Vruttant Manwatkar
“Religion emphasizes, universalizes social values and brings them to the mind of the individual who is required to recognize them in all his acts in order that he may function as an approved member of the society. But the purpose of religion is more than this. It spiritualizes them.[1]” – Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Amidst a plethora of speculations by scholars, this lucid statement by Babasaheb stands out as the perfect explanation of the purpose of religion, especially when, on a global scale, there is a rapid multiplication of opinions aimed at polarizing people into multiple warring camps
Babasaheb Ambedkar’s ideology places religion at the center of human interaction. There is no doubt that, after almost 21 years of hard work to seek the perfect solution to the ills of society, he consciously and joyously gifted Buddha’s Dhamma to his community and followers in the form of a religion. However, his act of conversion to Buddhism was followed by many commentaries that are incomplete in their approach, bewildered in their nature, and obscure in comprehending its meaning. They often grope in the darkness of contemporary ideologies that are incapable of fathoming the depth of the Buddha’s Dhamma and the revolutionary nature of Babasaheb’s conversion.
I recently came across such an assertion by my friend and fellow activist from JNU days, Dr. Rahul Sonpimple, published as Prabuddha Bharat: Ambedkar’s Buddhist Rashtra Nation. One can say that this essay provoked me to think about and engage with it and compelled me to write a separate assertion, offering a clearer conception of Prabuddha Bharat vis-à-vis the above-mentioned writing. But before presenting it here, I heartily congratulate Dr. Rahul Sonpimple for founding AIISCA and, as the President, initiating a chapter for the welfare and benefits of one of the most marginalized communities in India. His endeavors are appreciable, especially in the wake of the grim reality where most of those who claim to be doing revolutionary activism in JNU in their scholarship days become socio-politically inactive in their post-university days, and in fact, many expose their real fangs of Brahmanical deceit by joining the hegemonic forces.
In its premise, Dr. Rahul’s assertion suffers from inadequacies in the qualitative grasping of the social-cultural reality of the so-called ‘lower-caste’ or ‘Dalit’ community and professes a perplexed perspective of Babasaheb’s Prabuddha Bharat. Although the reading of Babasaheb’s praxis in it is not entirely disagreeable, it shows inconsistency with the approach taken by Babasaheb Ambedkar. Perhaps the heavy dependency and influence of the dialectical-material (Marxist) ideology is the cause of such inconsistency. The interpretations of certain significant ideas, including violence, the practice of mind-culture, global Buddhism, Buddhist scholarship, the objective of Babasaheb’s conversion, etc., remain superfluously binary and appear to be diverging away from Ambedkarism and the values of Buddha’s Dhamma.
Babasaheb Ambedkar’s thesis on Buddhism, at its time, was the much-needed discovery of Buddha’s Dhamma after 2500 years of Lord Buddha. In today’s academic and literary culture, Ambedkarite thought is mostly misunderstood by scholars trained in rightist as well as leftist-marxist ideology. To precisely encapsulate Babasaheb’s approach to Prabuddha Bharat, a critical and careful survey of his way of emancipation, which is present in his later writings and speeches, is needed. While attempting to do so in my assertion, I am primarily discussing two pivotal speeches: ‘Buddha or Karl Marx[2]’ and ‘The Dhamma Diksha Day[3]’ speech.
Despite reading and comprehending Marxist ideology, Babasaheb thought independently of it. Moreover, on the basis of his Buddhist worldview, he exposed the shortcomings of Marxism in addressing the problems of humanity. He proclaimed, “The communists should study Buddhism so that they might know how to remove the ills of humanity.” (May 1956, Mumbai)
It has been observed that many contemporary Marxists who identify themselves as ‘Dalit’ are in a very bewildered ideological position. Their confusion can be understood by the fact that they prefer to term the original text ‘Buddha or Karl Marx’ written by Babasaheb as ‘Buddha and Karl Marx’ (A detailed exposition of this case is published by Baudhkaro). On this remark, it must also be noted that Marxism is an independent ideology that is pro-marginalized, justice-oriented, and revolutionary. But its unnecessary blend with Ambedkarism has led the Ambedkarite movement into an incessant whirlpool of chronic confusion, whereas Babasaheb Ambedkar propounded a crystal clear theory and practice of his way of achieving emancipation that rejects Marxism due to its lacunae, and accepted Buddhism for its extensive and all-encompassing approach.
In one of the last recorded speeches of his life, ‘Buddha or Karl Marx’, just a fortnight before his death, Babasaheb laid down a few of the very important insights that clarify all lingering doubts about his approach to choosing Buddhism over Marxism. In this speech, he contemplates “whether the Buddhist way of life of reaching the goal is a lasting one, or whether the Communist way of bringing about the goal is the lasting one.”
Babasaheb ingeniously clarifies the differences between Buddhism and Marxism by explaining, “The means that the Communists wish to adopt in order to bring about Communism, by which I mean the recognition of Dukkha, and abolition of property, is violence and killing of the opposed. There lies the fundamental difference between the Buddha and Karl Marx. The Buddha’s means of persuading people to adopt the principles is by persuasion, by moral teaching, by love. He wants to conquer the opponent by inculcating in him the doctrine that love and not power can conquer anything. That is where the fundamental difference lies—that the Buddha would not allow violence, and the Communists do. No doubt the Communists get quick results; because when you adopt the means of annihilating men, they do not remain to oppose you.” Also, he adds, “They establish by means of violence what they call the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Furthermore, Babasaheb simplifies, “…to those who are attracted by Karl Marx, I say, study the Dharmachakra Pravartana Sutta and find out what the Buddha says. And you will find sufficient satisfaction on this question. The Buddha did not lay the foundation of his religion either on God, or on Soul, or anything Supernatural like these. He laid His finger on the fact of life–people are living in suffering. Therefore, so far as Marxism or Communism is concerned, Buddhism has enough of it. And the Buddha has said it 2000 years before Marx was born.”
Thus, any claim of Babasaheb reframing the fundamentals of Buddhism to address real questions posed by Marxism remains baseless considering the enormous difference between both ideologies. The statement “so far as Marxism or Communism is concerned, Buddhism has enough of it…” suggests the relevance of Buddhism in modern times and elucidates no need for Marxism to supplement Buddhism.
According to Babasaheb, “Because there is no use in pursuing a certain path, if that path is not going to be a lasting path, if it is going to lead you to the jungle, if it is going to lead you to anarchy, there is no use pursuing it (sic). But, if you are assured that the path you are asked to follow is slow, may be devious, may be with long detours, yet if ultimately it makes you reach a safe, sound ground so that the ideals you are pursuing are there to help you, to mold your life permanently, it is much better, in my judgment, to follow the slower path, and the devious path rather than to rush up and to take what we call short cuts. Shortcuts in life are always dangerous, very dangerous.”
One can see that while corresponding to this warning, Babasaheb puts forth his conclusion of choosing Buddha’s method remarkably by stating, “I have been a student of politics; I have been a student of economics; I was a professor of Economics, and I have spent a great deal of time in studying Karl Marx, Communism and all that, and I have also spent good deal of time in studying the Buddha’s Dhamma. After comparing the two I came to the conclusion that Buddha’s advice with regard to the great problem of the world, namely, that there is Dukkha, that Dukkha must be removed, that the Buddha’s method was the safest and the soundest.” (sic.)
Babasaheb’s iconic call to convince the world of the righteous ideas of Buddha’s Dhamma still acts as a beacon of light to those who are perplexed in determining their ideology. He proclaims, “You go on with your ideology, you go on with your ways of doing things. The Buddha’s way, as I said, is a long way, perhaps some people may say, a tedious way. But I have no doubt about it that it is the surest way.”
Finally in this speech, he ends his wisest aphorisms with a strong advice to people by announcing, “Do not be allured by Communist successes. I am quite confident that if we all become one tenth as enlightened as the Buddha was, we can bring about the same result by the methods of love, of justice, and good will.”
In the light of this iconoclastic speech, the perplexing need to persist with the discourse of Marxist-Ambedkarite ideological fusion is in vain. The dire urgency of addressing Indian social issues by importing and implementing the so-called ‘radical’ ideologies from the west, especially those influenced by Marxist theories, is now a phenomenon a few decades old. A few radical groups, the most prominent of which was the Dalit Panthers, emerged with a lightning force, stressing the justification of the use of force to eliminate Indian social evils. The Dalit Panthers used Marxist methods to realize their socio-political goals. Needless to say, allured by their radical methods, many people joined their movement to eliminate injustice in Indian society and politics. However, this movement could not sustain itself due to its ideological and practical inadequacies.
Leader Raja Dhale, one of the chief founders of the Dalit Panthers, was the first person to reject the Dalit Panthers because of its Marxist ideology. As soon as he realized the faults, he daringly disassociated himself from it while highlighting the wrongs of the Dalit Panthers ideology represented in its manifesto. It must be noted that this manifesto did not even utter a single word on the propagation of Buddhism or the Buddhist movement. As the socio-political scholars point out the ‘radicalness’ of the Dalit Panthers, its critical study suggests that it failed to see the radicalness of Buddhism, which aims to eliminate the root cause of suffering. Rather, it projected Marxist ideology, and yet, sadly, there are innumerable narratives calling it an Ambedkarite movement.
In the analysis of the Ambedkarite movement, one can easily observe that instead of highlighting the sharpness of the Ambedkarite ideology, the ‘radical’ narrative is largely used as a tool to channelize the masses towards the movements that prioritize the use of force over the movements that prioritize Ambedkarite/Buddhist organization for emancipation. On the one hand, this narrative follows the Marxist approach of prioritizing force for creating discontent in society to enrage masses and, on the other hand, maintains biases that show Buddhist movements in a passive vein by often terming Buddhist practices and approaches as inactive and indifferent.
However, rather than emphasizing the ‘radicalness’ of the nature of his actions, Babasaheb Ambedkar focused more on their ‘righteousness’. His thrust remained emphatic on the transformative nature of actions seeking justice. He maintained, “For a successful revolution, it is not enough that there is discontent. What is required is a profound and thorough conviction of justice.”
Unlike many Marxist leaders, whose focus remained on stressing and maintaining the radicalness of their actions, Babasaheb’s movement presented an extraordinary example of the blend of methods that could be termed ‘pragmatic’ by modern scholars and ‘samyak’ by Buddhist scholars. Recognizing the dynamic nature of the Ambedkarite movement, it would be erroneous, if not foolish, to term Ambedkarism a mere ‘radical’ approach. Babasaheb himself has hardly used this term, which has become popular in today’s Ambedkarite narratives. However, the fact remains that this term has been extensively used in the Marxist movements. In the wake of such a hotchpotch of terminologies used in the name of ‘Ambedkarite’ narratives, instead of ‘radical’, there is an urgent need to emphasize and use the Buddhist term ‘righteous’.
The ‘righteous’ narrative, also known as ‘samyak’ in Pali literature, is well established in the Ambedkarite/Buddhist movement. It has its roots in the Buddhist values and morality of the Ashtangika Marg (Eightfold Path). Buddhism is not absolutist and doesn’t believe in extremes. Needless to say, there is no scope for absolutist nonviolence in the praxis of Buddhism while following the Buddha’s principles, which emphasize compassion and loving kindness. More precisely, it has the necessary universal outlook that encompasses a wide spectrum of the nature of actions, ranging from using soft power and diplomacy to the use of force, while keeping the actions in tandem with the principles of the movement. By using such Buddhist terms, Ambedkarite narratives would not fall prey to the apparent Marxist fallacy of othering compassionate actions as passive and forceful ones as radical.
Ambedkarism is based on the intelligent interaction of righteous peace and righteous force. In this interaction, love and peace may not necessarily be passive, and force, radical. In fact, through a righteous approach, acts of love and peace become revolutionary. Prabuddha Bharat can only be established by such a righteous outlook and method.
Samrat Ashok, Bhikkhuni Sanghamitta, Nagsena, Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Babasaheb, Iyothee Thass, Prof. Laxmi Narasu, Anagarika Dhammapala, Ajan Chan, Thich Nath Hanh, Dalai Lama, Bell Hooks, Bhikkhu Sangharakshita, S. N. Goenka, Bhikkhuni Dhammananda, Bhadant Anand Kausalyayan, etc., are known as some of the most noted scholars and practitioners of Buddhism. Almost all of them have immensely influenced the development of Buddhism in the east as well as the western part of the world. These noble persons have been spreading the light of Dhamma with an honest vision and vigor. Throughout their lives, these personalities remained committed to propagating the values of morality, wisdom, justice and loving kindness. They saw love and justice as complementary values. Never did they see them in the misleading binary of passive and radical values. Although at times these noble Buddhist leaders seem to differ in many ways, for relative differences are inevitable, yet the belief in Ashtangika Marg, Triple Jewels, Panchshilas, Patitta-samuppad and Paramitas is the common link between all of them. They agree on the core of Buddha’s Dhamma, whose central feature is ‘Sila’ or ‘morality’ that corresponds to righteousness. In Buddhist theory, the word ‘Ashtangika Marg’ is also called Samyak Marg, and as previously mentioned, ‘samyak’ translates as ‘righteous’ in English. Prabuddha Bharat thus represents the ‘samyak’, or righteous, ideas necessary for the progress of humanity.
In Buddhist theory and practice aimed at the progress of humanity, changes in its form are joyously welcomed. They are often the result of changing regions and cultures. Following the realization of impermanence, Buddhists practice ‘upekkha’ and avoid clinging to their practices. The practice of meditation must be seen in this light in order to comprehend it without ideological biases. Contrary to how it is often misunderstood by proclaimed radical scholars, meditation is not a practice that makes a human’s movement passive. Having multiple forms and kinds, it is nothing but the practice of ‘Bhavana’, which translates as ‘mind-culture’. Babasaheb, in his many writings, inspired by various schools of Buddhism, has noted the importance of this mind culture/ process. His suggestion of chanting ‘Om Mani Padme Hum[4]’ is a part of this culture.
However, it is not surprising that those people confused by the radical Marxist ideology often wrongly perceive this spiritual culture followed and propagated by Babasaheb. This ‘spiritual’ is righteous and not superstitious. Therefore, it is sheer foolishness to not acknowledge and rather trivialize it, especially while conceptualizing the significant idea of Babasaheb’s Prabuddha Bharat.
Spirituality is the most important element of Ambedkarism. Babasaheb did not go beyond Buddhist spirituality. Rather, he retained its original nature while conceiving his movement. He made Buddhist spirituality the heart of his movement while correspondingly emphasizing the social-material emancipation of beings, which is the significant core of Buddhist ideology. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s most revolutionary statement on his formula of the movement, where he announces the pathbreaking slogan of ‘Educate, Agitate, Organize’ states, “My final words of advice to you are “Educate, Agitate, Organize.” Have faith in yourself. With justice on our side, I do not see how we can lose our battle. The battle to me is a matter of joy. The battle is in the fullest sense spiritual. There is nothing material or social in it. For ours is a battle not for wealth or for power. It is a battle for freedom. It is a battle for reclamation of the human personality[5]”
It remains a remarkable fact that the existence and persistence of this ‘spiritual’ foundation have been his most significant motivation behind the embracement of Buddhism in 1956. “My bag is full of solutions,” proclaimed Babasaheb with a colossal spirit of hope and optimism at Dikshabhoomi during the historical conversion ceremony. It was immediately followed by a wave of cheering and applause by the depressed people. This is a well-known fact passed on from one generation to the next with many oral references. Being their Mooknayak, with this thunderous statement, he kindled hope within the spirits of the hopeless people.
Babasaheb was at the peak of his sharpest criticisms of the Brahmanical system while making his people aware of the truth. He negated the counterculture to establish the culture of ‘Metta’ (friendship). He uncompromisingly challenged the hegemony yet did not spread hate among his people. No wonder, in many cultural references, an analogy is made comparing Babasaheb with the ocean of ‘Karuna’ (compassion). From his end, there was no attempt to create a feeling of antagonism between any two classes.
After Babasaheb, there were a few of his followers who genuinely tried to take forward his legacy of scientific, sharp criticisms to reveal the ugly truths of Indian society and to make the masses conscious. However, even after Babasaheb’s warning, “Do not be allured by Communist successes,[6]” there have been many thinkers and politicians who have used the methods of polarizing the so-called ‘lower castes’ as a class against the so-called ‘upper castes’. Their method has mostly been negative in character. The practice of giving reactionary speeches, abusing goddesses, spreading hate against certain castes, etc. has been rampant, just to antagonize the followers of Babasaheb and catalyze the separation of one class from another.
Like many people’s erroneous view that the nature of Buddha’s Dhamma is negative or pessimistic, the argument that Babasaheb’s embrace of Dhamma is a negative act is also a fallacy. Moreover, these arguments may also appear to be distorting Babasaheb’s motive by posing him as the one creating antagonism and discontent between the different castes in order to ignite an enraged, ideal-romantic-bloody Marxist revolution. Paying heed to Babasaheb’s method and warnings, it shall be a serious folly of the carriers of the Ambedkarite movement to again waste their time, efforts, and resources in pursuing activities inspired by such radical-reactionary socio-political narratives.
Although scholars have argued that revolutions can be ‘silent’, any claim suggesting that the modern Ambedkarite/Buddhist movements interacting with the universal Buddhist community as passive is absurd, if not in bad taste of phony-romantic revolutionism.
In this light, the arguments of assertion in Prabuddha Bharat: Ambedkar’s Buddhist Rashtra Nation stand misleading because Babasaheb did not, at all, reframe the fundamentals of Buddha’s Dhamma while “responding to the real questions posed by Marxism in the external world.” Maintaining the core of Ashtangika Marg, Triple Jewels, Panchashilas, Patta-Samuppad, and Paramitas, Babasaheb gave humanity the ‘Buddha and his Dhamma’ as the real solution to the real issues of human interaction. Babasaheb roared in his Diksha speech, “This is not the new path. This path has not been borrowed from anywhere. This path is from here, it is purely Indian. The Buddhist religion survived here for 2000 years in India. Truly speaking, we regret why we did not embrace Buddhism earlier.” Thus, by finding this path, i.e., Buddhism, which has been there in India, Babasaheb used the same fundamentals of Buddhism to emancipate the masses. Not only that, by rediscovering the religion followed by many people in the global community, he also established a link for Ambedkarites to be in harmony with the world Buddhist community.
The article in question asserts only the negative vows (excluding one) of 22 vows and doesn’t include the positive vows that comprise the most important aspects of Ambedkarism, viz., morality for the education, organization and agitation of Ambedkarites. The 22 vows lose their vigor and purpose in their absence. 22 vows, the foundation of Ambedkarism, are only complete in their totality of 22, so only highlighting the selected few without including the morality of Ambedkarism is mere hullabaloo. The conscious bypassing of Buddhist morality illuminating the 22 vows by those who proclaim the Ambedkarite legacy is one of their most menacing mistakes.
By not recognizing this morality as the foundation of Ambedkarite culture, there emerges a brazen discord between the theory and practice of the proclaimed Ambedkarites. It is quite interesting to note that on the one hand, Dr. Rahul emphasizes the importance of Babasaheb’s Buddhism, but on the other hand, he does not make any efforts to include the importance of embracing Buddhism for the welfare of people in the manifesto of the organization he leads.
The nature, motive and vision of Babasaheb’s embracement of Buddhism is from negative to positive. It’s constructive, material, with a spiritual core. Any claim otherwise is a historical-materialistic folly and must be refuted with an Ambedkarite point of view. Just a reading of his Diksha speech can confirm that through this revolutionary act, Babasaheb embraced Buddhism to inspire the positive spirit of hope, enthusiasm and joy, along with the cultural development of mind and overall progress of the community, and not simply to confront any other religion. In the speech, he categorically declared, “Our mission is so stupendous that every minute of life is inadequate. I do not have time to ill-omen others by scratching my nose.” Furthermore, while discarding the old faith for once and giving the new path to his followers, Babasaheb announced, “This is the day of hope. This is the path of elevation and progress.”
Although Babasaheb started with his community, as they were in dire need of Buddhism, to instill hope and enthusiasm, the sphere of Buddha’s and Babasaheb’s Karuna encompasses the maximum number of people (Bahujan Hitaya, Bahujan Sukhaya), irrespective of their region, nation, country, caste, clan, etc. Prabuddha Bharat is not a sectarian or reactionary-radical notion of a nation.
While commencing on the noble mission of making Prabuddha Bharat, Babasaheb questioned regrettably, “Why did we not embrace Buddhism earlier?” However, at the same time, with the hope that his people will sacrifice everything to spread Buddhism in India, he also stated, “We are fighting for honor and self-respect. We are getting ready to take the human being towards perfection; for that, we are ready for any sacrifice.” In this regard, it is urgent to bring to the attention of the followers of Babasaheb that now there is a dire need to first sacrifice the romantic, radicalized, materialist thinking highly influenced by the teachings of Karl Marx. There is a need to sacrifice the practice of mixing Ambedkarite symbols with the Communist ones (especially when one observes how highlighting the eyes of a blue panther with ‘red’ color is considered ‘radical’).
Prabuddha Bharat is certainly that enlightened India, which is supposed to play a vital role in inviting not only a certain class or people of a certain state, but all those maximum people who are seeking a way out of their ‘dukkha’. Prabuddha Bharat doesn’t stop at merely isolating the so-called ‘lower castes’ into a Buddhist nation, but, with the clarion call of ‘Ehipassiko Opanyiko’ (come and see it yourselves), it invites anyone who wants to put an end to suffering in their lives and also for those who like to achieve emancipation with the help of Ashtangika Marg. It is not only for the so-called ‘lower castes’ to lose their identities but also for the so-called ‘upper castes’ and anybody else who wants to lose their regressive identity in order to merge with the ocean of morality, wisdom and loving kindness.
In the Diksha speech, Babasaheb proclaimed, “In the Buddhist religion 75% Bhikkhus were Brahmins. 25% were the Shudras and others. But the Lord Buddha said, “O, Bhikkhus, you have come from different countries and castes. Rivers flow separately when they flow in their provinces, but they lose their identity when they meet the sea. They become one and the same. The Buddhist Sangha is like an ocean. In this Sangh all are equal. “After they merge into the ocean, it is not possible to identify the water of Ganga or Mahanadi. Similarly when we join Buddha Sangh, we lose our caste and become equal. There is only one Great Man who preached such equality, and that Great Man is Lord Buddha.”
Prabuddha Bharat is founded on such a samyak-righteous ideology based on Buddhist morality which is revolutionary and has the power of transforming the whole of humanity. The appeal of Prabuddha Bharat is progressive, universal and has the potential to organize maximum people as Buddhists for the making of an enlightened India that can further, in Babasaheb’s words, “be the savior of the world….reconstruct the world” and make it “The kingdom of righteousness.”
To end with the visionary statement of Babasaheb, “This new path is full of responsibilities. The young should keep in mind that we have made some resolutions and expressed some desires… I want to take all of you with me. Initially, Tathagat gave Diksha to a few individuals and directed them: “Spread this religion”. After that, Yasha and his forty friends embraced Buddhism. Yasha belonged to a rich family. Lord Buddha said to them, “What is this religion like? The religion is Bahujana Hitaya, Bahujana Sukhaya, Lokanucampay, Dhamma Adi Kalyanam, Madhya Kalyanam, Paryavasan Kalyanam. (For the welfare of maximum, for the benefit of maximum, compassionate for people, Dhamma brings welfare in the beginning; Dhamma brings welfare in the middle; Dhamma brings welfare in the end.)”
Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu!
The author is grateful to Dr. Krittika Mondal for her assistance in proofreading and editing the article.
~
References
[1] Babasaheb Ambedkar, Away from Hindus, Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol V
[2] Babasaheb Ambedkar, Buddha or Karl Marx, Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol 17, Part III
[3] Babasaheb Ambedkar, Buddhism…Savior of World, Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol 17, Part III
[4] Babasaheb Ambedkar, Bauddha Puja Path
[5] Babasaheb Ambedkar, Educate, Agitate, Organise, Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol 17, Part III
[6] Babasaheb Ambedkar, Buddha or Karl Marx, Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol 17, Part III
~~~
Dr. Vruttant Manwatkar is an Assistant Professor in Mumbai, and the Co-founder of the Art Band Baudhkaro.
