4. B. R. Ambedkar
Dr. Ambedkar (1891-1956) is politically well known in India as an architect of the Indian Constitution. His role in framing of the Hindu Code Bill is also relatively known. However, in this chapter I will concentrate on his philosophy of religion. Ambedkar who was born in an "untouchable" family carried on a relentless battle against untouchability throughout his adult life. In the last part of his life, he renounced Hinduism and became a Buddhist. What were his reasons for doing so? Is it possible to describe him as a rationalist, humanist and atheist? These interesting questions demand answers.
Though there are strong rationalist tendencies in his thought and he has interpreted Buddhism in a rationalist manner, Ambedkar, in my opinion, cannot be, strictly speaking, described as a rationalist, since he ultimately embraced and advocated a religion, namely, Buddhism. He cannot be described as a humanist either in the secular sense for the same reason. Nevertheless, he was certainly an atheist, and that, is my justification for including him in this book. Besides, among all religions, Buddhism is, according to me, closest to rationalism-humanism. In fact, Ambedkar’s interpretation of Buddhism has brought it even closer to rationalism and humanism. Ambedkar has clearly rejected God and soul. He has also rejected the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas and the varna-vyavastha. Moreover, there are several groups describing themselves as “rationalist” or “humanist” which derive inspiration from Ambedkar. Thus, it cannot be denied that Ambedkar is an important twentieth century Indian thinker from a rationalist- humanist point of view.
Biography
Ambedkar: Life and Mission by Dhananjay Keer and the multivolume biography of Ambedkar in Marathi by Khairmode are important biographical sources on Ambedkar. The foregoing account is based mainly on Keer’s biography of Ambedkar and on B.R. Ambedkar by W.N.Kuber. The Social Context of an Ideology by M.S. Gore, too, contains some biographical material on Ambedkar, particularly in the context of the evolution of his ideology.
Dr. Ambedkar led an active and eventful life. He was a political leader, constitutional expert, social revolutionary, scholar and thinker combined in one. There are several aspects of his personality and life. What follows is not a comprehensive account of his life but only a brief sketch highlighting some of the main events. I have concentrated mainly on his education and his social struggle against untouchability.
B.R. Ambedkar or Bhim was born at Mahu in Central India on April 14, 1891. He was born in the Mahar caste of Maharashtra, which was traditionally treated as untouchable. His father Ramji Sakpal was an instructor in the Indian Army under the British. He was a staunch Kabirpanthi. Ambedkar’s mother, Bheemabai, died, when Ambedkar was only six years old.
School Education
Bhimrao started his school education in 1900 in the Government High School, Satara. At that time, his name in the school was Bhiva Ramji Ambavadekar. One Brahmin teacher named Ambedkar in the Satara High School loved Bhimrao very much. As a mark of love and respect for him, Bhimrao started calling himself "Ambedkar". Throughout his life, he remained grateful to the teacher who treated him kindly during his school days.
During his school days, Ambedkar had several humiliating experiences, which made him realize what the stigma of untouchability meant. Once, Ambedkar and his brother were going to Goregaon from Masur Railway Station. They hired a bullock-cart for this purpose. Hardly had the cart gone a few yards when the caste Hindu cart-man realized that the two boys in his cart were "untouchables". He threw them out on the road in a fit of rage, because he felt that they had polluted his wooden cart. Ambedkar and his brother calmed the cart man’s anger by paying double the fare. Ambedkar's elder brother drove the cart, and the cart-man followed the cart on foot, as he was afraid of being polluted! Ambedkar and his brother could not get drinking water during the whole journey.
Similarly, barbers refused to cut Ambedkar's hair because of fear of pollution. Ambedkar's sister used to cut her brother's hair. Further, because of being an "untouchable" by birth, Ambedkar was forced to sit apart from other students in the school. He could not mix with other boys or play cricket and other games with them. His teachers would not touch his notebooks. Some of them would not even ask the "untouchables" to recite poems or put questions to them for fear of being polluted! When they felt thirsty in the school, they turned their mouths upward and somebody would kindly pour drinking water into their mouths. The "untouchables" were traditionally prohibited from learning Sanskrit. The Sanskrit teacher in Ambedkar's school refused to teach Sanskrit to the "untouchables". Ambedkar had no option except to study Persian as the second language in the high school.
In 1904, Ambedkar's father, Ramji, shifted to Bombay. Ambedkar joined the Elphinstone High School. In Satara Ambedkar was not allowed to play games, but he did not face any such restriction at Bombay. However, there were incidents, which made Ambedkar realize his "untouchable" status. The non-untouchable Hindu children used to keep their tiffin-boxes behind the blackboard in classroom. Once, Ambedkar was asked to write something on the blackboard. Ambedkar's classmates were afraid that their food would be polluted by Ambedkar's presence near the board. They ran to the blackboard and removed their tiffin boxes from there even before Ambedkar could reach and touch the board!
Ambedkar passed his Matriculation Examination in 1907. This event was celebrated by his family. In those days, a child coming from Mahar family passing the Matriculation Examination was a highly unusual event.
Marriage
Ambedkar was married, at a young age of seventeen years, after doing his matriculation. His wife, Rami, later renamed Ramabai, was only nine years old at that time. She was the second daughter of her then deceased father, Bhiku Walangkar, who worked as a porter. The marriage was solemnized in the open shed of the Byculla Market of Bombay.
Higher Education
The Maharaja Sayajirao Gaikawad of Baroda had announced scholarship for higher studies to any promising untouchable student. Ambedkar welcomed the opportunity and joined Elphinstone College, Bombay. One of his teachers, Professor Muller, lent him books and gave him clothes. However, the overall environment was humiliating. The college hotelkeeper, who was a Brahmin, would not give him tea or water. Nonetheless, Ambedkar concentrated all his energies on his studies and passed his B.A. examination in 1912 with English and Persian as his subjects.
Baroda State Service
After his graduation, Ambedkar joined the Baroda State Service. He had hardly served for fifteen days when his father died on February 2, 1913. The higher office in Baroda State was manned by upper caste Hindus. The idea of pollution by touch was so strong that even the peons in his office used to throw office files at him from a distance! He could not get residential accommodation in any decent locality. He was staying with Pandit Atma Ram, an Arya Samajist. The social conditions were highly unfavorable and it was difficult for him to continue in service. He therefore decided to resign his post at the earliest opportunity.
Higher Education in USA and UK
Ambedkar got another opportunity to pursue higher education when the Maharaja of Baroda decided to send some students to the U.S.A. for higher studies at Columbia University. Ambedkar was one of them. In third week of July 1913, he joined Columbia University, New York, as a Gaikawad Scholar. He was the first Mahar to study in a foreign university. Ambedkar joined a cosmopolitan club where some of the Indian students lived. He could now move freely and could continue with his daily routine in an atmosphere of equality. This was a very new experience for him.
In June 1915, Ambedkar obtained his M.A. degree for his thesis on "Ancient Indian Commerce". In May 1916, he read a paper on "Castes in India, their Mechanism, Genesis and Development" at the Anthropology Seminar of Dr. A.A. Goldenweizer. It was published in the Indian Antiquary, in May 1917. It was also published in the form of a brochure, the first published work of Ambedkar. In the paper, Ambedkar described endogamy as the “essence of caste”. He expressed the view that the caste was a “closed class”.
In June 1916, Ambedkar submitted his thesis for the degree of Ph.D. entitled "National Dividend for India: A Historical and Analytical Study". It was published eight years later as The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India. Ambedkar left Columbia University in June 1916 to join London School of Economics and Political Science as a graduate student. In October 1916, he was admitted to Gray's Inn for Law. However, he had to return to India after spending a year in London, because the scholarship granted to him had lapsed. In London, he had been working on a thesis for the M.Sc. (Economics) degree.
Back to Baroda
In July 1917, Ambedkar was made Military Secretary to the Maharaja of Baroda with a view to be groomed for the post of the State's Finance Minister. However, he could not get accommodation in any hotel or hostel in Baroda. He took shelter in a Parsee hotel and stayed there incognito. He received similar treatment in his office. Peons flung office files on his table. Drinking water was not available in his office. The humiliations reached a climax, when one day a group of Parsees armed with lathis forced Ambedkar to vacate the Parsee hotel where he was living. No Hindu or Muslim was prepared to give him shelter in the city All this was unbearable to him. He sent a note to the Maharaja; but the Diwan expressed his inability to do anything in the matter. Ultimately Ambedkar left Baroda and went to Bombay in November 1917.
Bombay: Sydenham College
In Bombay Ambedkar tried to mould his life afresh. He started a business firm offering advice to dealers in stocks and shares. Nevertheless, he closed permanently as the customers were not ready to come to an "untouchable" for advice. In November 1918, he joined as Professor of Political Economy in Sydenham College, Bombay. He served the college from November 1918 to March 1920. As his fame spread, students from other colleges attended his lectures. However, the social treatment remained unchanged. "The high-caste Professors objected to his drinking water from the pot reserved for the professorial staff". Gandhi’s travails in South Africa are well known. It is a pity that Ambedkar had to face similar, or even worse, treatment in his own country!
Mooknayak
In January 1920, Ambedkar started a Marathi fortnightly Mooknayak (Spokesman of the Voiceless) to champion the cause of the depressed classes in India. In the editorial of the first issue, he remarked that the existing newspapers were catering only to the interests of certain castes. He said, "devoid of power and knowledge, the non-brahmins and the depressed classes cannot make any progress."
Depressed Class Conferences
In the meantime, different conferences of depressed classes were being organized in Maharashtra. Ambedkar attended the conferences of the depressed classes held at Nagpur (1918) and Kolhapur (1920) under the presidentship of Sahu Maharaj. At the later conference, Sahu Maharaj declared that Ambedkar had the potential for becoming an all India leader.
Back to UK for Higher Studies
In September 1920, Ambedkar rejoined the London School of Economics and Political Science and entered Gray's Inn to qualify as a barrister. He had saved some money with the cooperation of his wife for this purpose while working at Sydenham College. He accepted some financial help from Sahu Maharaj as well. In June 1921, the University of London accepted his thesis “Provincial Decentralization of Imperial Finance in British India" for the M.Sc. (Econ.) degree. In 1922-23, he spent some months studying Economics in the University of Bonn in Germany. In March 1923, he submitted his thesis “The Problem of the Rupee - its Origin and its Solution” for the degree of D.Sc. (Econ.). Ambedkar was called to Bar in April 1923. Thus Ambedkar became M.A, Ph.D., M.Sc., D.Sc. and Bar at Law.
Back to India
On returning to India Ambedkar started practicing at Bombay High Court. In July 1924, he founded the Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha (Society to Serve the Interest of Outcastes), an educational and cultural organization aimed at improving the conditions of depressed classes. The motto of the organization was “Educate, Organize and Agitate”.
Ambedkar was also gaining foothold as a lawyer. He fought a successful defense in a libel case filed against some non-Brahmin leaders who had published a pamphlet against Brahmins declaring that the Brahmins had ruined India. However, for a regular income between 1925-28, he had to depend on his pay as a teacher in Batliboi Accountancy Training Institute.
The Mahad Conference
In 1927, the Governor nominated Ambedkar to the Bombay Legislature. In 1927, itself the Mahar conference was organized which marked the emergence of Ambedkar as an important leader. The conference ended with his first act of public protest. The protest consisted simply of the assertion of the right of untouchables to draw and drink water from an open public tank in Mahad, a small town in the Konkan region of Maharashtra.
In 1923, the Bombay legislative Council had passed a resolution recommending that “the untouchable classes be allowed to use all public water-places, wells and dharamshalas which are built and maintained out of public funds or administered by bodies appointed by Government or created by statute.”
The Bombay Government issued a directive in 1923 to give effect to this resolution. Inspite of the resolution, many local boards and municipalities including Mahad Municipality did not grant civil rights to the depressed classes. In 1926, the Bombay Legislative Council passed another resolution denying financial grants to such defaulting municipalities and local boards. Finally, the Mahad Municipality threw open the tank (which was famous for its tasty water and hence known as Chowdar) to all communities. Dr. Ambedkar organized the Dalits to assert their rights to drink and take water from the tank. Thousands of delegates attended a conference of “untouchables” at Mahad on March 20, 1927. In his presidential address, Ambedkar stressed the necessity of rooting out ideas of highness or lowness. The conference passed a resolution appealing to caste Hindus and the Government to make the resolution regarding public water-places a reality. After the Conference, all the delegates marched in a procession to the Chowdar Tank to assert their rights. Ambedkar also walked down the steps of the tank and drank a handful of water from it. There was a rumor that "untouchables" had entered the Vireshwar Temple. The caste Hindus came to the pandal of the Conference and attacked the delegates. Stray individuals were beaten. They had to run into Muslim houses for shelter. Ambedkar was forced to take shelter in a police station!
After this event, the "untouchables" in that area were forced to face social boycott. They were dislodged from their land and assaulted in many villages. Ambedkar urged his followers to take aggressive steps to wrest the right to drinking water at public water-places, and to force their entry into public temples.
Bahishkrit Bharat
The Mooknayak, which Ambedkar had started earlier, had ceased publication. In 1927, he started another Marathi periodical Bahishkrit Bharat. The periodical intended to be a fortnightly came out intermittently for over two years. Through this journal, Ambedkar clarified his own ideas on the various aspects of the movement that he had initiated.
Mahad Satyagraha and the Burning of the Manusmriti
At Mahad, a satyagraha conference was organized on December 25, 1927. Earlier Periyar had organized a Satyagraha at Vaikkom in 1924. Ambedkar was watching these developments very carefully. In one of his editorials before Mahad Satyagraha Ambedkar has touchingly referred to the Vaikkom struggle.
In his speech at satyagraha conference at Mahad, Ambedkar attacked the varna system as being at the root of inequality. He emphasized that Hindu society should be organized on two principles: equality and absence of caste system. Among other resolutions a resolution was passed to burn the Manusmriti, which according to Ambedkar perpetuated the social, economic, religious and political slavery of the untouchables. Accordingly, the Manusmriti was burnt publicly on December 25, 1927. By another resolution, it was demanded that priestly profession among Hindus be democratized, allowing everyone who desired to have an opportunity to become a priest.
The report that Manusmriti had been burnt as a part of the Mahad Satyagraha gave rise to strong revulsion and much criticism in the caste-Hindu press. Justifying this action, Ambedkar wrote in the 3 February, 1928 issue of the Bahishkrit Bharat that his reading of the Manusmriti had convinced him that it was insulting in its treatment of the Shudras and that it did not even support the idea of social equality. To burn a thing is to register protest to the idea it represented. By so doing, one expected to shame the persons concerned into modifying their behavior. He said further that it would be futile to expect that anyone who revered the Manusmriti could be genuinely interested in the welfare of the untouchables. He compared the burning of the Manusmriti to the burning of foreign cloth recommended by Gandhi.
Nasik Temple Entry Satyagraha
The Nasik Satyagraha for the entry of untouchables to the Kalaram Temple began in March 1930. It went on for six long years until April 1936. Ultimately it ended without gaining its specific objective. When the Nasik Satyagraha petered out, Ambedkar spoke thus in the Yeola Conference on 13 October 1935:
Even this movement to obtain our ordinary rights as human beings and achieve equality in Hindu society has failed…Thus the time has arise to take the final decision. This weak and lowly status that we occupy is because we are a part of the Hindu society. Therefore, would you not wish to embrace another religion, which will give you equal status, equal rights and fair treatment? Give up your links with Hinduism. Enter a religion where you will obtain peace and dignity. But remember to select only that religion in which you will get equal status, equal opportunity and equal treatment… It was not my fault that I was born an untouchable. But I am determined that I will not die a Hindu.
Even before the Nasik Satyagraha began in 1930, Ambedkar had begun to look upon the temple entry as relatively unimportant part of his programme. He seems to have said this to the Nasik leaders who came to invite him to accept the leadership of the Satyagraha. He is reported to have told them that he was more interested in securing political rights for the untouchables than in gaining them entry to temples.
In Politics
As mentioned earlier, Ambedkar was a political leader and led an active and eventful life. He struggled for separate electorates for the depressed classes. He was a member of Bombay Legislative Council from 1927. He deposed before the Simon Commission in 1928. He attended the Round Table Conferences in 1930 and onwards as a representative of the depressed classes. At the Second Round Table Conference, he repeatedly clashed with Gandhi. In 1932, he signed the historic Pune Pact as a representative of the depressed classes. In July 1942, he joined the Viceroy’s Executive Council as Labor Member. Ambedkar was an elected member of the Constituent Assembly of India. He was elected to the Drafting Committee and ultimately, elected its Chairman. Ambedkar was included in the first cabinet of the independent India as the Law Minister. He resigned in September 1951 from Nehru’s cabinet owing to differences with him.
After resigning from Nehru’s Cabinet Ambedkar contested Lok Sabha election as an opposition leader in 1952 and 1954. He was defeated in both these elections. However, in March 1952, he was elected to the Rajya Sabha.
Second Marriage
Ambedkar’s first wife Ramabai had died in 1935. Ambedkar was a widower for thirteen years. On 14 April 1948, he married Dr. Sharda Kabir. She was a Brahmin by birth and a medical doctor by profession. At the time of her marriage to Ambedkar, she was working in a Bombay nursing home where Dr. Ambedkar was being treated.
Conversion to Buddhism
Ambedkar had started moving away from Hinduism in 1935 itself when he had publicly declared that he was not going to die as a Hindu. In 1936, he had attended the Sikh Missionary Conference. (Ambedkar had toyed for sometime with the idea of embracing Sikhism). In 1936, Ambedkar also wrote and published Annihilation of Caste, his undelivered presidential address to the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal Conference at Lahore. At the end of his written address, Ambedkar reiterated his resolve to give up Hinduism.
In 1944, during a visit to Madras, Ambedkar had spoken about “Rationalism in India—Revolution and Counter-Revolution”. This theme had stayed in his mind. It found expression in his talk to Buddhist Association in 1951 and was to form the basis of a book named Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India, which remained unpublished during his life. In May 1950, Ambedkar contributed an article “Buddha and the Future of his Religion” to the Mahabodhi Society Journal in which he expressed his preference for Buddhism. Ambedkar started writing his book The Buddha and His Dhamma on 14 October 1951. It was finally published in 1957 after his death. In the third week of December 1954, he started writing The Riddle in Hinduism, which, too, was published after his death.
Meanwhile on 24 May 1956, Ambedkar formally announced on the day of Buddha Jayanti that he would embrace Buddhism in October 1956. The actual conversion took place in Nagpur on 14 October 1956. Ambedkar embraced Buddhism along with his wife and lakhs of his supporters. After his conversion Ambedkar declared:
By discarding my ancient religion which stood for inequality and oppression today I am reborn. I have no faith in the philosophy of incarnation: and it is wrong and mischievous to say that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. I am no more a devotee of any Hindu god or goddess. I will not perform Shraddha. I will strictly follow the eight-fold path of Buddha. Buddhism is a true religion and I will lead a life guided by three principles of knowledge, right path and compassion.
On 15 November 1956, Ambedkar went to Katmandu to attend the World Buddhist Conference. He delivered a lecture on “Buddha and Marx”. In less than two months after his conversion to Buddhism Ambedkar died at his Delhi residence on 6 December 1956.
Publications
We have already mentioned some of Dr. Ambedkar’s important writings from our point of view such as The Buddha and His Dhamma, Riddles in Hinduism, and Annihilation of Caste. Besides, Philosophy of Hinduism is another important writing.
Some of these writings such as The Buddha and His Dhamma, Philosophy of Hinduism and Riddles in Hinduism were not published in Ambedkar’s lifetime. The Buddha and His Dhamma was first published in 1957. Other unpublished writings of Ambedkar have been published from 1987 onwards by the Maharashtra Government in different volumes of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches. Till now twenty- one volumes of Dr. Ambedkar’s works have been published. These volumes are important sources for Ambedkar’s ideas on religion, caste and untouchability, etc.
Philosophy
Reasons for Conversion to Buddhism
From the point of view of philosophy of religion, the most important event in Ambedkar’s life was his renunciation of Hinduism. He renounced Hinduism and embraced Buddhism towards the end of his life. What were his reasons for doing so? A detailed answer to this question can be obtained by studying his The Buddha and his Dhamma, Annihilation of Caste, Philosophy of Hinduism, Riddles in Hinduism etc. However, some of his articles, speeches and interviews before and after his conversion to Buddhism throw some light on this question.
Ambedkar’s statement in 1935 at Yeola Conference quoted earlier is quite instructive in this regard. Ambedkar believed that the untouchables occupied a “weak and lowly status” only because they were a part of the Hindu society. When attempts to gain equal status and “ordinary rights as human beings” within the Hindu society started failing, Ambedkar thought it was essential to embrace a religion which will give “equal status, equal rights and fair treatment” to untouchables. He clearly says to his supporters “select only that religion in which you will get equal status, equal opportunity and equal treatment …”
Evidently, after a comparative study of different religions, Ambedkar concluded that Buddhism was the best religion from this point of view.
In his article “Buddha and the Future of his Religion” published in 1950 in the Mahabodhi Society Journal, Ambedkar has summarized his views on religion and on Buddhism in the following manner:
1. The society must have either the sanction of law or the sanction of morality to hold it together. Without either, the society is sure to go to pieces.
2. Religion, if it is to survive, must be in consonance with reason, which is another name for science.
3. It is not enough for religion to consist of moral code, but its moral code must recognize the fundamental tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity.
4. Religion must not sanctify or make a virtue out of poverty.
According to Ambedkar, Buddhism fulfilled these requirements and so among the existing religions it was the only suitable religion for the world. He felt that the propagation of Buddhism needed a Bible. Apparently, Ambedkar wrote The Buddha and His Dhamma to fulfill this need.
In the same article, Ambedkar has enumerated the evils of Hinduism in the following manner:
1. It has deprived moral life of freedom.
2. It has only emphasized conformity to commands.
3. The laws are iniquitous because they are not the same for one class as of another. Besides, the code is treated as final.
According to Ambedkar, “what is called religion by Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions”.
In the same year, Ambedkar delivered a speech on Buddha Jayanti day in Delhi, in which he attacked Hindu gods and goddess and praised Buddhism because it was a religion based on moral principles. Besides, he pointed out, unlike the founders of other religions who considered themselves emissaries of God; the Buddha regarded himself only as a guide and gave a revolutionary meaning to the concept of religion. He said that if Hinduism stood for inequality, Buddhism stood for equality.
In May 1956, a talk by Ambedkar titled “Why I like Buddhism and how it is useful to the world in its present circumstances” was broadcast from the British Broadcasting Corporation, London. In his talk Ambedkar said:
I prefer Buddhism because it gives three principles in combination, which no other religion does. Buddhism teaches prajna (understanding as against superstition and supernaturalism), karuna (love), and samata (equality). This is what man wants for a good and happy life. Neither god nor soul can save society. (emphasis mine)
In his last speech delivered in Bombay in May 24 1956, in which he declared his resolve to embrace Buddhism, Ambedkar observed:
Hinduism believes in God. Buddhism has no God. Hinduism believes in soul. According to Buddhism, there is no soul. Hinduism believes in Chaturvarnya and the caste system. Buddhism has no place for the caste system and Chaturvarnya.
It is obvious that Ambedkar regarded Buddhism as a much more rational religion compared to Hinduism, rather the most rational religion. His main objection to Hinduism was that it sanctified inequality and untouchability through its doctrine of Chaturvarnya. Buddhism, on the other hand, rejected Chaturvarnya and supported equality. He commends Buddhism for rejecting God and soul and for emphasizing morality. According to him, prajna (understanding as against superstition and supernaturalism), karuna (love), and samata (equality), which Buddhism alone teaches, is all that human beings need for a “good and happy life”.
Rationalism
Ambedkar has tried to interpret religion in a rationalist manner. In his article “Buddha and the Future of his Religion” published in 1950 in the Mahabodhi Society Journal, he clearly says that religion, if it is to survive, must be in consonance with reason, which is another name for science.
Ambedkar’s final religious act was to embrace Buddhism. His work The Buddha and His Dhamma contains his own understanding and interpretation of Buddhism. We may say that Buddhism as expounded in this book is what Ambedkar embraced and recommended. Therefore, we may turn to this work for Ambedkar’s final views on rationalism, God, soul, rebirth, karma, nibbana, varna-vyavastha and religion, etc.
In his book, Ambedkar has pointed out that Buddha rejected the doctrine of infallibility of the Vedas. He denied that the Vedas were sacred, final and infallible. He did not regard anything, including Vedas, as infallible. Everything, he said, must be subject to examination and re-examination.
On the other hand, Buddha accepted the law of cause and effect with its corollaries. According to Ambedkar, Buddha maintained that every event has a cause, and the cause is the result of some human action or natural law. Buddha, says Ambedkar, rejected supernaturalism. It may be that a man is not able to discover the real cause of the occurrence of an event. Nevertheless, if he has intelligence he is bound to discover it one day. In Ambedkar’s view, Buddha had three objects in repudiating supernaturalism:
His first object was to lead man to the path of rationalism. His second object was to give liberty to human beings in search of truth. His third object was to remove the most potent source of superstition, the result of which is to kill the spirit of inquiry. According to Ambedkar, the law of Kamma or causation is the most central doctrine in Buddhism. It preaches rationalism and Buddhism is nothing if not rationalism.
While discussing the place of Buddha in his Dhamma, Ambedkar compares and contrasts Buddha with Christ and Mohammed. He points out that Christ claimed that he was the “son of god”, and he further maintained that no one could attain salvation unless he accepted him as such. Similarly, Mohammed claimed that he was the prophet “sent by god”. He further declared that the seeker of salvation in Islam must accept that the Mohammed is the prophet of God and the last prophet. In contrast, Buddha made no such claim. He only claimed being the natural son of Suddhodana and Mahamaya. He did not lay down any conditions regarding himself for salvation as Jesus and Mohammed did.
Ambedkar points out that most religions are described as revelations. However, the Buddha’s religion is not a revelation. He never claimed that he was a prophet or a messenger of God. He repudiated any such description. His religion is a discovery in the sense that it is the result of inquiry and investigation into the conditions of human life on earth and understanding of the working of human instincts. All prophets, says Ambedkar, have promised salvation. Buddha is the one teacher who did not make any such promise. He made a sharp distinction between moksha data and a marga data, one who gives salvation and one who only shows the way. He was only a marga data. Salvation must be sought by each for himself and by his own effort.
Every founder of religion, according to Ambedkar, has either claimed divinity for himself or for his teachings. Moses, although he did not claim for himself any divine origin, did claim divine origin for his teachings. Jesus claimed divinity for himself and his teachings. Krishna said that he was God himself and that Gita was his own word. The Buddha made no such claim either for himself or for his teachings. He claimed that he was one of the many human beings and his message to the people was a message of a human being to human being. He never claimed infallibility for his message. The only claim that he made was that his message was the only true way for salvation, as he understood it. It was based on universal human experience of life in the world. He said that it was open to anyone to question it, test it and to find out what truth it contained. No founder, says Ambedkar, has so fully thrown open his religion to such a challenge. Thus, it is more than obvious that Ambedkar has tried to bring forward the rational elements in Buddhism and tried to interpret it in a rationalistic manner.
God
Ambedkar did not believe in the existence of God and soul. This is obvious from the reasons he has given for embracing Buddhism as well as from his interpretation of Buddhism in The Buddha and His Dhamma.
According to Ambedkar, Buddha rejected the doctrine that God created human beings, or that they came out of the body of some Brahma. He repudiated the fatalistic view of life, and the view that a God has predestined events in the life of humans and the world.
Ambedkar has enumerated different arguments rejecting the existence of God, which, according to him, were given by Buddha. According to one of the arguments, no one including the brahmins have seen God. God is unknown and unseen. In other words, there is no perceptual knowledge of God. People only talk about God. Nobody can prove that God has created the world.
Some of the other arguments enumerated by Ambedkar are similar to what is known as “problem of evil”. If there is a supreme creator who is just and merciful, then why so much injustice prevails in the world? In words of Ambedkar:
He who has eyes can see the sickening side; why does not Brahma set his creatures right? If his power is so wide that no limits can restrain, why is his hand so rarely spread to bless? Why are his creatures all condemned to suffering? Why does he not give happiness to all? Why do fraud, lies and ignorance prevail? Why does falsehood triumph over truth? Why does truth and justice fail?
Besides, says Ambedkar, Buddha was against religious rites, ceremonies and observances. According to Buddha, belief in God was the most dangerous thing. For belief in God gave rise to belief in efficacy of worship and prayers. Worship and prayer gave rise to the office of the priest. Moreover, the priest was the evil genius who created all superstitions and destroyed the growth of Samma Ditthi (right outlook), the most important element in Ashtang Marg (the eight-fold path). A religion based on God, therefore, is not worth having. It only ends in creating superstition.
Soul
According to Ambedkar, Buddha did not believe in the existence of soul. His doctrine about the soul is called An-atta, no soul. Buddha discarded heresies about the soul and refrained from identifying it with the body, sensations, volition or consciousness. Belief in soul is not Dhamma. Nobody has seen the soul or has conversed with the soul. The soul is unknown and unseen. The thing that exists is not the soul but the mind. The Buddha said that religion based on soul is based on speculation. Belief in soul, he said, is unprofitable. A religion based on soul is not worth having. It only ends in creating superstition.
Buddha tried to show by his usual method of cross-examination that the ideas about the soul were vague. He asked those who believed in the existence of soul, what the soul was like in size and shape. The Buddha next asked those who believed in the existence of soul about the condition of the soul after the death of the body. He also raised the question whether the soul was visible after the death of the body. He also raised the question about the happiness or misery of the soul after the body is dead. He found infinite number of vague statements.
Buddha advanced many arguments against the existence of the soul. The general arguments he advanced in support of denial of the soul were the same as those that he advanced against the support of the denial of the existence of God. He argued that the discussion about the existence of the soul is as unprofitable as the question of the existence of God. He argued that the belief in the existence of soul is as much against the cultivation of Samma Ditthi as the belief in the existence of God. He argued that the belief in the existence of soul is as much a source of superstition as the belief in God is. Indeed in his opinion the belief in the existence of the soul is far more dangerous than the belief in the existence of God. For not only it creates a priesthood, and gives rise to superstition but it also gives the priesthood complete control over man from birth to death.
Rebirth
According to Ambedkar, Buddha replaced the doctrine of transmigration (Sansara) by the doctrine of rebirth. This however, according to him raises two questions. One, rebirth of what and two, rebirth of whom? He first considers the question of rebirth of what? According to Buddha, there are four elements of existence which compose the body, namely Prithvi (earth), Apa (water), Tej (fire) and Vayu (water). When the human body dies these four elements do not die. They join the mass of similar elements floating in space. When the four elements of this floating mass join together a new birth takes place. According to Ambedkar, this is what the Buddha meant by rebirth. The elements need not be and are not necessarily from the same body, which is dead. They may be drawn from different dead bodies. It must be noted that body dies but the elements are ever living. According to Ambedkar, Buddha believed in the regeneration of matter and not in the rebirth of the soul. So interpreted, says Ambedkar, the Buddha’s view is in consonance with science.
The most difficult question, according to Ambedkar, is rebirth of whom? Does the same dead person take a new birth? Did the Buddha believed in this thesis? The answer, according to Ambedkar, is “most improbable”. The answer, says Ambedkar, will depend on whether elements of same dead person come together or not. If the elements of the dead body of the same person come together and form a new body then there is a possibility of rebirth of the same person. If, however, a new body is formed after mixing of the different elements of different dead persons then there is rebirth but not rebirth of the same sentient being.
Karma
Ambedkar maintains that Buddha discarded the theory that all deeds committed in some former birth have a potency to produce suffering in the present life. He denied the fatalistic view of Karma and replaced it with a much more scientific view. According to Ambedkar, there is no doctrine in Buddha’s Dhamma, which has created so much confusion as the doctrine of Karma. Owing to the similarity of terminology, it has been confused, either owing to ignorance or owing to deliberate mischievous intent, with the Brahminical law of Karma. The Buddha’s law of Karma, inspite of similarities of words, says Ambedkar, cannot be the same as the Brahminical law of Karma. The Hindu law of Karma is based on the soul. The Buddhist law of Karma is not. In fact, there is no soul in Buddhism. The Brahminical law of Karma is hereditary. It goes on from one life to another. This is so because of the transmigration of the soul. This cannot be true of the Buddhist law of Karma.
The law of Karma, says Ambedkar, as enunciated by Buddha simply meant, “reap as you sow”. He was so emphatic about the law of Karma that he maintained that there could be no moral order unless there was a stern observance of the law. Buddha’s law of Karma applied only to Karma and its effect on the present life. There is also, however, an extended doctrine of Karma, which includes actions done in past life or lives. If a man is born in a poor family, it was because of its past bad Karma. If a man is born in a rich family, it is because of his past good Karma. If a man is born with a congenital defect, it is because of his past bad Karma. This is, according to Ambedkar, a very pernicious doctrine. For in this interpretation of Karma there is no room left for human effort. Everything is predetermined for him by his past Karma. This extended doctrine is often found to be attributed to the Buddha. However, according to Ambedkar, Buddha did not believed in such a doctrine.
According to Ambedkar, by speaking of the law of Kamma what the Buddha wanted to convey was that effect of the deed was bound to follow the deed, as surely as night follows the day. No one could fail to benefit by the good effects of the good Kamma and no one could escape the evil effect of bad Kamma.
Nibbana and the Eight-Fold Path
Ambedkar says that Buddha replaced the doctrine of Moksha or salvation of the soul by the doctrine of Nibbana. According to Ambedkar, Nibbana means release from passions. The middle path of Buddha leads us from greed and resentment to peace, insight, enlightenment and Nibbana. The eight-fold path consists of right outlook, right aims, right speech, right action, right means of livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.
Religion
Ambedkar has discussed philosophy of religion in his Philosophy of Hinduism,. Philosophy of religion, according to Ambedkar, is both descriptive and normative. As far as it deals with the teachings of various religions, it is a descriptive science. As far as it involves the use of critical reason for passing judgments on those teachings, philosophy of religion becomes a normative science.
Religion, says Ambedkar, is “the propounding of an ideal scheme of divine governance, the aim and object of which is to make the social order in which men live a moral order".
According to Ambedkar, the view that religion is of no importance is a mistaken and untenable view. Religion as a social force cannot be ignored. Similarly, the view, encouraged by the study of comparative religion – that all religions are good – is also mistaken and untenable. Again, to hold that all religions are true and good is to cherish a belief, which is positively and evidently wrong. Comparative religion, says Ambedkar, has done a great service to humanity. It has broken down the claim and arrogance of revealed religions as being the only true and good religion. However, it has also brought in its wake some false notions about religion. The most harmful one is “that all religions are equally good and that there is no necessity of discriminating between them”. Nothing can be a farther from truth than this. Religion, says Ambedkar, is an institution or a influence; and like all social influences and all institutions it may help or it may harm the society.
Religion and Dhamma
In his The Buddha and His Dhamma, Ambedkar has tried to make a distinction between religion and dhamma. According to him, the word “religion” is an ambiguous word with more than one meaning. This is so because religion has passed through many ages and the conception of religion, too, has changed accordingly. At early stage, religion was identified with magic. In the second stage, religion came to be identified with beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, prayers and sacrifices. In the third stage, God and soul entered religion. At present, says Ambedkar, religion means “belief in God, belief in soul, worship of God, curing of the erring soul, propitiating God by prayers, ceremonies, sacrifices, etc.”
According to Ambedkar, what the Buddha calls dhamma differs fundamentally from what is called religion. Religion, it is said, is personal and one must keep it to oneself. One must not let it play its part in public life. Contrary to this dhamma is social. Dhamma is righteousness, which means right relations between human beings in all spheres of life. If a person is living alone, he or she does not need dhamma. However, when there are two persons living in relation to each other, they must find a place for dhamma, whether they like it or not. In other words, society, maintains Ambedkar, cannot sustain itself without dhamma. Society has to choose one of the three alternatives. Society may choose not to have any dhamma, as an instrument of government. This means society chooses the road to anarchy. Secondly, society may choose the police, that is, dictatorship as an instrument of government. Thirdly, society may choose dhamma plus the magistrate wherever people fail to observe the dhamma, as an instrument of government. In anarchy and dictatorship, liberty is lost. Liberty can survive only if we accept the third alternative. Therefore, concludes Ambedkar, those who want liberty must accept dhamma. According to Buddha, dhamma consists of prajna (understanding) and karuna (love). Thus, says Ambedkar, the definition of dhamma, according to the Buddha, is different from the definition of religion.
Hinduism: Varna-vyavastha
As we have already discussed, Ambedkar was very strongly opposed to varna-vyavastha including caste and untouchability. He fervently criticized Hinduism for sanctioning varna-vyavastha and this was one of his main reasons for renouncing Hinduism. Annihilation of Caste, Philosophy of Hinduism, Riddles in Hinduism and The Buddha and His Dhamma are some of his important writings in this context. Out of these, Annihilation of Caste was published in his lifetime. All others were published after his death.
Annihilation of Caste
Annihilation of Caste was originally prepared by Dr. Ambedkar as presidential speech for the 1936 annual conference of Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore. However, it was not delivered owing to the cancellation of the conference by the reception committee on the ground that the views expressed in the speech would be “unbearable” to the conference. Towards the end of the speech, Ambedkar had expressed his resolve to give up Hinduism. Ultimately, Ambedkar published the speech in the form of a book.
In his Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar has discussed methods for the abolition of the caste system. He has considered the view that for abolishing caste one should begin with the abolition of sub-castes. However, according to Ambedkar, there is no guarantee that the abolition of sub-caste will necessarily lead to the abolition of caste. On the contrary, the process may stop with the abolition of sub-castes. “In that case,” says Ambedkar, “the abolition of sub-castes will only help to strengthen the castes and make them more powerful and therefore more mischievous.”
Next, Ambedkar has discussed the view that action for abolition of caste should begin with inter-caste dinners. Nevertheless, according to Ambedkar, this is an inadequate remedy. There are many castes, which allow inter-dining, says Ambedkar, but inter-dining has not killed the consciousness of castes. Ambedkar emphatically declares that inter-marriage alone can abolish caste. Fusion of blood alone can create the feeling of being kith and kin and dissolve the feeling of separateness created by castes. In words of Ambedkar:
The real remedy for breaking castes is inter-marriage. Nothing else will serve as the solvent of Caste.
According to Ambedkar, caste will cease to be an operative force “only when inter-dining and inter-marriage have become matters of common course”. However, he raises a more basic question: why is it that a large majority of Hindus do not inter-dine and inter-marry?
According to Ambedkar, this is so because “inter-dining and inter-marriage are repugnant to the beliefs and dogmas which the Hindus regard as sacred.” Hindus, says Ambedkar, observe caste because their religion teaches them caste. The real remedy, therefore, says Ambedkar, is to destroy the sanctity of the Shastras, which justify the caste. As he says:
Criticizing and ridiculing people for not inter-dining and inter-marrying or occasionally holding inter-caste dinners and celebrating inter-caste marriages, is a futile method of achieving the desired end. The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras…Not to question the authority of the Shastras, to permit the people to believe in their sanctity and their sanctions and to blame them and criticize them for their acts as being irrational and inhuman is a incongruous way of carrying on social reform.
Philosophy of Hinduism
In his Philosophy of Hinduism, Ambedkar has applied both the test of justice and the test of utility to judge Hinduism. “The principle of justice”, according to Ambedkar, “includes most of the other principles which have become the foundation of a moral order.” In short, according to him, justice is another name for liberty, equality and fraternity.
Hinduism, according to Ambedkar, does not recognize equality. The question of equality, says Ambedkar, instantaneously brings to mind the caste-system. Varna, according to Ambedkar, is the “parent of caste”; and Manu, the progenitor of caste, was responsible for “upholding the principle of gradation and rank”.
The system of rank and gradation—Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra and Ati-Shudra (the Untouchables)—is simply another way of enunciating the principle of inequality. Ambedkar has given several examples from Manu to illustrate his point. Manu, for example, recognizes slavery. Nevertheless, he confined it to Shudras alone. The Shudras could be made slaves of three higher classes, but the higher classes could not be made the slaves of Shudras.
The rule of law is generally understood to mean equality before law. According to Ambedkar, Hindu criminal jurisprudence, on the other hand, is based on social inequality. “The most striking feature of Manu’s penal code which stands out in all its nakedness is the inequality of punishment for the same offence.” Ambedkar, again, has given several illustrations from the Manusmriti to substantiate his point.
The ashram theory, which divides life into four stages, namely, brahmacharya, garhastya, vanprastha and sanyas, is a peculiar feature of Hinduism. The Shudras, points out Ambedkar, are excluded from this scheme. These ashrams are confined only to the “twice born” castes. Thus, inequality is in-built into this scheme as well. The denial of sanyas ashram to the Shudras, says Ambedkar, shows that there is social as well religious inequality in Hinduism.
Ambedkar has raised the question whether Hinduism recognizes liberty. Liberty to be real, says Ambedkar, must be accompanied by certain social conditions: (i) social equality, (ii) economic security and (iii) availability of knowledge.
According to Ambedkar, Hinduism denies equality and upholds inequality. Thus, the very first condition for liberty is conspicuous by its absence in Hinduism. As far as economic security is concerned, three things, says Ambedkar, shine out in Hinduism. In the first place, Hinduism denies freedom of occupation. In the scheme of Manu, each man has his occupation preordained for him even before he is born. The occupation, being preordained, is not related to his capacity or inclination. In the second place, Hinduism compels people to serve ends chosen by others. Manu tells Shudras that they are born only to serve the higher classes, and he exhorts them to make this their highest ideal in life. In the third place, Hinduism leaves no scope for the Shudras to accumulate wealth. “Thus in Hinduism, there is no choice of avocation. There is no economic independence and there is no economic security.”
In the sphere of knowledge, says Ambedkar, there were strict rules regarding the study of the Vedas. According to Manu, only Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were allowed to study Vedas. Out of these, Brahmins alone have the right to teach the Vedas. The successors of Manu, points out Ambedkar, made the disability of the Shudra in the matter of the study of the Veda into an offence involving dire penalties. For instance, Gautam says:
If the Shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda, then his ears should be filled with (molten) lead and lac; if he utters the Veda, then his tongue should be cut off; if he has mastered the Veda his body should be cut to pieces. (XII, 4)
According to Ambedkar, the prohibition against the study of Vedas led to mass illiteracy and ignorance in secular life. Reading and writing had an integral connection with the teaching and study of the Veda. They were not necessary for those who were not free to do so. The result was that the theory of Manu regarding the rights and prohibitions in the matter of teaching and the study of Vedas came to be extended to the arts of reading and writing. Manu, says Ambedkar, by prohibiting literacy was responsible for the general ignorance in which the masses came to be enveloped.
Thus, concludes Ambedkar, Hinduism far from encouraging spread of knowledge is a gospel of darkness. Considering these facts, he says, one may say that Hinduism is opposed to the conditions in which liberty can thrive. It is, therefore, denial of liberty.
Does Hinduism recognize fraternity? Ambedkar’s reply again is in the negative. According to him, Hinduism and its philosophy is responsible for the absence of fraternity among Hindus. Sharing the vital processes of life is, according to Ambedkar, the condition for the growth of fraternity. There is no sharing among Hindus of joys and sorrows involved in the vital facts of life like birth, death, marriage and food. Everything is separate and exclusive, depending on caste. Hinduism teaches not to inter-dine, not to inter-marry, and not to associate. These don’ts constitute the essence of its teachings. The philosophy of Hinduism is a direct denial of fraternity.
Thus, based on his analysis of Hinduism from the point of view of justice, Ambedkar concludes, “Hinduism is inimical to equality, antagonistic to liberty and opposed to fraternity.”
As far as utility is concerned, Ambedkar quotes John Stuart Mill’s view that there is no necessary antagonism between justice and utility. In other words, “what is unjust to the individual cannot be useful to society”.
Riddles in Hinduism
Riddles in Hinduism, An Exposition to Enlightenment the Masses is another important writing of Ambedkar, which remained unpublished in his lifetime. It includes “The Riddles of the Vedas”, “The Riddle of the Vedanta”, “The Riddle of the Varnashram Dharm” and “The Riddles of Ram and Krishna”. Altogether Ambedkar has listed and discussed twenty-four riddles related to Hinduism.
According to Ambedkar, his book is “an exposition of the beliefs propounded by what might be called Brahmanic theology. It is intended for common mass of Hindus who need to be awakened to know in what quagmire the Brahmins have placed them and to lead them on to the road of rational thinking.”
Ambedkar’s first aim in his book is “to make the mass of the people to realize that Hindu religion is not Sanatan.” The Hindu society has changed from time to time and often the change is of the most radical kind.
The second purpose of Ambedkar’s book is “to draw attention of the Hindu masses to the devices of the Brahmins and to make them think for themselves how they have been deceived and misguided by the Brahmins.”
According to Ambedkar, “a most mischievous dogma which the Brahmins have spread among the masses is the dogma of the infallibility of the Vedas.” This dogma must be destroyed root and branch if India is to progress. As he says:
The Vedas are a worthless set of books. There is no reason either to call them sacred or infallible. The Brahmins have invested it with sanctity and infallibility only because by a later interpolation of what is called the Purusha-Sukta, the Vedas have made them the lords of the Earth. Nobody has had the courage to ask why these worthless books which contain nothing but invocation to tribal Gods to destroy the Enemies, loot their property and give it to their followers (have been made sacred and infallible). But the time has come when the Hindu mind must be freed from the hold which the silly ideas propagated by the Brahmins, have on them. Without this liberation, India has no future.
The Buddha and His Dhamma
Ambedkar has also discussed varna-vyavastha in The Buddha and His Dhamma. According to the brahminical doctrine, says Ambedkar, acquisition of knowledge cannot be thrown open to all. It permitted acquisition of knowledge only to male Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishayas. All women and all Shudras, both males and females, were prohibited from acquiring knowledge, even from acquiring literacy. The Buddha, according to Ambedkar, raised a revolt against this atrocious doctrine of the Brahmins. He preached that the road to knowledge must be open to all – to males as well as to females.
According to Ambedkar, Dhamma to be Saddhamma must pull down all social barriers between human beings. According to the Brahmins, the Vedas have defined the ideal society and the Vedas being infallible, one must accept that ideal. The ideal society prescribed by the Vedas is known as Chaturvarnya. Such a society, according to the Vedas, must satisfy three conditions. It must be composed of four classes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. The inter-relations of these classes must be regulated by the principle of graded inequality. In other words, all these classes are not to be on equal level but to be one above the other, with respect to status, rights and privileges. The Brahmins were placed at the top; the Kshatriyas were placed below the Brahmins but above the Vaishyas; the Vaishyas were placed below the Kshatriyas but above the Shudras; and the Shudras were placed lowest of all. Third feature of Chaturvarnya was that each class must engage itself in an occupation assigned to it. The Brahmin’s occupation was to learn, teach and officiate at religious ceremonies. The Kshatriya’s occupation was to bear arms and fight. The occupation of Vaishyas was trade and business. The Shudras’s occupation was to do menial service for all the three superior classes. No class is to transgress upon the occupation of the other classes. The essence of this theory, says Ambedkar, is inequality. This social inequality is not the result of historical growth. Inequality, in fact, is the official doctrine of Brahminism. The Buddha, according to Ambedkar, was totally opposed to this system. He was the strongest opponent of caste and the earliest and staunchest upholder of equality. There is no argument in favor of caste and inequality, which Buddha did not refute. Many Brahmins challenged Buddha on this issue but he silenced them completely. The theory of Chaturvarnya preached by the Brahmins was based on birth. The worth of a man, according to the Brahmins, was based on birth and nothing else. This doctrine was, according to Ambedkar, repulsive to Buddha. His doctrine was just the opposite of the doctrine of Brahmins. It was his doctrine that worth and not birth was the measure of man. Buddha, says Ambedkar, preached equality. He argued that a religion, which does not preach equality, is not worth having.