Why Dr. Ambedkar renounced Hinduism?
Why Dr. Ambedkar renounced Hinduism?
Dr. Ambedkar's role as a prominent constitution maker of India is quite well known. However, his views on religion, particularly his reasons for renouncing Hinduism, the religion of his birth, are not as widely known. Ambedkar who was born in an "untouchable" family carried on a relentless battle against untouchability throughout his adult life. In the last part of his life, he renounced Hinduism and became a Buddhist. What were his reasons for doing so?
A detailed answer to this question can be obtained by studying his The Buddha and His Dhamma, Annihilation of Caste, Philosophy of Hinduism, Riddles in Hinduism etc. Nonetheless, some of his articles, speeches and interviews before and after his conversion to Buddhism throw some light on this question.
Ambedkar’s statement in 1935 at Yeola Conference is quite instructive in this regard. Ambedkar believed that the untouchables occupied a "weak and lowly status" only because they were a part of the Hindu society. When attempts to gain equal status and "ordinary rights as human beings" within the Hindu society started failing, Ambedkar thought it was essential to embrace a religion which will give "equal status, equal rights and fair treatment" to untouchables. He clearly said to his supporters "select only that religion in which you will get equal status, equal opportunity and equal treatment…"
Evidently, after a comparative study of different religions, Ambedkar concluded that Buddhism was the best religion from this point of view.
In his article "Buddha and the Future of his Religion" published in 1950 in the Mahabodhi Society Journal, Ambedkar has summarized his views on religion and on Buddhism in the following manner:
1. The society must have either the sanction of law or the sanction of morality to hold it
together. Without either, the society is sure to go to pieces. 2. Religion, if it is to survive, it must be in consonance with reason, which is another name for science.
3. It is not enough for religion to consist of moral code, but its moral code must recognize the fundamental tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity.
4. Religion must not sanctify or make a virtue out of poverty.
According to Ambedkar, Buddhism fulfilled these requirements and so among the existing religions it was the only suitable religion for the world. He felt that the propagation of Buddhism needed a Bible. Apparently, Ambedkar wrote The Buddha and his Dhamma to fulfill this need.
In the same article, Ambedkar has enumerated the evils of Hinduism in the following manner:
1. It has deprived moral life of freedom.
2. It has only emphasized conformity to commands.
3. The laws are unjust because they are not the same for one class as of another. Besides, the code is treated as final.
According to Ambedkar, "what is called religion by Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions."
In the same year, Ambedkar delivered a speech on Buddha Jayanti day in Delhi, in which he attacked Hindu gods and goddess and praised Buddhism because it was a religion based on moral principles. Besides, he pointed out, unlike the founders of other religions who considered themselves emissaries of god; the Buddha regarded himself only as a guide and gave a revolutionary meaning to the concept of religion. He said that Hinduism stood for inequality, whereas Buddhism stood for equality.
In May 1956, a talk by Ambedkar titled "Why I like Buddhism and how it is useful to the world in its present circumstances" was broadcast from the British Broadcasting Corporation, London. In his talk Ambedkar said:
I prefer Buddhism because it gives three principles in combination, which no other religion does. Buddhism teaches prajna (understanding as against superstition and supernaturalism), karuna (love), and samata (equality). This is what man wants for a good and happy life. Neither god nor soul can save society.
In his last speech delivered in Bombay in May 24 1956, in which he declared his resolve to embrace Buddhism, Ambedkar observed:
Hinduism believes in God. Buddhism has no God. Hinduism believes in soul. According to Buddhism, there is no soul. Hinduism believes in Chaturvarnya and the caste system. Buddhism has no place for the caste system and Chaturvarnya.
It is obvious that Ambedkar regarded Buddhism as a much more rational religion compared to Hinduism, rather the most rational religion. His main objection to Hinduism was that it sanctified inequality and untouchability through its doctrine of Chaturvarnya. Buddhism, on the other hand, rejected Chaturvarnya and supported equality. He commends Buddhism for rejecting god and soul and for emphasizing morality. According to him, prajna (understanding as against superstition and supernaturalism), karuna (love), and samata (equality), which Buddhism alone teaches, is all that human beings need for a "good and happy life".
Ambedkar’s final religious act was to embrace Buddhism. His work The Buddha and his Dhamma contains his own understanding and interpretation of Buddhism. We may say that Buddhism as expounded in this book is what Ambedkar embraced and recommended. In this book Ambedkar has tried to interpret Buddhism in a rationalistic manner. Ambedkar did not believe in the existence of god and soul. This is obvious from the reasons he has given for embracing Buddhism as well as from his interpretation of Buddhism in Buddha and His Dhamma. In Buddhism, as interpreted by Ambedkar, there is no place for god and soul. Further, according to Ambedkar, Buddha did not believe in rebirth, karma and moksha as traditionally conceived. Besides, Buddha rejected the varna vyavastha.
It is widely recognized by scholars of Buddhism that Buddha did not believe in god and soul and also that he rejected varna-vyavastha. However, according to the traditional interpretation of Buddhism, Buddha did believe in rebirth and the related doctrine of "bondage" and liberation (nirvana). Ambedkar's interpretation of Buddhism differs from the traditional interpretation on this point. But regrettably Ambedkar has not documented his book Buddha and his Dhamma. Therefore it is not possible to say how he arrived at his alternative interpretation of Buddhism. From a rationalist and humanist point of view, one may say that Buddhism is a better religion than Hinduism and that it is closer to rationalism-humanism compared to any other religion. Still, it cannot be denied that Buddhism is a religion and certain elements like faith, worship and other-worldliness or supernaturalism, which are common to all religions, are also found in Buddhism. Therefore the best thing is to give up all religions and adopt rational humanism as a philosophy of life.
Dr. Ramendra
Reader, Department of Philosophy
Patna College, Patna University
who is this jerk dr. anbedkar?
How Hinduism corrupt in Nepal?
Bahun do not work as farmers. Farmers grow grains; rise up domestic animals, fruits, vegetables and other farming as well. When farmer harvest their corps they sell corps. Bahuns ask Dachina as grains, gold, money to farmers. Bahuns told farmers if they give Dachina to Bahun, they will go heaven or all prosperous prevails to families. Farmers are already poor in village but these bahunism corruption cultures make framers the poorest in year in villages.
There were many bad things in Hinduism like caste systems.
In Hinduism, man and woman are not equal, so men are superior all the time.
ok ! mayalu keti timilai maya garerai sodnu paryo...
kun religion ma man are not superior????
ambedkar is not untouchable in the first place.
hinduism is the only religion where women are given high status. it is the only religion which worships, Mata shakti, kali Durga all feninine form of the divine. however women 's status is not equal as that of men in the society but that has nothing to do with hinduism it is the case in almost all societies through the world.
Are you kidding, Birbhadra? Not to malign Hinduism, but it definitely is not pro equality for women. Sure it provides cosmetic treatment with female deities, but the demeaning status it provides for women is well known.
Manusmriti, one of the fundamental Hindu script, says quite clearly: women, like animals, need to be beaten from time to time.
"Manusmriti, one of the fundamental Hindu script, says quite clearly"
I am not a religious Hindu, but frankly what you're saying does not make an iota of sense, given the fact that if you "parse" the Bible in a similar fashion that you have "parsed" the Manusmriti, which by the way isn't even a "holy" book, since Hinduism doesn't have a holy book like Christianity or Islam, you can find passages that are equally as offensive, if not more. Same with Quran and the Torah.
By the way, Everything, mayaluketi, panditji and kakaba are all one and the same .
Rudra,
Agreed. You can find similar stances in Bible or Koran. But the point is, Hinduism taken as is still puts women in lower level than women.
If one is to look at world religions, while Buddhism, as I know it, does not discriminate in sexual basis, the only religion that explicitly promotes equality among men and women is a relatively new religion called Bahai. It is one of their basic tenets.
For what it's worth, my opinion is, organized religion - with whatever name you call it - by its nature is a fallacy.
chatmandude, "water" hangover still not gone eh!!!
Well, I don't believe in organized religion either. I sure as hell believe in God, but all religions tend to have flaws in them. However, as far as Hinduism is concerned, I don't think Hinduism promotes misogyny per se. I think it's the mentality of Hindus that's the bigger problem. One can even imply that true Christians are misogynistic, ipso facto. Anybody who follows the "holy books" blindly is by default a fundamentalist. I think that religions change over time. Christianity certainly has. I think they have made enormous stride as far as women's rights are concerned. Quakers for example were the ones who pushed for abolitionism, to give you another example.
wait a minute, doesn't christianity do the same thing? Doesn't it say that women are created or made out of men's ribs or something?(correct me if i'm wrong)
And about Islam treating its women, the less said the better.....
No religion is perfect and to just point one particular religion is just not right....
Come to think of it, let's not bash all religions. Do you all realize that were it not for religious intellectuals, Europe would still have been a backward cesspool? The ideas of emancipation, individualism and the like were quite heavily promoted by religious thinkers. Martin Luther for example, was one such guy. Instead of depending on someone, a middle man, to communicate with god, one could in fact get rid of the "middle man", because the "middle man" was in essence corrupt.
I think Christianity has changed big time. If you follow the "book" verbatim, then you are basically a fundamentalist.
Bahai was founded by some muslim just for societal, communal and religious harmony. It is actually NOT a religion, though it advocates that we should believe in all gods from every religions, eg. Krishna, Buddha, Allaha, Jesus and so on.
Basihng any religion was not my intention... He brings "manusmriti" everytime he has to talk about women in a Hindu society.. So I thought it wouldn't be wrong for me to bring "Holy Bible" to explain him that not alone Hinduism thinks of women differently...
Every religion changes and should change with time.. It may not be happening as fast as we would love to see in Hinduism, but it sure is taking place... For God's sake those books were written thousands of years ago and you cannot take them to be the ultimate truth- neither to prove yourself right nor to bring others down....
Kakababa bro,
Please read "Worshipping false gods" by Arun Shourie to get a more balanced idea on Bhim Rao Ambedkar as well as Indian secularism.
KAKABABA,
YOU need to chill out Bro. This sucker writes one Raciste Thread and vanishes from there.
Chatmandude..
Since when was "Manusmriti" considered a religious book for Hindus? As far as my knowledge goes, it was a philosophical/social analysis of one individual. I've certainly never heard it being used for religious discourse. Have you? Aha!! I wish I could rationalize the way you do and say Machiavelli’s; “The Prince†is a religious text for Christians. I wouldn’t be wrong if I did that, would I?
Please log in to reply to this post
You can also log in using your Facebook
