public lectures, Pattanaik continues to challenge what he sees as a modern myth — that vegetarianism defines Hinduism — by grounding his arguments in the ancient texts, plural historical practices, and the sophisticated philosophy of Hindu traditions that have, for millennia, accommodated diverse dietary choices as equally valid expressions of faith.