The perennial concerns around religious conversions in India are hinged upon two frequently repeated arguments: (a) that conversions are a western affair, and (b) rising conversions allegedly lead to a decline in the Hindu population. But why do people in India convert? This Dalit History Month, I revisit Dr B.R. Ambedkar's logic for conversion to Buddhism, to read his vision as a 'radical' solution against the caste system.
I will show this by drawing upon his 1935 speech, the Mahad Satyagraha of 1927, and the nature of Buddhism. Firstly, we need to understand the meaning of the word radical. Although the word is used both positively and negatively in different contexts, it is less understood what it means to be radical.
To understand this, suppose one is in a cult or religion which has a doctrine or belief that there are phases of spiritual darkness in one's life. In time, if this person begins to have serious doubts on their faith, they are immediately reminded of the belief that 'there are phases of spiritual darkness'. Consequently, this pushes them back to their faith, in an inescapable circle. Thus, to be radical is to first step out of this circle.
Hence to put it crudely, when one is radical due to being trapped in an inextricable circle of oppression, that is radical in the positive sense. If radicality comes as a deviation of progressive standards, then one is radical in a negative sense.
We can now assess if there are grounds for a radical step such as conversion through Ambedkar's own speeches and experiences.
Ambedkar in his May 1936 speech describes a similar figurative circle that keeps Dalits deprived of basic rights. In terms of material and spiritual conditions, Dalits are in a state of perpetual depravity. In terms of material prospects the Dalits lack manpower, since in a particular area they are fewer, unorganised and scattered; they lack the financial strength since they possess no land, trade, business and service. And finally, through unremitting abuse and assaults, the spark of revolt and rebellion has been quelled, and their mental strength weakened.
In terms of religious prospects, as long as Dalits stay in the Hindu fold, their oppression is unavoidable due to scriptural injunctions and the belief in the eternal validity of scriptures (hence, 'Sanatana' - i.e., eternal - Dharma).
Could the law provide a solution, then? We see in the case of the Mahad satyagraha the complicity of administrators with caste-Hindus. The Bole? resolution of 1923 had provided access to all castes to public spaces. But an exertion of their rights by Ambedkar and other Dalits by drinking the water of the Chavadar tank at Mahad caused sporadic riots around Mahad in which many Dalits were singled out and mercilessly beaten.
The tank was later "purified" by pouring 108 earthen pots of cow urine into it. The Mahad municipality withdrew the resolution which had declared the tank open to all and the British government sided with the traditional caste-Hindus by passing a restraining order on Ambedkar and suppressing the rights of the untouchables.
We thus notice that be it in terms of material, spiritual or juridical contexts, the oppression of Dalits is reinforced. No patch work will alleviate the symptoms. Hence the solution, according to Ambedkar, is conversion - and to Buddhism.
What about the usual objections against conversion?
- Instead of conversion (which would involve a change in identity), will a change of name help? Since a rose with any other name would smell just as sweet, per Ambedkar, a mere change of name to Harijan or Chokhamela will still denote an untouchable.
- Is it betrayal to convert? Ambedkar opines that only a "congenital idiot would stay in a religion just because it is ancestral."
- But will only religious conversion bring about any economic progress? Ambedkar's argument is that it certainly has brought economic prosperity for earlier converts to Sikhism, Christianity and Islam.
- Is it escapism to convert when Hinduism is being reformed? Ambedkar's bitter experience with contemporary Hindu reformers stop him short of having a good opinion of them. People who live, marry and die in their same caste cannot be trusted to bring any real change. Ambedkar's belief is that unlike the whites who fought against their southern white brothers in the American civil war, Hindu reformers wouldn't go so far.
Hence, Ambedkar suggests a conversion to Buddhism which according to him is a religion par excellence.
Ambedkar's Buddhism
Ambedkar's book The Buddha and his Dhamma was posthumously published in 1957 in the year following his death. His Buddhism is a reconstruction called 'Navayana Buddhism' (Neo-Buddhism).
Unfortunately, Neo-Buddhism has been criticised to be unorthodox and inconsequential to 'true' Buddhist scholarship. This criticism has been addressed by scholars; nonetheless, it is noteworthy to consider that in the Buddhist tradition itself, gaining inspiration to produce a sutta (chapter) and teaching to a large crowd - among other things - are regarded as legitimatising means of one's "Buddhist" teaching. It is also said that 'Whatever is well spoken, all that is the word of the Buddha'.
Ambedkar, in the preface of The Buddha and his Dhamma, mentions being inspired after reading a book on the life of Buddha given to him by his father's friend Dada Keluskar, and through his book he certainly taught the 'well-spoken' words of the Buddha to a large crowd. Therefore, he certainly satisfies the traditional legitimising conditions and his Buddhism can hardly be called an aberration.
Radicality of Buddhism
Neo-Buddhism is characterised as 'engaged Buddhism', which means the application of the Buddha's dhamma to the resolution of social problems. Buddhism, since its early development, has been avowedly against the caste system. There are several Suttas (chapters) in the early Pali texts which confirm this.
The Buddha patently says that all castes are pure, everyone can achieve Nibbana (enlightenment), caste designations are mere conventions, everyone can gain respect in society through material gains. In his conversation with two Brahmins - Vaseetha and Bharadvaja - the Buddha rules in favour of Vaseetha by proclaiming that one is not a Brahmin by birth but by actions. In the suttas themselves, we find people of different castes converting to Buddhism. Therefore, conversion is certainly not an alien affair to Indian culture.
We can clearly see that we have an indigenous tradition which stood squarely against the caste system and casteist claims of birth-based purity and hierarchy. Hence, Buddhism stands outside the figurative circle. It is a positive radical solution, given the inescapable oppression.
The 22 vows of Navayana Buddhism also get a renewed understanding, as now they are means to stay away from a circle of oppression.
Thus, Buddhism due to its radicality is a revolution. Ambedkar's view was that India had three phases, Vedic religion/culture, reformatory Buddhist Dhamma, then counter-reformatory Hinduism. Buddhism being a revolution against Vedic tradition, Ambedkar believed that it contained in it the ideals of the French revolution: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
The French Revolution had a policy called Lev?e en Masse (conscript the masses) during their wars with neighbouring countries of Europe who threatened to end democracy and restore the monarchy. In relation to this, if Buddhism is a revolutionary radical solution to the problem of caste, conversion to Buddhism, to put it metaphorically, is Lev?e en Masse!
Source: Wire0 COMMENTS
