Foreword
In the April edition of The Beacon, Mihir Shah pointed to a facet of Ambedkar that had not received the attention it deserved—his intense search for a spiritual “home-ground for society”, a legacy that Shah contends transcends his well-known achievements as the ‘Father’ of the Indian Constitution and his heroic endeavours to annihilate caste. The search for a spiritual road to the end of suffering of all life, human and non-human rested on the unity of the personal and the political: social and inner transformation were inextricably linked for Ambedkar.
In the essay below, Hemant Devasthali responds by referring back to the mass conversion of 1956. For Ambedkar that conversion, so Devaasthali contends, was not simply meant to signify the rejection of Hinduism by the Dalits but an acceptance of a spirituality that called for, post-conversion, an inner transformation of the individual-convert and her capacity to relate to suffering all around and to help ameliorate it. To this end, Ambedkar ‘reformed’ Buddhism and offered them new tenets that would aid them in their quest to transcend nrrow-self-interest and find nirvana in the here-and-now—in the brotherhood of man. Devasthali traces Ambedkar’s attempts to tweak Buddhism. For a people who had to break away from the bonds of social oppression and self-interest.
The conversation has begun. The Beacon welcomes responses that would help expand it in new directions casting light on hitherto neglected parts of Ambedkar’s search for a new brotherhood. The journey is as important as the goal; We have to step outside hagiography to better appreciate the tortured struggles, missteps, missed turns in the quests for what the seekers believed to be the republic of righteousness. The Beacon
*****
Hemant Devasthali
‘According to Ambedkar, the real objective of a religionb should be the spiritual development of individuals…Personally, Ambedkar rated the spiritual aspect of religion to be more important than the existential aspect. For the sake of Dalits, he would emphasize the existential utility of religion. . . However, the choice of religion that Ambedkar made in 1956 was quite contrary to this existential consideration. It appears that his spiritual consideration eventually overwhelmed the existential one.’
Anil Teltumbde, 2018 as quoted by Mihir Shah.
I
n his article, Ambedkar’s Most Radical, Most Forgotten Legacy, Mihir Shah has rendered yeoman service to Ambedkar scholars and activists in the Dalit movement by rightly drawing their attention to the spiritual aspect of the great conversion to Buddhism in 1956. The event has generally been looked upon as an exercise by Dalits to mark their ceremonial exit from the iniquitous Hindu caste system.
While there is little doubt that the freedom from the caste system, however symbolic, was the most prominent objective of the 1956 conversion, its spiritual aspect was no less significant. Had it not been so, Ambedkar would not have burnt midnight oil to study the religion in depth and present it again for his followers in a new form. Traditional Buddhism had already rejected the Hindu caste system, and had freedom from the caste system been the sole object of the conversion, it would have sufficed for Ambedkar to direct his followers to merely convert to Buddhism in its received form.That he did not do so and went ahead to found the Navyana school of Buddhism, indicated that he deeply desired and intended an inner transformation in the new entrants to the faith.
The conversion to Buddhism thus asked the new converts not only to abandon once for all the caste iniquities that had utterly ruined their inner spirit and self-respect; it also asked them to embark upon a new journey of spiritual growth in their own life. The conversion to Buddhism offered them an opportunity to open their mind to an era of spiritual and personal development based on the new tenets of Buddhism as set forth by Ambedkar. In his numerous discourses to his followers, Ambedkar had tirelessly exhorted them to adopt new norms for their personal betterment and development in matters of personal hygiene, appearance and choice of occupation.
The conversion to Buddhism however made demands on their abilities for spiritual development as well. It was this intense urge for the creation of a new human being post conversion that inspired him to embark upon reforms in the ancient religion.
Ambedkar had a deep faith in the power of religion to persuade people to look beyond their self-interest. They are not as willing to do so with secular values however moral and dignified they may be. He firmly believed that an ethical society can rest only on the firm foundations of a religion.
Yet it was important for him that a religion should not create in its followers a fatalistic attitude toward their life and a longing for the supernatural. He wanted a religion that respected the spirit of scientific enquiry and promoted the well-being of the individual here on this earth. For the millions of his Dalit brethren, he needed a religion that was consistent with a milieu of equal opportunities and that motivated them to strive for a better standard of life, materialistic as well as spiritual- a religion that promoted the values of fraternity, equality and liberty that were conducive to the wholesome development of an individual.
While Ambedkar’s interest in Buddhism began as early as 1908 when his teacher, K. A. Keluskar, gave him a copy of the life of Buddha, an in-depth comparative study of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism in later years convinced Ambedkar that Buddhism happened to be the religion that was closest to his idea of religion. Buddha had rejected the hierarchical caste structure in Hinduism which Ambedkar felt was the most prominent feature of Hinduism and a source of economic and social slavery of the low castes. Unlike Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and most religions, Buddhism was devoid of the concept of God and reposed its faith in the natural order of cause and effect as the base of universe. As such Buddha had emphasised the role of reason as against faith or superstition as a perspective on life. Buddha did not regard himself as God or his prophet and bestowed full freedom on his disciples to question his views if they felt so. Buddha had no faith in the existence of soul either.
Above all the role of morality- relationship between men- and compassion was central to the Buddhist thought.Buddhism, Ambedkar felt was wholly consistent with the values of science and democracy. In view of the liberal teachings of Buddha that reckoned with the free development of an individual and importance of social equality, Ambedkar opted for Buddhism as a religion for himself and for millions of India’s Dalits.
Ambedkar felt free, in view of the Buddha’s liberal and welcoming attitude toward criticism of his own teachings,to reinterpret the Buddha’s teachings that suited the demands of the time particularly in the context of his Dalit followers. Buddhism was at once rational, secular, moral and egalitarian.
Criteria for reinterpretation
Ambedkar’s reinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings may be said to be based on three broad criteria. These were:
- Rationality: Since Buddha’s teachings have been known to be rational, anything that did not meet this criterion was not a part of the Buddhist ideology. The non-rational additions, Ambedkar said, were mostly added later by the Buddha’s disciples and needed to be discarded.
- Social Morality:Social morality is a very crucial Buddhist credo and any view that does not relate to social well-being should not be accepted as a part of Buddhist thought.
- Adaptability: While Buddha was definite and clear on certain matters, he was flexible on others. These can be adapted and interpreted in the context of changing times.
Dharma and Dhamma
Ambedkar traces the origin of religion (Dharma) to attempts by primitive man to explain the mystery of natural phenomena like lightening, rain and flood. This effort to uncover the unknown in these natural phenomena and bring them under human control has gone, in his view through four broad stages in the evolution of religion.
The first stage was magic performed to curb the disastrous consequences of the natural phenomena. The stage of magic evolved into a belief- the second stage-that there exists some power, malevolent and benevolent, that causes these phenomena to occur.In the third stage this power came to be known as God who was believed to have created the world. The fourth stage was characterised by a belief in the soul which is eternal and answerable to God.Thus a religion at its final stage is essentially characterised by a belief in God and soul.
Buddhism is not a religion in the conventional sense in that it believes neither in God nor in the soul. There is no element of supernatural in what Buddha called Dhamma. Dhamma is different from religion (Dharma) and therefore must not be translated as religion. Dhamma, the second of the three jewels of Buddhism the others being the Buddha and the Sangha, holds a prominent place in Ambedkar’s interpretation of Buddhism. Some of the distinguishing features of Dhammaas viewed by Ambedkar were:
a. Dhamma is devoid of the element of supernatural: Unlike most religions, Dhamma reckons with no supernatural elements. Thus while most religions recognise the concepts of God and soul, Dhamma does not. Dhamma also does not accept supernatural ideas of rebirth and moksha as recognised by Hinduism. The concept of nirvana in Buddhism has no supernatural element in it since it refers to a state of mind achieved by an individual in his present life.Nirvana refers to the control over passion by following the path of righteousness.
Nirvana can be said to be another name for righteous life.
b. Dhamma is a way of life based on morality: The religion of Buddha, Ambedkar held, is morality. In Buddhism in place of God, there is morality. Buddhism regards God as subordinate to morality. Unlike in other religions actions are to be performed or not performed not in accordance with whether they are sanctioned or not sanctioned by God but according to whether they are right (moral) or wrong (immoral).
c. Dhamma is social: In Ambedkar’s view, religion can be practised by an individual all alone. But Dhamma cannot be practised independent of society. This is because in Dhamma actions are judged moral or immoral in relation to their potential to benefit other human beings. They do not require divine sanction to be judged moral or otherwise. In Dhamma, a person has to be moral not in order to please God but to enhance his own well-being. It is in their own interest for men to love other men and be compassionate towards them. This explains why love and compassion between people are central to the concept of Dhamma.
Dhamma, Adhamma and Saddhamma
Ambedkar elaborates the concept of Dhamma further, distinguishing it from Addhamma and Saddhama. Dhamma refers to the way of life of an individual that is free from the supernatural; it is based on morality and is practised in relation to other men. It shows an individual a way to attain nirvana. In the sense that Dhamma cannot be practised alone by an individual, Dhamma is social but Dhamma gets a social perspective only when it becomes Saddhamma. Till then Dhamma remains limited to a personal pursuit of spiritual and moral values as in the strive to attain nirvana.
The purpose of Saddhamma is to clear the mind of all impurities (negative feelings) and create on this very earth what Ambedkar calls ‘a kingdom of righteousness’ through righteous behaviour by following the Panchsheela, the Ashtanga Marga and the Paramitas.
The Saddhamma unlike the Dhamma takes a macro view of social well-being and exhorts the laity not to be bothered about an imaginary heaven after death. It exhorts them to create a heaven right here on this earth.Similarly Dhamma becomes Saddhamma when learning is not confined to ascertain sections of society but opens it to all.
In the same vein, Ambedkar underlines in Saddhamma the significance of Pradnya (insight as against mere knowledge), Panchsheela (character), Karuna (compassion toward the poor, aged and unprotected) and finallyMaitri(love for all living beings, toward the whole living environment).
Ambedkar further makes annihilation of the Chaturvarnya system, the application of the doctrine of worth rather than birth as a measure of a person’s abilities and acceptance of social equality as a goal of human efforts to be the part of Saddhamma.
Adhamma consists of beliefs in the supernatural, in the ideas of God and soul, in the ability of rituals like sacrifices to yield the desired results, in views based on speculation (as the origin of the universe) rather than facts, in mere reading of books without understanding them and in the infallibility of books.
Buddhism: The New Form
In his preface to Buddha and His Dhamma, Ambedkar identified four areas where he has departed from the traditional interpretation of the Buddha’s views.
1. Siddharth’s acceptance of the life of a Parivrajaka: As Buddhist tradition has it, Siddharth, a prince by birth living a life of utmost luxury, took to the life of the Parivrajaka (wandering religious mendicant), as a result of a profound impact on his mind following the sights for the first time in his life, of an old person, a sick man, a corpse, and a wandering ascetic.The sights led Siddharth into a state of deep depression and to enter upon a life of Parivrajaka later.
Ambedkar wholly dismisses the possibility of Siddhartha not ever having encountered these sights till that age of 29 when he took the Parivraja. He finds the traditional explanation utterly ‘absurd’ and relates Siddharth’s Parivraja to the contemporaneous conflict between the Sakyas and Kolias over the sharing of waters of the river Rohini. As Ambedkar relates in The Buddha and His Dhamma, Siddharth who belonged to the clan of Shakyas advised against going to the war with the Kolias. However the Sakya Sangh passed a resolution in favour of the war and offered Siddharth three options: to participate in the war by joining the forces or face exile or death penalty or accept condemnation and social boycott of his family as also the confiscation of its property. Of these the first and the third were obviously unacceptable to Siddharth since the first went against his principle of non-violence and peace and the third for no fault of theirs caused pain and harassment to his family. Siddharth accepted the second punishment which however required the permission from the king of the Kosalas. Siddharth however avoided this step by volunteering to take Parivraja thus exiling himself rather than being ordered exiled from Kapilvastu by the king of Kosalas.
Ambedkar holds that Siddharth took Parivraja not out of a depressed state of mind resulting from the saddening sights he encountered but out of his deep commitment to peace and opposition to the impending war.
This interpretation by Ambedkar of Buddha’s Parivraja was in keeping with his own anti-pessimistic view of life upholding the cause of the spiritual development of his Dalit brethren.
2.The Four Aryan Truths: The Four Aryan Truths represent the second area of Buddhism where Ambedkar has departed from the conventional viewpoint. The four truths have been a very sacrosanct part of the established Buddhist thought and are regarded as an essence of Buddha’s teachings.
■The first truth –dukkhaor the world is full of suffering –highlights the all-pervading presence of suffering in human life on this earth. The depressing sights that Siddharth witnessed were all depictions of different kinds of suffering: from outward causes like illness, bereavement or from a lack of fulfilment within.
■The second truth- samudayaor suffering is caused by continuing craving,desire or attachment (tanha). At the root of this constant craving are Three Poisons or Three Fires, namely, a. greed or desire for material or sensual pleasure, b. ignorance or delusion and c. hatred or destructive urges. The three poisons in turn cause dukkha. The craving or tanhais ever increasing and can never be satisfied fully the result of which is more suffering.Thus birth, death. Oldage, disease, deprivation all lead to human suffering. (Identification of the cause of the problem)
■The third truth- nirodh–suffering can be brought to an end–is the realisation that the elimination of desire and attachment (tanha) is possible, resulting in the cessation of suffering.The elimination of desire and attachment is possible through nirvana or enlightenment. Nirvana means extinguishing the three fires of greed, delusion and hatred. The state of Nirvana does not have to be achieved after death. It is a state of mind that a person can reach in this life. ‘It is a state of profound spiritual joy, without negative emotions and fears.’ Someone who has attained the state of nirvana or enlightenment is filled with compassion for all living things.
■The fourth truth- margaor there is a path to end the suffering- points out to the existence of the Noble Eight fold Path (Ashtangmarga) toward the elimination of desire or attachment, and the attainment of the Nirvana.(Prescription for the solution to the problem)
The Eight fold Path is a set of eight principles that prescribe avoidance of both excess indulgence and severe asceticism since neither of them Buddha had found to be helpful for attainment of the Nirvana. The Path is also therefore known as the Middle Way. It consists of right understanding, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.
Despite the pivotal position of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, Ambedkar feels that they are ‘a great stumbling block for non-Buddhists in accepting the gospel of Buddhism.’ Probably because of their overemphasis on the suffering in human life, Ambedkar feels that the four truths deny any hope to man and are therefore in his words‘a gospel of pessimism’.
If life, death and rebirth are all regarded as sorrow, ‘then there is an end of everything and neither religion, nor philosophy can help a man achieve happiness in the world’. He wonders if the Four Truths were a part of the original gospel or were added later by the monks. Ambedkar has however accepted the Eight fold Path in the Fourth Truth that leads to nirvana which however according to him is a wholly this-worldly non-supernatural phenomenon.
In Ambedkar’s view, inter-personal social relations are central to Buddhist thought. Human poverty and worldly suffering in Buddha’s view are man-made not a consequence of natural factors. It is social injustice, economic inequalities and human conflict that leads to human suffering. These were not supernatural factors and the Buddha has shown the way to overcome them.According to tradition the Four Truths were related by the Buddha to his first five disciples (Parivrajakas) as a part of his first sermon after the Enlightenment delivered at the Deer Park at Sarnath near Banares.
Ambedkar departs from this version and presents the teachings of the Buddha contained in the sermon in terms of the Path of Purity, the Path of Righteousness and the Path of Virtue which respectively consist of the Five Precepts (Panchsheel), the Eight fold Path (Ashtangmarga) and the States of Perfection (the ten Paramitas). This was the new Dhamma essential for the spiritual development of a Buddhist. Going through the contents of these three prescriptions, one is left with little doubt that it is indeed so.
The new Dhamma was consistent with modern values of science, has no element of supernatural in it and underlines morality in inter-personal relationships.It held out a solution to end human suffering.
3.Doctrines of soul, karma and rebirth: The ideas of soul, karma and rebirth came into being during the Upanishads (between 800 BC and 500 BC) and predate Buddhism. The theory of Karma in Hinduism states that a person is responsible for his or her own action. Good or bad actions on a person’s part will accordingly lead to pleasant or painful consequences in his life. If a person does not live in his present life to enjoy or suffer these consequences, these will be carried to his next life where he will do so. Since Hinduism accepts the concept of soul, its karma theory has an acceptable logic of its own. This logic states that after the death of a person while his physical body is no more, his soul enters a new body (transmigration) through rebirth and thus experiences pleasure or pain in the new life resulting from his actions in previous life.
Traditional Buddhism accepts the theory sans the concept of soul.
Ambedkar however felt that to be valid, traditional karma theory requires acceptance of the concept of soul.Since Buddhism does not approve of the idea of soul, it cannot accept the theory and the idea of rebirth contained therein as expounded in Hinduism. He therefore offers a new explanation of the concept of rebirth.
Traditional karma theory in Ambedkar’s view is embedded in social injustice. The theory assumes that a person is responsible for the pleasant and painful experiences in his life since these were caused by the person’s own actions either in his present or previous life.
This would mean that a person afflicted with poverty and misery in his present life is responsible for his own suffering, and that the state or the wealthy sections of society need make no efforts to ameliorate the conditions of people like him. Worse, the theory encourages fatalism since it assumes even the poor and the unhappy can do little to improve their own state.
With his profound emphasis on compassion or karuna as a prominent element of Buddhism, the Buddha was least likely to accept the logic of the traditional karma theory, Ambedkar felt.
Thus Ambedkar did not believe in the inheritance of the past karma or rebirth and its carry-forward into the next life. He believed the ‘Hindu doctrine of the past karma as the regulator of future life’ to be an wholly unjust in that it was propounded ‘to enable the state or the society to escape the responsibility for the condition of the poor and the lowly’.
Ambedkar therefore offers his own explanation of the idea of rebirth consistent with the absence of soul. He interprets the Buddha saying that the human body is composed of four elements, namely, Prithvi(earth), Apa (water), Tej (fire) and Vayu (air). When the human body dies, these four elements join similar elements floating in space; a new birth takes place. In Ambedkar’s view this is what Buddha meant by rebirth. The elements, he says, need not be from one body; they may be from different dead bodies. Thus in his view while the body dies, the elements survive giving rise to new births. Thus it is just a new birth, not necessarily the rebirth of the person who has died. This explanation of rebirth has no element of supernatural in it and is in keeping with the tenets of science. It does not require transmigration of soul and is in consonance with the law of conservation of energy in physics and chemistry which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another. And this is what happens, Ambedkar believed, in the wake of the death of the physical body.
4.Bhikkhu Sangh: The fourth problem in Ambedkar’s view is the institution of the Bhikkhus created by the Buddha. Ambedkar wonders whether the objective was to create a ‘perfect man’ or whether it was to create a ‘social servant’. Ambedkar answers the question saying that the Buddha would certainly prefer the Bhikkhu to be a social servant rather than a perfect man.
Ambedkar visualised the Bhikkhu to be wholly dedicated to the service of the people and as their friend, philosopher and guide. A Bhikkhu who was a perfect man but kept to himself was he felt a ‘selfish’ person and one who was of little use for the propagation of Buddhism.
A Bhikkhu, Ambedkar said, ‘who is indifferent to the woes of mankind, however perfect in self-culture, is not at all a Bhikkhu’.
It is thus clear that Ambedkar did not want the Bhikkhu to be a mere preacher of Dhamma; he was expected to set an example for the upasakas or laity as a person of a high moral character. That was why the Buddha asked the Bhikkhus to abide by the strict rules of moral and ethical behaviour. The Sangh was supposed to be a model for the society to emulate- a model that was practicable and within reach of the common people. For Ambedkar the social connection of the Bhikkhus with the laity was of supreme importance since it decided the ability of the Bhikkhus to spread Buddha’s social message among the common people and create eventually a society based on strong moral values. It was for this reason that he was called upon to give up the bonds of his family and home and dedicate himself fully to the service of the people. ‘
■The twin objectives of conversion
The 1956 mass conversion to Buddhism had twin objectives: the rejection of and thus freedom from the Hindu caste system on the one hand, and post conversion, the personal spiritual growth of the convert on the other. Ambedkar did not merely want his Dalit brethren to passively quit the caste system and simply assert they were no longer a part of it. Though this inner change that the new identity brought in them was very important, he wanted them to wear the identity and practise the new religion in a way that could help them in their own personal spiritual development. In his numerous speeches to his Dalit audience, Ambedkar often urges them to strive for their own personal growth rather than blame their fate for their condition.The conversion for him was the gateway to a new spirit of confidence and personal aspirations in his following.
■A new philosophy of living for the socially relegated
Even in its received form, Buddhism,Ambedkar felt, held out the prospect for a new philosophy of living for India’s Dalits and other socially relegated groups of Hindu society. After all, Buddhism,even in its traditional form, not only rejected the caste system of which the Dalits were victims for centuries; it also preached love and peace, and discounted a belief in the supernatural that included the ideas of God, soul and rebirth. It was a religion that went closest to the spirit of science, something that was urgently needed for India’s vast population afflicted with ignorance and superstition.Had Ambedkar not reinterpreted Buddhism and asked his followers merely to convert to the new religion, they still stood to benefit from these fine traits of Buddhism.
But Ambedkar undertook the reinterpretation of Buddhism with India’s Dalits and socially backward in mind. The traditional version of the Four Truths is probably a factor that attracts an affluent section of people all over the world suffering a surfeit of materialism, looking for an alternative means to a happier life. Ambedkar did not have these people in mind. He had India’s Dalits and the socially backward in mind who needed a philosophy that woke them up to a life of hope and confidence. They needed a philosophy that helped them realise their aspirations based on their own efforts, not on the supernatural. Buddhism tweaked, based on the principles of equality, fraternity and liberty, devoid of fatalism and a belief in supernatural, he felt, provided a way out.
■Social message and ‘morality’
Ambedkar regarded social message and ‘morality’ as an integral part of a religion. For him the social message of a religious faith held great significance. He looked at Buddhism as an instrument of social change and transformation. That was why Ambedkar visualised the Bhikkhu to be wholly dedicated to the service of the people and their friend, philosopher and guide.He had no love lost for a religion that is personal and practised all alone as against Dhamma which he said was social and concerned with ‘right relations between man and man in all spheres of life’. As he said, ‘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’.
Morality understood as moral relations between people, Ambedkar felt, should be the base of a religious faith. But in most religions, he felt, morality is understood in relation to God who must decide an action to be moral or immoral, right or wrong. On the other hand in Ambedkar’s view, an action should be judged moral or immoral in relation to its contribution to social well-being. He maintained that Dhamma as distinct from religion was nothing but morality, and that Dhamma, if practised by everyone, would lead to a society free of exploitation and based on fraternity, equality and liberty.
■ Gospel of Buddhism with a difference
Ambedkar went beyond mere criticism of the received form of Buddhism and created a Gospel of Buddhism that played down fatalism in life and underlined optimism based on human effort. Ambedkar’s version of the Four Truths should be regarded as the crux of his exercise of reinterpreting the received form of Buddhism.
It respected the aspirations of the poor and the downtrodden for a decent life devoid of want and misery,and yet exhorted them to refrain from a life of indulgence by following the Noble Eightfold Path that stressed morality in life.
■Ambedkar: An astonishingly religious radical
Reading Ambedkar’s Buddha and His Dhamma, one often feels that he was more of a religious than a political radical. Yet he did not advocate a theocratic state and chose a religious philosophy that was consistent with the values of democracy and liberalism. Ambedkar’s religious radicalism was astonishing and his courage of conviction total as he questions the most basic tenets of Buddhism: The Four Noble Truths,that he dubbed ‘a gospel of pessimism’. In fact the right of criticism that the Buddha had bestowed upon his disciples probably appealed to him the most and gave him courage to found a whole new body of thought in Buddhism, the Navayana School.
Ambedkar invested his last few years to an in-depth study of Buddhism. The Gospel of Buddhism that he created in the form of his ‘Buddha and His Dhamma’ was his last gift to his followers. Had he lived longer he would have chalked out a plan for the systematic propagation of Buddhism in India. His successors have probably not proved equal to the task. The policy of reservation that precludes religion-based benefits may also have been a stumbling block. Buddhism in India, as a result, has largely remained confined to the Mahar community. The Buddhist population in the country numbers more than 8 million, less than 1 per cent of India’s total population. Yet in absolute terms, the size is not small. While conversion may not have brought them much economic benefit, it did bring in them a psychological change. It brought them closer to a life of self-respect and confidence and made them heir to the vast intellectual heritage of Buddhism. As Eleanor Zelliot says ‘The convert himself feels a release from the concept of pollution, a new freedom and self-respect’.For this reason alone, they should be ever grateful to Dr Ambedkar.
References:
- Ambedkar B. R., The Buddha and His Dhamma (BabasahebAmbedkar: Writings and Speeches, 1992)
- Ambedkar B. R. Buddha and Future of His Religion (Mahabodhi Society Journal May 1950)
- Pandit,Nalini, Ambedkar(Granthali, 1996) (Marathi)
- Gokhale,Pradeep;Dr. Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Buddhism inThe Philosophy of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar(IPQ Publication, Pune (2008). Available online.
- Sangharakshita, Ambedkar and Buddhism (Samyak Prakashan, 2017; Windhorse Publications, UK)
- Gore M. S.,The Social Context of an Ideology (Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1993)
- Mihir Shah, Ambedkar’s Most Radical, Most Forgotten Legacy (The Beacon Webzine, April 2019)
- Zelliot Eleanor, From Untouchable to Dalit (Manohar, 1996)
*****
Our Note: The pic shows crowds at the “Dhiksha-Bhumi” The Ground of Conversion on the 50th anniversary of the event.Hemant Devasthali,taught Business Economics at Ness Wadia College of Commerce, Savitribai Phule Pune University. He retired as its Principal of the college in 2010. He has written on socio-economic issues. IN 2008 he founded Anand Yatra a support group for the elderly widowed, separated or unmarried in 2008. He is honorary advisor, to Maher, well-known institution in Pune for destitute women, men and children.
Leave a Reply