"Sroha1Anuradha Sroha“Be Thy Own Light”: Embracing Buddhism in Ambedkar’s Buddha and his Dhamma. “I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu”, declared Ambedkar at Yeola ath town near Nasik on 13 October 1935.The event was the Bombay PresidencyDepressed Classes Conference. The statement was not only pessimistic but alsoemancipatory. Ambedkar’s anti-caste struggle can be divided into three phases.Despite his attempts Ambedkar was unsuccessful in securing temple-entry rights forthe untouchables. It was the final effort by the Untouchables to seek someassimilation within the Hindu fold. The Yeola conference affirmed Ambedkar’sdecision to finally renounce the religion of his forefathers. However, his actualth conversion to Buddhism took place on 14 November 1956. Ambedkar’s attack wasnot only at a religion which denied him equality and self-respect but also directed atGandhi who was fervently trying to absorb the untouchables within the discriminatoryVarnashrama . The aim of this paper is to explore Ambedkar’s decision to convert toBuddhism as an alternative religion for the untouchables. In his book Buddha and hisDhamma, Ambedkar established Buddhism as a moral, egalitarian religion respectedby the world. Eleanor Zelliot in her essay ‘Ambedkar’s Conversion’, discusses the variousdrawbacks of both Gandhi and Ambedkar in addressing the issues of untouchables: Sroha2“Gandhi and Ambedkar both saw the situation with partial vision”. Gandhi saw themthrough the “eyes of Caste Hindus and Ambedkar looked from within the Caste.Ambedkar’s rejection of Hinduism may be read as an attempt to force Hindus to“modernize” their theology, allowing a religious development parallel to the partialmodernization of occupational and political structure (Zelliot, 7).In the year 1932 in a statement given to the Indian Franchise Committee, Ambedkarrecognized untouchability as a permanent feature of Hinduism. Ambedkar argued thatan ordinary Hindu looked upon untouchability as a part of his religion. This inhumanway of behaviour was a way of observing his religion rather than any motive ofdeliberate cruelty. “Abandonment of untouchability to him involved a totalabandonment of his religion and Hinduism”(Zelliot, 4). Valerian Rodrigues in the essay entitled “Making a Tradition Critical: Ambedkar’sReading of Buddhism’ observes thatAmbedkar had access to the: “rich ‘sant’ and Hindu sectarian traditions of the Maharashtra saints and his own family’s allegiance to the kabirpanth. Their subaltern basis, egalitarianism and non-caste, open-ended approach and consonance to popular beliefs could have been a greatstrength for redefining and reconstituting Hinduism…”(304). Although Ambedkar was sympathetic to these subaltern traditions andacknowledgedtheir limited capacity to redefine the Great Tradition of Hinduism he did not pursuethis approach. Thus, Ambedkar had recognized the shortcomings of Hinduism toeradicate untouchability at a permanent level. Sroha3 Ambedkar’s vow to convert had a catalytic effect on the educated and uneducatedUntouchables. There was no mistaking of their resolve to leave Hinduism which hadcome to be regarded as an instrument of suffering and degradation (Zelliot, 13).Various religious paths were considered and the chief competition for Buddhism in themind of Ambedkar was Sikhism. Zelliot also highlights the delay that was causedbetween Ambedkar’s Yeola declaration and the actual conversion. She points outAmbedkar’s lack of “organisational work” among the Mahars and other castes toprepare for a conversion. Ambedkar was more interested in defining issues, awakeningthe masses by example and oratory and working on the highest level of politics. From1937 to 1951 Ambedkar was busy working in the government which further delayedhis conversion.Ambedkar drew the source material for Buddha and his Dhamma from Buddhistcanonical and non-canonical literature in Pali, Sanskrit and Chinese and from the textsbelonging to the Theravada, Sarvastivada and Mahayana schools of Buddhism(Rodrigues, 310). In an unpublished and incomplete Preface to Buddha and hisDhamma, written in April 1956 Ambedkar justified his inclination towards Buddhism.He wrote:“the direct answer to this question is that I regard the Buddha’s Dhamma to be thebest. No religion can be compared to it. If a modern man who knows science musthave a religion, the only religion he can have is the Religion of the Buddha. Thisconviction has grown in me after thiry-five years of close study of all religions”(Rathore and Verma, xxv). Sroha4 In his compiling of Buddha and his Dhamma one must acknowledge theintellectual tradition to which he was exposed to. Ambedkar believed in theemancipatory potential of modernity. In Buddha and his Dhamma, Ambedkar’s aimwas to reconstruct Buddhism which responded to the demands of modernity andculture. While his work was addressed to a “highly differentiated constituency” healso kept himself abreast of the emancipatory requirements of his specificconstituency, the untouchables” (Rodrigues, 306). According to Christopher S. Queen, Ambedkar’s Buddhism can be understood as“socially engaged Buddhism” : “The application of dhamma to the resolution of socialproblems emerged in the context of a global conversation on human rights,distributive justice, and social progress” (Rathore and Verma, xiv).Moreover,Ambedkar was fulfilling a moral duty towards the contemporary society. In its presentform Buddhism was highly distorted and it was a responsibility of Ambedkar to free itfrom any misconceptions. Ambedkar highlighted the problems of Buddhism and hiscommitment to enlighten the readers. Ambedkar wrote in the Introduction to thebook:“ The first problem relates to the main event in the life of the Buddhanamely, Parivraja…The traditional answer is that he took Parivraja becausehe saw a dead person, a sick person and an old person. The secondproblem is created by the Four Aryan Truths…if life is sorrow, death issorrow and rebirth is sorrow, then there is an end of everything”. Ambedkar rejected this as it denies hope to man and makes Buddhism a gospel ofpessimism. Thirdly, Ambedkar redefined the doctrines of soul, karma and rebirth. He Sroha5sought to differentiate Buddhist understanding of soul from the brahamanicaldoctrine. Fourthly, Ambedkar discussed the position of the Bhikkhu who was a perfectman but also a social servant and a friend, guide and philosopher of the people.Ambedkar’s aim was not to retrieve any original message of Buddha but to makeit relevant and meaningful to the contemporary world. The other religions could notbe subjected to such interpretations as they claimed their allegiance to a set ofinfallible truths directly based upon God’s word (Rodrigues, 307). The centralargument of Ambedkar’s analysis counterpoised Buddhism to mainstream Hinduism.As Rodrigues observes, “Gautama is shown denouncing the varna organisation ofsociety and the ideology behind it at Kapilavastu when against the wishes of itssenapath he refused to perform his varna duties”. Ambedkar did not subscribe to the view that Buddha’s teachings werestandardised and canonical. The foundations of Buddha’s teachings were based onPanch Sila, the Ashtanga Marga and the Paramitas (283). Buddhism was scientific,logical and rational. According to Aakash Singh Rathore and Ajay Verma, Ambedkar inhis neo-Buddhism or ‘navayana’ is “preoccupied with providing an account ofBuddhism that can serve his broader political ambition: the liberation and upliftmentof the Dalits.”In Section 5 of Book 1 Buddha rejected the fundamental doctrines of theBramhanas and the Vedas. Hinduism was based on the “infallibility of the Vedas, theimportance of religious rites and ceremonies for salvation of the soul, the pattern ofideal society or Chaturvarna which was binding and unquestionable”. Thus, Hinduismas “The rule of graded inequality governed by the question of rights and privileges” Sroha6was rejected by Buddha (88). Everything in Buddhism was open to “re-examinationand reconsideration whenever ground for re-examination and reconsideration arise”(89).Buddha agreed that “inequality exists in every society. But it was different withBrahmanism. The inequality preached by Brahmanis was its official doctrine.Brahmanism did not believe in equality. In fact, it was opposed to equality (90).Ambedkar viewed the caste struggle as a class struggle: “The conflict between classesis constant and perpetual. It is this which is the root of all sorrow and suffering in theworld” (57-58).Unlike Hinduism which laid primary importance on the sanctity of the religioustexts Buddhism advocated a religion of humanism: “If man is free, then every eventmust be the result of man’s action or of an act of Nature. There cannot be any eventwhich is supernatural in its origin” (250). In Buddhism the purpose of religion was toinculcate “righteousness”. Since only “righteousness can remove this inequality andthe resultant misery” (284). Buddhism was not a religion of divine revelation but constant struggle and strife.Ambedkar traces the various hardships suffered by Gautama before he attainsDhamma and becomes Buddha. As Buddha, “He realised that there were twoproblems. The first problem was that there was suffering in the world and the secondproblem was how to remove this suffering and make mankind happy” (75).Ambedkar’s Buddha was a common man unlike Christ and Mohammad Prophetwho were sons of God. Instead Buddha was “no more than the natural son of Sroha7Suddhodana and Mahamaya” ( 215) and that“he was one of the many human beingsand his message to the people was the message of man to man” (222). Ambedkarargued that Buddha made no claim on Buddhism as a religion. There were noattempts on the part of Buddha’s followers to record his life and Buddha’s own refusalto appoint a successor (216). The fact that Buddhism was a scientific, rational and secular religion is discussedin Book 3. Ambedkar wrote of Buddha: “His religion is a discovery in the sense that it isthe result of inquiry and investigation into the conditions of human life on earth”(217). Buddhism displaced the position of God and replaced it with morality. As aresult , “the moral order rests on man and on nobody else”( 243).Ambedkar’s purpose of writing Buddha and his Dhamma was to bring togetherthe life and teachings of Buddha in a single consistent work. Central to Buddha’steachings was his concept of “Dhamma which had three classifications: dhamma,adhamma and saddhamma. To understand his dhamma one must understand allthree”(226). Although dhamma was intended as an explication of Buddha’s teachings,it was Ambedkar’s voice that pervaded the text. Ambedkar selected those events inGautama’s life that most effectively communicated his own political message.According to Rathore and Verma,“ Ambedkar thus speaks through Gautama and politicizes the Buddha’sphilosophy as he theologizes his own political views. In a very real sense,the text represents Ambedkar’s dhamma as much as it does the Buddha’s”(x). Sroha8 Ambedkar’s text succeeded in distancing Buddhism from Hinduism. Earlier Gandhihad argued that Buddhism was another essential component of Hinduism. Ambedkar’sdiscourse and conversion was an attempt to break from any such interpretations. Heaimed to reconstitute Buddhism as an autonomous or independent tradition opposedto Hinduism. Thus, by giving the untouchables their own religion Ambedkar sought toinstil a sense of pride and self-respect in a section of people who were marginalizeddue to religious sanctions. I would like to conclude my paper with a quote whichAmbedkar used in his address to Mahar gathering. It was Buddha’s message to hisBhikku Sangh just before his Mahaparinirvan:“… be self-illuminating like the sun. Don’t be dependent for the light likethe earth. Believe in yourself, don’t be dependent on others. Be truthful.Always take refuge in the truth and do not surrender to anybody”(Conversion, 40)."