This article explores one of the many interactions between Marxism and Buddhism, which occurred in the nineteenth and twentieth century. While a general impression is that these interactions are largely determined by political oppression and violence the present article attempts a closer and more differentiated look focusing on the positive inspiration Marxism gave to Ambedkar. In order to gain a better understanding of Ambedkar’s conversion move and his appreciation of Marxism, it is necessary to place him in his historical context. This does not mean that I have to describe in detail the situation in India at the end of the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century. I rather focus on his path of becoming Buddhist.
Reform or abandon Hinduism?
Bhimrao Ramji Ambavadekar was born on 14 April 1891 into a Mahar family in a military camp in Central India. His father, Ramji Sakpal, worked as a teacher in a British military school. As a result,young Bhim grew up in a comfortable social environment. He completed his school education in a school in Satara where a teacher by the name of Ambedkar, who was fond of his pupil, gave him his name. The young student continued his studies at the Elphinstone High School and the Elphinstone College in Bombay, a rare and unusual case in an untouchable’s life. The Maharaja of Baroda was impressed by Ambedkar’s intellectual prowess and he was thus the Maharaja’s obvious choice to benefit from a scholarship to study abroad. In 1913, Ambedkar became a graduate and entered into the Baroda State Service. The same Maharaja offered him a scholarship to study in the USA. In this way, Ambedkar left India in 1913 and submitted his doctoral thesis to the Columbia State University, NewYork in 1916. In England and in the USA, he obtained western scientific training marked by philosophers like John Dewey or Edward Seligman. On returning to India, Ambedkar became a professor of Law, advocate and president of a textile union in Bombay. His struggle for the emancipation of the Untouchables thus began in a decisive manner. In 1927, the Governor of Bombay nominated him to the Bombay Legislative Council
The first major protests during which Ambedkar emerged as a leader of the Untouchables were organised in order to obtain free access to water resources as well as temples. The most famous example is undoubtedly that of the Mahad Satyagraha. It is here not the occasion to discuss this important event in detail. We could resume that by the end of the campaign Ambedkar understood that the problem of untouchability could not be resolved by the willingness of the Hindu higher castes.This idea determined his political engagement. In 1928, he asked the Simon Commission for specific political representation for the Depressed Classes, in other words he demanded a separate electorate for the lower castes. On 4 October 1930, Ambedkar left Bombay to participate in the third round of the Round Table Conference in London, where he repeated his demands for a separate political representation for the Depressed Classes.
From this time onwards, Gandhi and Ambedkar became political adversaries. Gandhi considered the four varnas as the ideal social order and was against the idea of political representation independent of the Hindu community. On 17 August 1932, the British Prime Minister suggested the creation of separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, Europeans, Christians and the Depressed Classes in the state assemblies. His Communal Award provoked a grave political crisis in India. Gandhi, who was then a prisoner at Yerawada, began a fast in protest. On several occasions, he had already criticized untouchability as a “malign growth”, “a crime against humanity” and as “a sin” from which Hinduism had to purify itself at the earliest. But separate representation for the untouchable castes would have totally compromised his program to reform Hinduism. Finally, Ambedkar and Gandhi accepted separate seats for the Untouchables within a common Hindu electorate. The Poona Pact was signed on 24 September 1932.
After this forced compromise, Ambedkar no longer believed that the Hindu reformers could improve the condition of the Untouchables. He accused Gandhi of promoting the discriminatory varna system. Ambedkar did not want to reform the caste system but instead destroy it including its entireideology. In his book Annihilation of Caste he explained that Hinduism was not a “real” religion, inthe spiritual and universal ways, in which it was practiced in countries throughout the world over thecenturies. Ambedkar concluded that Hinduism ought to give itself a new doctrine based on liberty,equality and fraternity and that morality was to be the central idea of the new religion. This reform would question all the traditional Hindu customs and values. Ambedkar laid down a 5-point program:
Firstly, a new holy book – normative for all Hindus- should replace the old shastras. Secondly,the priests should pass State exams and obtain a degree. Thirdly, no priest can conduct a ritual withouta license. Fourthly, the priest should be a government servant. Fifthly, the number of priests should be fixed and they should follow specific moral rules (Ambedkar 1979: 76-77). Hinduism in its presentform should be abolished:
“But a new life cannot enter a body that is dead. New life can only enter in anew body. The old body must die before a new body can come into existence and a new life can enter into it. […] This is what I meant when I said you must discard the authority of the Shastras and destroy the religion of the Shastras ” (Ambedkar 1979: 78).
This is where we see the emergence of a program for the fundamental and revolutionary reconstruction of Indian society. According to him the ancient tradition was not to be observed at any cost. On the contrary, the useful part of tradition that abandons the spirit of caste and promotes social progress should be transmitted. Is it surprising that Ambedkar considered the British as his political allies and the Congress party as being “of no use” for the cause of the Untouchables? It is rather consequent that after his experience with Gandhi, Ambedkar doubted all efforts made by the Hindu nationalist reformers and that he finally gave up Hinduism.
Conversion to Sikhism, Christianity, Islam or to Buddhism?
On the 13 October 1935 Ambedkar announced that he would not die a Hindu. This speech is generally considered as his decision to convert. Instead of conversion one can speak of apostasy, a kind of anathema against Hinduism. It is not difficult to imagine the great scandal his declaration must have provoked. How can one renounce the religion of one’s ancestors? Some Hindu nationalists criticized Ambedkar and accused him of betraying his country. On 17 May 1936 in Bombay, during the Mahar Conference, Ambedkar explained once again why he wanted to give up Hinduism. The following is a passage from his speech published later under the meaningful title Mukti kona patha
? (“Which is the path to liberation?”): “According to me, this conversion of religion will bring happiness to the Untouchables as well as the Hindus. So long as you remain Hindu, you will have to struggle for social intercourse, for food and water, and for inter-caste marriages. […] By conversion, the roots of all the quarrels will vanish. […]. [T]his path of conversion is the only right path of freedom which ultimately leads to equality” (Ambedkar 1993a: 9-10). Ambedkar affirmed that social equality could not be attained if the Untouchables remained Hindus. They would never be emancipated as Hinduism was opposed to all kinds of change. The Untouchables would be strengthened by conversion and would thus be able to gain equality, liberty and a happier existence.
After this declaration Ambedkar received proposals to convert to Sikhism, Islam and Christianity. One should remember that during the 19th and 20th centuries several Untouchables had converted to Christianity in South India and to Sikhism in Punjab. Did Ambedkar think of converting to Christianity? Which was the religion most favorable to the liberation of the Untouchables? Having seen that the collective conversions to Christianity had not completely modified the social status of the Untouchables and that there was still a separation of castes with the churches in South India, Ambedkar (1989a: 426-476) gave up this idea. Added to this was the fact that conversion to Christianity would have led to a “denationalization” of the oppressed classes, thus widening the gap between the Indian and “foreign” populations. Did Ambedkar have intentions of joining the Sikh fold?In 1936, he took part in a Sikh meet at Amritsar, but insisted that he had not yet decided on which religion to convert into. Ambedkar considered Sikhism, an offshoot of Hinduism as a better alternative compared to Islam or Christianity. However, even if Sikhism was an egalitarian religion, it was too restricted to the state of Punjab. What about converting to Islam? Ambedkar saw Islam as an extremely fanatical, conservative and separatist religion. Muslims observed untouchability and practiced polygamy. He doubted their capacity to be loyal Indian citizens, as their religion did not make for allegiance to a secular State (Ambedkar 1990a: 232-233). Ambedkar thus went on to favour the creation of Pakistan and defended the Two Nation Theory. Later, he even called the untouchable castes to come over to India and to stop believing in the Muslim League. He warned the Untouchables who converted to Islam that they would not attain salvation through this religion. It is not surprising that this point of view won him favorable reactions from the Hindu Nationalists. After all, hadn’t
Ambedkar reacted as a good Indian “patriot”? The Hindu nationalist
perspective saw Ambedkar as an enemy of Muslims. But it must be brought to notice that he opposed the creation of a Hindu India and condemned the exploitative, discriminatory and superstitious character of Brahman orthodoxy. Forhim, Buddhism alone was rationalist, egalitarian and progressive in nature, thus laying the foundation for a civil society. Ambedkar nevertheless hesitated to convert immediately. He was waiting. Was Ambedkar still not sure about converting? Such a hypothesis is hardly plausible as Ambedkar was fundamentally against Hinduism. It is more probable that he believed that it was not yet time for him to convert.
When did Ambedkar start showing an interest in Buddhism? According to several modern biographies, which have hagiography traits, his admiration of Buddhism dates back to his childhood.Whatever be the case, Ambedkar was attracted to Buddhism at least ever since the thirties. Here is asummary of the major events that illustrate his growing interest in Buddhism. In 1934, he named his house in Dadar
Rajagriha. In 1946, he chose the name of Siddharth College for the first college founded by the People’s Education Society. In 1943, he met Mahastahvir Chandramani; thirteen yearslater, this monk initiated Ambedkar into Buddhism. In 1947 he was appointed as the Minister of Law and became the President of the Drafting Committee,a committee responsible for the drafting of the Constitution. In 1950, Ambedkar asked his supporters to celebrate the Buddha’s birth anniversary and went to Sri Lanka to attend the conference of the Young Men’s Buddhist Association, where he presented his ideas on the fall and rise of Buddhism inIndia. His article, The Buddha and the Future of His Religion, was published in the same year. He proposed to write and distribute a “Buddhist Bible”, to modify the organization, the objectives and the role of the sangha and to create a World Buddhist Mission in order to effectively spread Buddhism asa religion of morality, liberty, equality and fraternity. In 1954 he participated in the Third Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists at Rangoon. In 1955, he founded the Buddhist Society of India(BSI). In 1956, Ambedkar published and distributed the first version of his “Buddhist Bible” under thetitle
The Buddha and his Gospel. Then, on May 12, under the auspices of the BSI, he gave an interview to the BBC, explaining that the Buddha would have been the answer to the Marxist and Communist challenge (Ambedkar 1997: 113). During the Buddha’s Birth anniversary celebrations atthe end of the month, he announced his conversion to be held on the October 14. The actual conversion ceremony took place in Nagpur on 14 October, where he and his wife received the for malinitiation by Bhante Chandramani, one of the oldest Buddhist monks of his time. Though he was already very unwell, Ambedkar participated in the World Fellowship of Buddhists at Kathmandu in November 1956. Very ill he died on 6 December 1956 in Delhi.
Re-actualizing the dhamma
Ambedkar created a modern and new Buddhism. But what was the framework of his approach? It is first necessary to say that Ambedkar did not hide the fact that he was practicing a revolutionary and selective reading of Sanskrit and Pali texts, which he knew only in their translated versions. In the introduction to The Buddha and His Dhamma , he explained that he wanted to re-actualise the
dhamma . Ambedkar thus questioned the normative tradition and distanced himself from it. At the same time, he did not give up the idea that there was an original message from the Buddha, which he wanted to rediscover. This was indeed his second objective: He wanted to reconstruct the real Buddhism, that is the Buddhism that the Buddha preached. How does one link these seeminglyscientific and rational presumptions of his?
Ambedkar first remarked that the Buddha’s teachings were constantly modified over the centuries. How does one distinguish between the true teachings of the Buddha and those that were added later? Ambedkar (1992: 350-351) laid down three criteria in order to verify if the teaching was originally preached by the Buddha: 1) All that the Buddha said should be logical and rational 2) The Buddha never entered in to a discussion unless it was for human welfare. All that goes against human welfare cannot thus be an idea that came from the Buddha. 3) The Buddha distinguished the opinion she was sure of from the hypothesis he was not sure of. He affirmed ideas of which he was convinced and hesitated to pronounce him on those he was unsure of. These are the three principle arguments,which enabled Ambedkar to identify the authentic traditional elements. It is through this framework ofstudy that he rejected all that did not correspond with his idea of a Buddhism that was social,egalitarian and reformatory in its character.
How did Ambedkar perceive the Buddha? For him, he was not comparable to a God or to aprophet. The Buddha never claimed divine status. He never said to have divine or supernatural powers.For Ambedkar the Buddha was a historical character, who was concerned with showing mankind thepath to salvation. More importantly, he gave his disciples the liberty to question and to modify histeachings. In fact Ambedkar reconstructed his life of the Buddha from the Suttapitaka, the Buddhacharita and the works of Paul Carus, of Lakshmi Narasu and of Edward Thomas. In his The Buddha and His Dhamma he presented the Buddha as a very good-looking man with a gentle voiceand a perfect character, who was admired by one and all (Ambedkar 1992: 567-570). It is necessary tokeep in mind that despite the strong rational position adopted by Ambedkar; the description of theBuddha is in the same religious and devotional language as the English versions of the ancient Sanskrit and Pali texts. But the content has changed: The Buddha represents the ideal, humanist,knowledgeable, tolerant and compassionate leader, who is committed to the cause of the ill and the marginalized. He detested all forms of inequality and poverty (Ambedkar 1992: 573-584).
In his program of a radical re-actualization of Buddhism, Ambedkar modified certain details of Buddha’s life. The most striking example is of his renouncement. According to tradition the Buddha left his family and his house to go in search of liberation after the painful experience of coming across an old man, a sick man and a dead man. However, according to Ambedkar, the given reason for renouncing the world is absurd. He proposed another solution that seems more plausible. When the prince Siddhartha was twenty-eight years old, there was a conflict that broke out between the Shakyas,his clan and that of the Koliyas, their neighbours and relatives. They had continuous disagreements on who should use the water of the river Rohini that separated the two kingdoms. The conflict turned violent and claimed many victims. This is why the Shakyas declared war on the Koliyas. Ambedkar situates the Buddha’s decision to renounce the world at this very moment, as he was opposed to the declaration of war, which was not a solution in his view. Only love could solve the problem but the Shakyas refused to listen to his proposal and the Buddha refused to move his armies. When he was threatened of being punished by his own clan, the Buddha decided to renounce the world (Ambedkar 1992: 24-32)
This hypothesis seems plausible due to its rational and simple nature. Buddha’s refusal to enter into a war that was unjust and inappropriate corresponds perfectly to the idea of a Buddhism committed to social welfare as envisaged by Ambedkar. The figure of the young prince Siddhartha Gautama who takes an active part in the political affairs of his time is more interesting than that of aprince who renounces the world on his first encounter with human suffering. But from a totally scientific point of view Ambedkar’s idea is not convincing. This is not surprising. Ambedkar’s biography of the Buddha is not a result of serious philological or historical studies that is “neutral”
studies, but is instead an unorthodox interpretation. In my article I intend to show how Ambedkar constructed the figure of an ideal social reformer, of a new Buddha, who could eventually substitute Karl Marx!
The new focus: Morality, Equality and Justice
Above all Ambedkar appreciated Buddhism for its morality: “In fact, it might be stated that the Buddha was the first teacher in the world who made morality the essence and foundation of religion” ( Ambedkar 1995: 32). As a consequence he refused even to speak of Buddhism as a religion and preferred the word dhamma, which he defined exclusively in terms of a principle of morality and social justice: “What is the place of morality in Dhamma? The simple answer is Morality is Dhammaand Dhamma is Morality. In other words, in Dhamma morality takes the place of God although thereis no God in Dhamma. In Dhamma there is no place for prayers, pilgrimages, rituals, ceremonies or sacrifices. Morality is the essence of Dhamma. Without it there is no Dhamma” (Ambedkar 1992: 322-323).
According to Ambedkar the Buddha’s dhamma is a kind of social contract regulating therelations between humans in their private as well as public lives: “Religion, it is said, is personal andone must keep it to oneself. One must not let it play its part in public life. Contrary to this, Dhamma is social. It is fundamentally and essentially so. Dhamma is righteousness, which means right relations between man and man in all spheres of life. From this it is evident that one man if he is alone does not need Dhamma. But when there are two men living in relation to each other they must find a place for Dhamma whether they like it or not. Neither can escape it. In other words, Society cannot do without Dhamma” (Ambedkar 1992: 316)
At this point Ambedkar argued that no society can survive without religion. Ambedkar recognised the necessity of morality without giving up the notion of religion: The Buddha preached social, intellectual, economic and political liberty, as well as equality among st human beings and the two sexes. The three fundamental principles of his philosophy are liberty, equality and fraternity. In an interview that he gave on 3 October 1954 to the All India Radio, he explained: “My social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one however say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French revolution. I have not. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha” (Ambedkar 1997: 101)
Would it be going too far in attributing revolutionary and egalitarian intentions to the Buddha just as Ambedkar does? To summarise, it is certain that Ambedkar’s arguments are not those of a Buddhist scholar but of a social reformer, who re-actualities this age-old tradition in a radical manner.However, he is not the only one to do so: Before him Dharmapala and Narasu had already promoted this same interpretation. More importantly, the egalitarian and anti-caste values form a central part of the modern and contemporary Buddhist discourse.
Ambedkar’s identification in terms of a modernistic Buddhist is not as evident as it may seem at first. Firstly, Ambedkar re-interpreted Buddhism in a non-Buddhist context. He knew Buddhism only through books. Of course he was in contact with other Buddhists and participated in international Buddhist conferences. But he still had a selective approach. In fact he adapted Buddhism with a greatdeal of liberty: He chose what interested him and left out what he considered inappropriate. This liberty of choice makes for an important difference between him and the Buddhist reformers like Dharmapala who was rooted in a Buddhist milieu. At the same time Ambedkar shares some common aspects with the modernist Buddhists. His writings are largely based on texts of the Theravada tradition, translated into English by westerners though he began towards the end of his life to learn Pali and prepared a Pali dictionary. But the use of Buddhist texts in their original language has remained rare. The western influence, which characteristics modernist Buddhists, is clearly evident in Ambedkar’s borrowing of ideas from rationalism and universal and egalitarian ideology of the Lumières and from Marxism. He had read some western philosophers’ works and was greatly inspired by them. He himself admits owing a lot to John Dewey, the pragmatic American philosopher of his time (Ambedkar 1979: 79)
As a Buddhist, Ambedkar asked for independence and more autonomy in relation to all Buddhist traditions. On the 14th of October 1956 he gave the Twenty Vows to his “disciples” and initiated them into Buddhism, thus acting as an authority comparable to that of the Bhikkhu Chandramani, the Buddhist monk who had initiated Ambedkar. Despite his “inferior” status, Ambedkar claimed the same legitimacy as an ordained monk. Was this not an exceptional case in Buddhism? Ambedkar received fierce criticism, accusing him of having falsified the religion, and of having preached a “personal” Buddhism without respecting the tradition.
Buddhism and Marxism
Ambedkar considered Buddhism as a possible substitute for Communism. “I claim that Buddhism is a complete answer to Marx and his Communism” (Ambedkar 1997: 113). In a situation of competing ideologies, he saw his new Buddhism, containing certain Marxist elements, in the end the better alternative. In order to get a deeper understanding of this interesting mix of ideas and influences we need above all to look into two texts, where Ambedkar discusses this question in great detail. The first is Buddhism and Communism
(Ambedkar 1993b), a presentation he made at the Fourth Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists at Kathmandu in November 1956.
The second one is the article Buddha or Karl Marx? , which was written in December 1956 and is the reworked version of the Kathmandu presentation (Ambedkar 1987).
Before we systematically present the issues, which could be analysed in the framework ofMarxist ideology, it is to be repeated here that he got firstly exposed to Socialist ideas during his studies of anthropology, law and economy in the US and UK. At the same time he certainly witnessed the Stalinist terror in the Soviet Union and closely observed how Communism influenced at some point the fate of Europe. His stands towards Marxism might have changed over the years but he permanently addressed socio economic issues as equality, poverty, industrialization and unemployment. He also demanded that key industries should be owned by the State “whenever it may become necessary in the interest of the people” (Ambedkar 2003: 416-417). However, Ambedkar remained a democrat by conviction, he never declared himself a Marxist, not even Socialist. Nor did he join any leftist party but rather founded his own political parties such as the Independent Labour Party in 1936 or the Republican Party in 1955.
Ambedkar wanted India to be flexible and not following blindly a given ideology. This critical distance to his Marxist comrades is the most obvious in his opposition to declare India a Socialist country. As president of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, he rejected this amendment on 15 November 1948: “It is perfectly possible today, for the majority of the people to hold that the Socialist organisation of society is better than the Capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation of today or tomorrow (…) I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves” (Ambedkar1994: 326). He further argued that the Constitution had already established principles of social equality and justice: “Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is not necessary to accept this amendment” (Ambedkar 1994: 327). Ambedkar’s critical distance durated almost 20 years and was removed by Indira Gandhi, introduced in an amendment to the Consitution that classifies India as Socialist Republic.
a) Caste and class
Ambedkar’s major concern consisted in eradicating untouchability and uplifting the downtrodden population. Justice meant above all social equality. For Ambedkar it was the Buddha, who considered
equality as base of his teachings: “The Buddha was the strongest opponent of caste and the earliest and staunchest upholder of equality. There is no argument in favour of caste and inequality which he did
not refute” (Ambedkar 1992:302)
To repeat it once more, Ambedkar reached out for the establishment of social equality within a parliamentary democracy. To achieve it he used Marxist terminology but he never subscribed to Marxist ideology as a whole. Perhaps the most important concept that he might have borrowed from Marxism is the idea that “society is always composed of classes” (Ambedkar 1989a: 15). However, the terminology of social classes was widely used in the twentieth and thirties by Indian and British administration, the term of Depressed Classes designating the former Untouchables. Even though Ambedkar underlinded that “definite classes in a society” are “a fact” (Ambedkar 1989a: 15).Interestingly he interpreted the caste system within the framework of class ideology: “This is a universal fact and early Hindu society could not have been an exception to this rule (…) a Caste is an Enclosed Class” (Ambedkar 1989a: 15). Ambedkar understood caste not merely in terms of ritual purity, common genealogy, profession, marriage practices but in the context of political power and class struggle.
b) Revolutions as engines of social development
According to Ambedkar revolutions and counter-revolutions shaped Indian history. This idea is prominently visible in his theory on the origin of untouchability, which he linked to the dis appearance of Buddhism in India. According to him, the Untouchables were earlier the broken men, that is,sections of defeated tribes. They were victims of war, who were in flight and their community structure was weakened or even destroyed. These people went in search of a new refuge and approached sedentary tribes. These broken men became “strangers” in their eyes and did not have the right to live within the village. They protected the villagers and were in return sustained by them. This mutual relationship was at the root of the fifty-two traditional rights of the Mahars (Ambedkar 1990:274-277). How did these broken men become Untouchables? It is here that Ambedkar introduces the conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism. In his opinion the Brahmins lost their superior positiondue to the competition from the Buddhists. In order to gain dominant status, the Brahmins decided tobecome vegetarian, to prohibit beef-eating and to reject the Buddhists (Ambedkar 1990: 346). As aresult the Buddhist broken men who ate beef like the rest of the world, were stigmatised as “impure”.
This is how untouchability came into being towards 400 AD (Ambedkar 1990: 379). Ambedkar analyses the rivalry between Buddhism and Brahmanism in terms of a revolution and counter-revolution, as a conflict of progressive and regressive forces. Converting to Buddhism would thus be amark of social regression, a re-conversion to the original religion of the Untouchables. In other words, Ambedkar finds a coherent and original explanation to untouchability within the framework of his historical quest.
c) Economic concerns: The question of private property
Ambedkar claimed that the Buddhist concept of dukkha could sometimes be translated as poverty and concluded that the Buddh’a fight to erase dukkha means the eradication of poverty (Ambedkar 1993b:67-68). Therefore, no need exists to borrow this idea from Marx. From a Buddhist perspective poverty was linked to private property, the latter being the reason for any kind of exploitation. As a consequence Ambedkar demanded that key industries and agriculture in India are to be nationalized.In 1947 he published a memorandum on the safeguards for the Scheduled Castes and submitted it to the Constituent Assembly. He had formulated it on behalf of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation proposing measures of how to secure their rights in the Constitution. There he said: “That industries which are key industries or which may be declared to be key industries shall be owned and run by the State. That industries which are not key industries but which are basis industries shall be owned by the Stare and shall be run by the State or Corporations established by the State. That Insurance shall be a monopoly of the state and that the State shall compel every adult citizen to takeout life insurance policy commensurate with his wages as may be prescribed by the Legislature. That agriculture shall be State Industry” (Ambedkar 1990: 10). In this proposal he took a stand, that could be easily labeled Socialist. He also said: “The main purpose behind the provision is to put an obligation on the State to plan the economic life of the people on lines which would lead to highest point of productivity without closing every avenue to private enterprise, and also provide for the equitable distribution of wealth. The plan set out in the plan proposes State ownership in agriculture with a collectivized method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field of industry” (Ambedkar 1990: 12). He further declared that State Socialism would be essential for the rapid industrialization of India. He finally said: “Private enterprise cannot do it and if it did it would produce those inequalities of wealth which private capitalism has produced in Europe and which should be a warning to Indians” (Ambedkar 1990: 12).
However, Ambedkar talked here as a strategic and pragmatic politician having in mind the industrialization of India. He did not consider the systematic elimination or nationalization of private property as the ultimate solution to all problems (Ambedkar 1994: 1210). Nor was the socialization of private property his main priority. He stressed on the fact that India’s economic policy should ameliorate the fate of the people without sticking to any ideological programs. In fact, he blamed Communists and Socialists for being reductionist focusing exclusively on economic issues. He was convinced that Buddhism offers here something more: “Humanity does not only want economic values, it also wants spiritual values to be retained (…) Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but not all” (Ambedkar 1987: 461-462).
d) Secularism
Another major difference to the Communist/Socialist agenda was Ambedkar’s use of religion, which leads us back to his conversion to Buddhism. Ambedkar kept distant from militant atheism and developed another idea of a civic society, which is based on the dhamma as a social and sacred principle. In fact he criticised the Communists for hating religion, ignoring the difference between Christianity and Buddhism (Ambedkar 1987: 460). As we have seen Ambedkar’s
dhamma was totally different from the Christian religion. It was rationalist, a truly civil religion and fundament for a free society (Ambedkar 1987: 442)
However he neither applied a uniform terminology, nor gave he a pertinent definition. What seems to be the central aspect is the fact that he based himself primarily on western writers quoting abundantly from authors like Robertson Smith, C.P. Tiele and Max Muller, all researchers who spread more or less evolutionist ideals according to which each stage of human civilization is characterized by a specific religion. Ambedkar borrowed the idea from them in defining religion as a social force that is the ideal form of the organization of a civil society. Referring to Marx he declared that the function of religion is not to explain the origin of the world, but to reconstruct the world and to make mankind happy. The ideal religion is one that transforms the human society into a moral, ideal and democratic order, such as Buddhism (Ambedkar 1987: 442; Ambedkar 1992: 322).
Ambedkar constructs Buddhism in the form of a parallel entity that is the antithesis what he calls of monotheistic religion, without giving up the idea that religion always represents the moral fabric of a society. As he is aware of this conceptual rift, he avoids the term religion wherever he can.The alternative term of dhamma corresponds better with his idea of a secularized and anti-traditionalist religion. His Buddhism may be tested, questioned, improved, reformed, even abandoned. Buddhism is not a “revealed religion”, but an object of quest and investigation (Ambedkar 1989a: 191; Ambedkar1992: 221-222). Buddhism is a “a religious religion”, a universal human morale which negates the existence of all religions.
e) Non violence and democracy
As an apologetic Ambedkar declared again and again how Buddhism is preferable to Marxism and Communism. Within this discourse, the issue of non-violence (ahimsa) functioned as major argument in favour of Buddhism. Ambedkar explains: “The Buddha was against violence. But he was also infavour of justice and where justice required he permitted the use of force” (Ambedkar 1987: 459).Therefore force is acceptable as a tool of maintaining authority and power, law and order in thestate. There is no doubt that an offender must be punished and that the government which inflicts thepunishment is only carrying out the law. The use of force is not in conflict with the Buddhist principle of ahimsa because one “must never surrender to evil powers. War there may be. But it must not be forselfish ends….” (Ambedkar 1987: 451). In other words, Buddhism love can provoke the use ofviolence, if it is preventive in nature. For Ambedkar, Buddhism is the middle path between Jainism, Hinduism, and Communism, between non-violence and violence. Buddhism is not a religion made oflaws but a religion based on righteous principles (Ambedkar 1992: 347).
To say it again, the Buddha never used violence to implement his ideas. It is out of love and persuasion that he convinced others to adopt his teachings. “The Buddha’s way was not to force people to do what they did not like to do although it was good for them. His way was to alter the disposition of men so that they would do voluntarily what they would not otherwise do” (Ambedkar1987: 461). Ambedkar was an idealist visionary and a democrat. Dictatorship is not a good form of government as it negates values such as equality, liberty and fraternity. Ambedkar thought that the co-existence of these three principles can be realised only by following the Buddha’s path. Communism would destroy these values.
In particular the dictatorship of the proletariat was not acceptable for Ambedkar because itnullified all democratic rights of the people. He criticized: “The Russians are proud of their Communism. But they forget that the wonder of all wonders is that the Buddha established Communism so far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be that it was communism on a very small scale but it was communism without dictatorship a miracle which Lenin failed to do” (Ambedkar 1987: 461). In fact Ambedkar rejected the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat and advocated the ideal of parliamentary democracy.
Conclusion
Ambedkar himself resumed the importance of Marx into four major points: “What remains of the Karl Marx is a residue of fire, small but still very important. The residue in my view consists of four items:(i) The function of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to waste its time in explaining the origin of the world. (ii) That there is a conflict of interest between class and class.(iii) That private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another through exploitation. (iv) That it is necessary for the good of society that the sorrow be removed by the abolition of private property” (Ambedkar 1987: 443). According to him these four points survived Marx and are until today relevant issues. The other ideas like the necessity of implementing proletarian dictatorship, the inevitable arrival of Socialism, the exclusively economic interpretation of history or the ongoing pauperization of the proletariat have been demolished by logic and experience. Throughout this paper it became clear that Ambedkar accorded great importance to these Marxian ideas in his project of reconstructing the world. But here we need to add that he discovered all these points mentioned above (and a lot more)preached by the Buddha already. He therefore declared Buddhism a possible universal alternative to Marxism. However, the analysis of Buddhist influences and Marxist inclinations should not hide Ambedkar’s significance as a man, who was guided by the vision of a better, modern, reformed India,a society that is more just and egalitarian.
References
- Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (1979 [1936]),
- Annihilation of Caste with a reply to Mahatma Gandhi
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: EducationDepartment, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 1._ (1987 [1956]), Buddha or Karl Marx , Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, editedby V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 3. (1989a [1916])
- Castes in India, their Mechanism, Genesis and Development
- , Dr. BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Governmentof Maharashtra, vol. 1. (1989b), Untouchables or the Children of India’s Ghetto and other essays, on Untouchables andUntouchability, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay:Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 5. (1990a)
- Pakistan or the Partition of India
- , Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches,edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 8. (1990b [1947]) State Socialism , Jalandhar: Bheem Patrika Publications. (1992 [1957]),
- The Buddha and His Dhamma
- , Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches,edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 11. (1993a [1936]), ‘Why Conversion?’, in Grover, Verinder (ed.), B. R. Ambedkar , Delhi: Deep &Deep Publications, pp. 3-13. (1993b [1956]), ‘Buddhism and Communism’, in Grover, Verinder (ed.),
- B. R. Ambedkar
- , Delhi:Deep & Deep Publications, pp. 65-73.___ (1994)
- Dr. Ambedkar. The Principal Architect of the Constitution of India
- , Dr. BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Governmentof Maharashtra, vol. 13.
- (1995 [1950]), ‘Buddha and the Future of His Religion’, in Ahir, Diwan Chand, (ed.), APanorama of Indian Buddhism, Selections from the Maha Bodhi Journal (1892-1992) , Delhi: SriSatguru Publications, pp. 29-43. (1997 [1954]), ‘Why Buddhism Preferred’, in D.C. Ahir (ed.),
- Selected Speeches of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (1927-1956)
- , Delhi: Blumoon Books, pp. 113-114.___ (2003)
- Dr. Ambedkar and his Egalitarian Revolution, Socio-political, Religious Activities
- , Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department,Government of Maharashtra, vol. 17, part 2.Beltz, Johannes, 2005,
- Mahar, Buddhist and Dalit, Religious Conversion and Socio-Political Emancipation
- , New Delhi: Manohar Publishers.Beltz, Johannes and Surendra Jondhale (eds.) (2004),
- Reconstructing the World, B.R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India
- , New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Courtesy – Written By Johannes Beltz Published By Academia