Introduction

This paper has gone through so many permutations that it is nearly unrecognizable
from its original form. I began with the intent to compare Buddhist and Christian
liberation theology, a project born from my eperiences at a progressi!e "esuit high
school and a semester of Buddhist studies in #athmandu, $epal. %!entually I narrowed
my topic to the application of Buddhist and Christian liberation theologies in &sia. I
decided to focus on the wor' of a theologian named &loysius (ieris, a )ri *an'an "esuit
who attempts to combine Catholicism and Thera!adin Buddhism into a new social
message for &sia+s poor. &s of spring ,---, my plan was to use a ./0 grant to spend
the summer reading the wor's of (ieris and other theologians and then tra!el to India in
the fall with the &ntioch College Buddhist )tudies (rogram. I 'new that the &ntioch
program allows a month for independent study and tra!el, and loo'ed forward to !isiting
(ieris in )ri *an'a.
1uring the course of the summer, howe!er, the political situation in )ri *an'a
rapidly deteriorated, and I realized that proper compassion for my mother necessitated a
change of topic. I began to read boo's and articles by theologians who referred to
themsel!es as 1alit Christians, and through them I disco!ered &mbed'ar and the 1alit
Buddhists. I e!entually tra!eled to India, but instead of !isiting )ri *an'a I di!ided my
time for independent study between the Buddhists in Bombay and the Christians in
Bangalore, a center for Indian Christian acti!ity.
The month spent inter!iewing and reading about 1alit Buddhists and 1alit
Christians was perhaps the most stimulating academic eperience of my life, and it
2
spar'ed a near obsession with 1r. &mbed'ar and the social mo!ements that ha!e
de!eloped because of him. 3ere I use the term academic in the broadest possible sense,
for the power of this eperience lay in the fact that it prompted both intellectual and
personal reflection. 4or eample, I will ne!er forget the end of my inter!iew with
)amuel, a 1alit Christian and 5arist in Bangalore. 3e loo'ed at me and my friend and
said, )o, what are you going to do with this6 I began to eplain that I was wor'ing on
my honors thesis, the final project of my college career, but he soon cut me off. $o, he
said, I mean what are you going to do with this6 I can only hope that my inade7uate
response was subse7uently gi!en !alue by public and pri!ate eploration of what it
means to ta'e part in religious studies. )imilarly, before I tra!eled to Bombay my
education had barely touched upon the caste system, Indian politics, 1r. &mbed'ar, and
the 5ahars. 8hen I returned home, ready to wor' on my honors thesis, at !ery the least I
understood how much more there was for me to learn.
&s is clear from this paper+s title, I ha!e narrowed my focus further and dropped the
subject of 1alit Christians. This decision was dictated by time constraints only9
untouchables present an interesting challenge to the growing ecumenism of the Catholic
church and I hope one day to continue studying the de!elopments that are occurring in
)outhern India. 5y paper also lac's an in:depth analysis of the politics of untouchability,
a subject I began to learn about while writing a research paper on untouchable human
rights and Indian law. There will ne!er be enough time to include e!erything, but I
would li'e to say that &mbed'ar has influenced me most by illustrating the etent to
which religion and politics ha!e mutual influence on each other.
,
There are numerous people I+d li'e to than' for helping me with this project. *inda
3ess has shared my enthusiasm for &mbed'ar and has in turn shared of herself
immeasurably. Bob ;regg, and 5ar' 5ancall ha!e had tremendous impact on my
thin'ing and my )tanford eperience in general. (eter 4riedlander and %llen (osman
were my two guides from &ntioch, and I would not ha!e learned nearly so much from my
time in Bombay if I had not been able to compare notes with Tom, #aren, and Bec'y. It
is not an understatement to say that I was o!erwhelmed by the 'indness of the people I
inter!iewed in India. & few indi!iduals stand out< 1r. Borhale, 4r. 4ran'ie, and )amuel.
*astly, I want my parents to 'now that I appreciate the support and freedom they+!e
gi!en me=than' you for letting me tra!el so far and for being so fun to come home to.
>
Chapter 1
Purpose, Context, and Terminology
This paper eplores the relationship between &mbed'ar, Buddhism, and the 5ahars
?&mbed'ar+s subcaste, or jati@. It constitutes one method of eamining the process of
collecti!e redefinition that the 5ahars ha!e engaged in as a result of their con!ersion to
Buddhism. I begin with a brief o!er!iew of the untouchable situation and an eplanation
of my choice in terminology and subject. The second chapter then eplores the lin'ages
between &mbed'ar+s biography and the political history of the 5ahars. It places
&mbed'ar+s life within the contet of Indian politics and history and argues that his
interest in religious con!ersion was a product of that contet. The third chapter outlines
&mbed'ar+s !iews on religion and his conscious reconstruction of Buddhism as an ideal
religion for the 5ahars. The fourth chapter eamines the ways that contemporary
5ahars ha!e li!ed out &mbed'ar+s Buddhist message, and the fifth synthesizes
&mbed'ar+s theory with current 5ahar practice to create a typology of the 1alit
Buddhist myth. Throughout, I emphasize the political and religious continuities
between &mbed'ar+s eperience, the 5ahar+s eperience, and the form of Buddhism that
has resulted from the two. I conclude by drawing on contemporary 1alit *iterature to
summarize the 5ahars+ relationship to &mbed'ar.
0!er!iew of .ntouchability
The practice of untouchability in rooted in both the religion and culture of India.
&ncient 3indu tets such as the Aedas, pro!ide insight into how Brahman priests
B
concei!ed the caste system during the second millenium BC% ?4lood >C@. They describe
four main castes ?or varnas@ which loosely correspond to the occupations of priest,
warriorDruler, merchant, and laborer. There is little mention of untouchables, a fifth and
lowest group technically outside the system. The correctly order the uni!erse, ha!ing
been present since the creation of human beings. These groups are !iewed descending
order of 'armic worth and are determined by birth. .ntouchables, howe!er, are largely
ecluded from the 3indu epics, although %'ala!ya in the Mahabarata and )hambu'a in
the Ramayana are notable eceptions. Both tell the story of shoc'ing atrocities that are
committed against otherwise praiseworthy indi!iduals, thus gi!ing testimony to the
precariousness of untouchables+ place in ancient culture. The Manu Smriti, dated between
the second century BC% and the third century C%, argues that interactions between castes
should be go!erned by comple laws of ritual pollution ?4lood EC@. This tet condemns
untouchables to a life of segregation and degradation, lin'ed closely to the fact that they
perform polluting tas's such as disposing of human and cow carcasses. It states, Their
dress shall be the garments of the dead, they shall eat their food from bro'en dishes,
blac' iron shall be their ornaments, and they must always wander from place to place.
Their food shall be gi!en to them by others in a bro'en dish9 at night they shall not wal'
about in towns and !illages ?B2B:B2E@. 8hether or not the Manu Smriti describes the
situation of untouchables with historical accuracy, it is clear that Brahmanic 3induism
regarded untouchables as an anathema to the caste system.
5uch as Indian culture is often indistinguishable from 3indu culture, the caste
system and untouchability are integrated into nearly e!ery facet of Indian life. The
historical origins of caste are unclear, although some hypothesize that it stemmed from
E
racial differences between the &ryans, who are said to ha!e migrated to India from the
$orthwest, and the dar'er indigenous Indians ?the )ans'rit word for caste is varna, which
means color@ ?5endelsohn and Aicziany F@. Today, howe!er, e!en /oman Catholics in
southern India seat themsel!es according to caste during mass and follow principles of
ritual pollution in!ol!ing physical touch and food ?inter!iew, 4r. 4ran'ie@.
Contemporary anthropological theory of untouchability centers on the debate
between continuity and discontinuity with respect to untouchables and greater Indian
culture ?1eliege >-@. *ouis 1umont+s Homo Hierarchicus pro!ides the standard eample
of the former, which emphasizes the interdependence of all the groups in the caste system
?1eliege >G@. Both Brahmans and untouchables are ultimately dependent on each other
to maintain the dichotomy between ritual purity and impurity ?1eliege >G@. Thus the
caste system creates a unified, though stratified, culture. 3owe!er, a number of scholars
ha!e attempted to refute 1umont+s assertions, in general arguing against the
comprehensi!eness of the caste system as a form of societal go!ernance. They conclude
that untouchables do not subscribe to the !alues imposed on them by caste and that their
relationship to Indian society is characterized by systematic eclusion ?1eliege B>@.
*astly, some scholars, such as 1eliege, ha!e de!eloped the con!incing argument that
untouchables are both needed and ecluded by the caste system. &s 1eliege writes,
.ntouchables are indeed an integral part of Indian society, as their essential economic
and ritual roles show9 but they are, also and at the same time, ecluded from this society,
and their marginal position is constantly underscored through !arious taboos and
discriminations ?CF@.
C
8hate!er the origin and function of caste may be, it is clear that contemporary
untouchables suffer from a sense of shame that is associated with their low social and
ritual status. (. 5ohan *arbeer, an 1alit Christian, writes, 8hen I was doing my
se!enth standard, I came to 'now that I belonged to an untouchable communityHI felt
!ery lowly and embarrassed and I tried to hide myself inside a shell, acutely aware and
conscious of my caste, and a!oided discussing it ?>FE@. *arbeer+s use of the words
lowly and embarrassed highlights the etent to which many untouchables ha!e
de!eloped what of my informants referred to as a damaged psyche ?4r. 4ran'ie,
22DFD-2@. 1eliege+s sur!ey of untouchability, published in 2GGE, confirms that *arbeer+s
eperience can be generalized< 8hate!er their social position and merit, .ntouchables
are ashamed of their social bac'ground and try to conceal it whene!er possible. To be
forced publicly to ac'nowledge one+s caste is humiliating and insulting ?2E@. Before
they can mobilize to claim their fundamental human rights, untouchables must
themsel!es that they deser!e those rights in the first place. *i'e *arbeer, many
untouchables try to hide themsel!es in a shell because they lac' any sense of self:worth
that would allow them to be proacti!e about gaining social e7uality. Thus any
untouchable attempts to change Indian society must be accompanied by an alternati!e
way of defining the self.
The )tin'ing $ame
&mbed'ar writes, .nfortunately, names ser!e a !ery important purpose. They
play a great part in social economy. $ames are symbols. %ach name represents
association of certain ideas and notions about a certain object. It is a labelHThe name
F
.ntouchable is a bad name. It repels, forbids, and stin's ?&way from the 3indus,
B2G@. ;i!en the importance that &mbed'ar and his followers ha!e assigned to they
names they use to refer to themsel!es, I would li'e to eplain my choices in terminology.
There are currently se!eral words used to describe the group of indi!iduals referred to as
I)cheduled CastesI by the Indian go!ernment< harijan, e:untouchable, untouchable, and
dalit. Harijan is a name first proposed by 5.#. ;andhi, translating into %nglish as
children of ;od. It was chosen as an epression of all Indians+ e7uality under god, and
implies that untouchables deser!e access to the 3indu religious practices pre!iously
denied them. 3owe!er, many untouchables argue that the term is paternalistic and
condescending and, gi!en ;andhi+s own attitude towards untouchables, there seems to be
some merit to their criti7ue. This ma'es harijan an undesirable choice for academic
writing.
8hereas harijan is supposed to connote patient and pious suffering, the term e:
untouchable draws attention to the fact that all practices of untouchability were formally
outlawed in 2GE-, by &rticle 2F of the Indian Constitution. &s the rather aw'ward
terminology of the Indian Census and other legal documents suggest, technically there
are no untouchables in India today. 3owe!er, to use the term e:untouchable ignores the
fact that &rticle 2F was followed by the .ntouchability ?0ffenses@ &ct of 2GEE, the
creation of the (rotection for Ci!il /ights Cell in 2GF>, the )cheduled Castes and
)cheduled Tribes ?(re!ention of &trocities@ &ct of 2GJG, and the )cheduled Castes and
)cheduled Tribes ?(re!ention of &trocities@ /ules of 2GGE. In short, although the
Constitution declared untouchability illegal, it merely represents the first in a long series
of legal palliati!es that ha!e had little if any effect on the situation of untouchables. The
J
punishable acts listed by the (re!ention of &trocities /ules, which include forcing
someone to drin' or eat inedible or noious substances, forcing someone to beg or
become a bonded laborer, and murder, death, massacre, rape, mass rape, and gang rape,
permanent incapacitation and dacoity, gi!e ade7uate testimony to the fact that
untouchability has been remo!ed from India in name only ?&trocities /ules 2GGE@. &s
/obert 1eliege points out, referring to untouchables as e:untouchables disregards the
defining characteristics of their contemporary eperience ?2J@.
The term dalit has been chosen by untouchables to specifically emphasize
eperiences that ha!e often been ignored by the rest of Indian society. It is a 5arathi
word that means ground, bro'en or reduced to pieces generally, although some
contemporary 1alit Christians argue that it is also found in 3ebrew and )ans'rit ?Kelliot
,CF and 5assey 2@. By selecting the word dalit, untouchables self:consciously chose to
redefine themsel!es in terms of their social and psychological oppression. &lthough dalit
is the word most !ocally supported by untouchables, it has certain political connotations.
It is associated specifically with the 1alit (anthers, more generally with 1alit Buddhists,
and has yet to gain wide acceptance beyond the 5ahar community. )e!eral scholars use
dalit because it is the only term resulting from the acti!e agency of untouchables, but I
ha!e hesitated to follow in their footsteps because it has only recently gained prominence
beyond &mbed'ar+s community ?1eliege 2C@. 1escribing all untouchables as dalits
implies a self:awareness of their situation that not all untouchables ha!e. It also might
imply that I support both &mbed'ar+s ideology and the political !iews of his followers.
This may be the case, but hope to achie!e academic impartiality in this writing and then
G
find other, more appropriate, !enues for con!incing others of the worthiness of
&mbed'ar+s cause.
Thus I use the term untouchable throughout the present paper ?2J@. 4ew Indians
use the term9 it is the property mainly of scholars and outside obser!ers ?1eliege 2F@. I
do, howe!er, use the word dalit when referring to members of the Dalit sahitya
mo!ement, as their community has clearly come to consensus about using the term. &s I
am both a student and a foreigner to Indian culture, my choice gi!es !oice to a distance
that already eisted between my subject and me. 3owe!er, it is etremely important to
note that this is not the word that 5ahars use to refer to themsel!es ?They would use
dalit, 1alit Buddhist, $eo:Buddhist, 5ahar, or &mbed'arite.@
I also ma'e a distinction between Buddhism, &mbed'ar+s Buddhism, and
1alit Buddhism. I use Buddhism only in reference to the teachings of the Buddha as
the Thera!ada, 5ahayana, or Aajrayana !ehicles traditionally understand them.
&mbed'ar+s Buddhism, on the other hand, refers to the specific reinterpretation of 1r.
B./. &mbed'ar. &s we will see, the differences between &mbed'ar+s Buddhism and
traditional Buddhism are great enough=at least according to contemporary definitions of
Buddhism=to warrant a separate term for each. Let I will also argue that Buddhism as
practiced by the 5ahars differs greatly from Buddhism as presented by &mbed'ar, and
thus I create a third category of Buddhism. I refer to this set of beliefs and practices as
1alit Buddhism. &lternati!ely, I could ha!e used the terms $eo:Buddhism or
&mbed'arism, but I chose 1alit Buddhism for the sa'e of consistency.
8hy the 5ahars6
2-
This paper focuses only on the ways in which &mbed'ar+s Buddhism was designed
for and li!ed out by the 5ahar community. I chose this approach for se!eral reasons.
4irst, all of my own obser!ations are of 5ahar Buddhists in Bombay. )econd, there is
more anthropological and historical data a!ailable on 1alit Buddhism and the 5ahars
than there is for other untouchable communities. This is largely due to the efforts of
%leanor Kelliot, but other researchers such as Timothy 4itzgerald, $eera Burra, and
"ohannez Beltz ha!e also chosen to focus on Buddhism in 5aharashtra. Third, the
5ahars constitute a di!erse community that defies easily generalization, and ma'ing
additional conclusions about more than one sub:caste warrants a much longer paper than
the one I intended to write. 4ourth, and most importantly, Buddhism has the greatest
number of adherents in the 5ahar community ?FEM of 5ahars claim to be 1alit
Buddhist@ ?Kelliot 2,F@. This is due largely to the fact that &mbed'ar was a 5ahar, and
we shall see that there is a clear cultural lin' between the 5ahars, &mbed'ar+s ideology,
and his interpretation of Buddhism.
3owe!er, the reader should note that &mbed'ar+s Buddhism was not intended for
eclusi!e use by the 5ahars. 0n the contrary, it was concei!ed as a religion for all of
India+s untouchables and for oppressed people of the world in general. &lthough there
are clear parallels between the 5ahars+ social and political needs and &mbed'ar+s
Buddhist message, it would be a mista'e to thin' that &mbed'ar intended to create a
race:based or culturally determined religion.
22
Chapter 2
Ambedkar in the Context of the Mahars and Indian istory
&mbed'ar as 5ahar< %arly *ife and %ducation
&mbed'ar was born as a 5ahar, a member of the largest untouchable sub:caste in
the state of 5aharashtra. %leanor Kelliot describes the 5ahar+s traditional occupation as
that of the !illage ser!ant or, balutedar, whose duties re!ol!ed around mundane aspects
of maintaining !illage order such as mending walls, acting as watchman, arbitrating in
boundary disputes, informing landowners of their duty to pay !illage dues, and sweeping
roads ?JF@. Those 5ahars not in!ol!ed in balutedar wor' generally relied on agriculture
as a means of support. &dditionally, 5ahars remo!ed the carcasses of dead cattle from
the !illage and regularly ate carrion beef, two practices that justified their untouchability
in the minds of the caste 3indu ?Kelliot JJ@. &s Kelliot writes, The 5ahar+s duties were
performed in the contet of his untouchability9 his touch was polluting and he did not
come into direct contact with a caste 3indu or enter a caste 3indu home. The temple, the
school, the !illage well were closed to him ?JJ@. 4or eample, one of &mbed'ar+s
contemporaries remembers that he was not allowed to share the community water well
and was punished if he touched other students in school ?Borhale 22:,B:--@. The aspect
of ritual pollution permeated e!ery aspect of the 5ahar+s relationship with their
surrounding culture, and they were generally belie!ed to be dirty, fre7uent consumers of
alcohol, and morally la ?Kelliot C-@. 0ne un'nown poet wrote, Their ?the 5ahar+s@
houses are outside the !illage9 there are lice in their women+s hair9 na'ed children play in
the rubbish9 they eat carrion ?Kelliot C-@. Thus Kelliot cites a traditional 5arathi
2,
pro!erb< 8here!er there is a !illage there is a maharwada ?the designated area outside
the !illage where the 5ahars li!ed@ ?JF@. In %nglish, this phrase would approimate to,
There+s a blac' sheep in e!ery floc', and it illustrates the way the 5ahars were
inetricably bound to and yet rejected by the communities they li!ed in ?Kelliot JF@.
3owe!er, significant shifts in the 5ahars+ social and occupational status had ta'en
place during the two generations preceding &mbed'ar+s birth. Kelliot writes, 8ith the
ad!ent of British rule, other opportunities for wor' were opened to the 5ahar, his
traditional role being such that he was both free and pressed to ta'e whate!er new
!ocation presented itself ?JJ@. These new !ocations often too' the form of wor' on the
doc's and in railways, roads, tetile mills, and go!ernment industries such as ammunition
factories ?Kelliot JG@. 5any of these jobs re7uired 5ahars to mo!e to cities such as
Bombay, (une, and $agpur, and as urbanized members of the community pushed
increasingly for education and changes in social status, their relati!es in !illages followed
suit and began to shed both the duties and social customs that had once been associated
with their untouchability ?Kelliot JG@. 5any 5ahars also joined the British army, which
pro!ided another means of escaping the constraints of traditional social hierarchies before
the British de!eloped their theory of martial races that ecluded the 5ahars ?Barbara
"oshi E-@. Zelliot carefully documents the ways in which 19
th
century Mahar social
movements, led by men such as Jotirao hule and !o"al #aba $alan%&ar 'see (Mahar
and )on*#rahman Movements in Maharashtra+,- )he characterizes the 5ahars as an
upwardly mobile social group who were eager to use recent changes in occupation as a
platform for increased social change. &ll of these factors suggest that the culture
surrounding &mbed'ar during his youth was characterized by increasing political
2>
awareness and social mobility. &fter passing through the crucible of 5orningside
3eights, &mbed'ar was able to return to India with both the confidence and the 'now:
how to effect radical political change for the 5ahars.
The basic facts of &mbed'ar+s early life epitomize this rapid de!elopment of 5ahar
social consciousness that was in opposition to cultural and religious degradation.
&mbed'ar was born in 2JG2 in a small !illage outside of (une. 3is father mo!ed the
family to Bombay because the !illage schools would not admit low:caste children
?$ritin%s and S"eeches, .ol- 1/, B@. 3owe!er, &mbed'ar continued to suffer from caste:
based prejudice e!en while attending school in this new urban center ?5oon B@.
&mbed'ar studied at the Bombay (residency )chool and then at %lphinstone College in
Bombay. The 5aharaja of Baroda, a liberal reformer who funded many students from
Bombay (residency, paid for the latter part of his college education. &fter &mbed'ar+s
graduation, the 5aharaja also sent him to Columbia .ni!ersity in $ew Lor'. &t
Columbia, &mbed'ar recei!ed a 5aster+s 1egree and a 1octorate of (hilosophy in
%conomics, )ociology and (olitical and 5oral (hilosophy ?5oon E and Kelliot 2EF@.
&mbed'ar+s stay at Columbia coincided with a period of great de!elopment in political
and social thought. 5en such as "ohn 1ewey and the anthropologist &leander
;oldenweiser were in the midst of formulating theories that would become the
cornerstone of &merican thin'ing, and &mbed'ar made an effort to study under as many
of these great minds as he could ?J-@. Kelliot refers to &mbed'ar+s study at Columbia as
an eposure to optimistic, epansi!e, pragmatic body of 'nowledge ?J-@. 3e then
tra!eled to *ondon and recei!ed a 1octorate of )cience from the *ondon )chool of
%conomics and entrance to the Bar from ;rey+s Inn ?Kelliot 2EF@. 8hen &mbed'ar
2B
finally returned to Bombay in 2G,>, he was among India+s minority of college:educated
men and its most highly educated untouchable. 3e was also one of only three men in
Indian public life to ha!e had an etended stay in the .nited )tates ?Kelliot FG@.
Let &mbed'ar+s education, though etraordinary, was not necessarily an anomaly in
the contet of greater changes that were ta'ing place in 5ahar society. 4or eample,
&mbed'ar+s initial mo!e to Bombay reflects the 5ahar+s increasing tendency of 5ahar
to migrate from rural to urban settings. In turn, his education in the .nited )tates ga!e
him first hand eperience of the daily life and political theory of a country that did not
ad!ocate religiously based social hierarchies. Thus, after passing through the crucible of
5orningside 3eights, &mbed'ar was able to return to India with both the confidence and
the 'now:how to effect radical political changes for untouchables.
5ahar as (olitician< &mbed'ar+s (olitical Career
;ail 0m!edt argues that &mbed'ar established his role as a leader of untouchables
in three ways< by submitting testimony to the )outhborough Committee on /eforms,
appearing at two major untouchable conferences in 2G,-, and founding a journal named
Moo&naya&, or the Aoice of the 5ute ?2BE@. 0f these, the testimony to the
)outhborough Committee is most significant because it introduces the idea of distinct
untouchable socio:cultural identity to Indian political theory ?0m!edt 2BC@. In what
0m!edt refers to as an elo7uent assertion of identity and claim to autonomy, &mbed'ar
argued that the protection of the rights of untouchables was contingent upon direct
representation of untouchables in legislatures. In his words<
The right of representation and the right to hold office under the state are the two most
important rights that ma'e up citizenship. But the untouchability of the untouchables puts
these rights far beyond their reach. In a few places they do not e!en possess such
2E
insignificant rights as personal liberty and personal security. These are the interests of the
untouchables. &nd as can be easily seen, they can be represented by untouchables alone
?0m!edt 2BC@.
0ne should note that this argument for political preference contradicts the assertion of
cultural unity that was made by high caste leaders of the untouchable mo!ement=many
of whom had not e!en wanted untouchables to be able to testify before the Committee
?0m!edt 2BE@. 3ere, as elsewhere, he phrases the untouchables+ problems in terms of
fundamental rights, personal liberty, indi!idual security, and the fulfillment of citizenship.
Thus he creates a clear connection between untouchability, which is arguably a religious
phenomenon, and the rights of citizenship, which are primarily political. This allows him
to propose that a legal system ?legislature@ can pro!ide solutions for the problems raised
by a religious system ?3induism@. In prose reflecting the democratic optimism that
characterized the political theory of his &merican contemporaries, &mbed'ar !oices his
belief that democracy should be gi!en priority o!er 3induism. This fusion of religion and
politics largely foreshadows the justification he ga!e for religious con!ersion in the
2G>-+s. &t the time, howe!er, &mbed'ar+s argument was noteworthy because it
highlighted the differences between the methodology of untouchables and the
methodology of outside leaders of untouchables.
&mbed'ar was further established as leader of the untouchable mo!ement at the
5ahad )atyagraha of 2G,F ?0m!edt 2E-@. 1uring a staged protest, 2E-- untouchables
dran' out of a water tan' that had been recently opened to them by an act of legislation.
In a speech that made se!eral parallels between the struggles of untouchables and the
4rench /e!olution, &mbed'ar told his followers, 8e are not going to the Cha!adar *a'e
merely to drin' its water. 8e are going to the *a'e to assert that we too are human
2C
beings li'e others. It must be clear that this meeting has been called to set up the norm of
e7ualityH0thers will not do it ?oisoned #read ,,E@. Let caste 3indus attac'ed the
protestors, riots ensued, and Brahman priests insisted on cleansing the polluted water
tan'. &mbed'ar then organized another rally around the right to drin' water, and here he
burned a copy of the Manusmriti in front of a crowd of 2-,--- untouchables. 5any
untouchables now refer to the initial mo!e to drin' common water as .ntouchable
Independence 1ay ?0m!edt 2E,@.
4ollowing the 5ahad )atyagraha, the untouchable mo!ement was increasingly
bound to the construction of Indian independence. Between 2G,G and 2G>, the British
initiated a series of /ound Table Conferences with the goal of pro!iding a format for
dialogue among Indians about the framing of their national constitution. The issue of
untouchable representation in legislature was raised repeatedly throughout these
conferences. 0nce again &mbed'ar, as one of two untouchable representati!es, stated
that the 1epressed Classes constituted a distinct part of the greater 3indu community. In
the wa'e of similar demands that had been granted to 5uslim and Christian minorities,
he asserted that untouchables should be gi!en separate !oting electorates and a number of
reser!ed seats in the legislature ?Kelliot 2>,@.
5.#. ;andhi was the most !ocal opponent of &mbed'ar+s plan, arguing against
both separate electorates and reser!ed seats in the legislature. ;andhi belie!ed that
constitutional support of a distinct untouchable culture would create an irreparable rift in
Indian society ?Kelliot 2>,@. ;andhi had two primary objections to &mbed'ar+s line of
reasoning. 4irst, in star' contrast to &mbed'ar, ;andhi belie!ed that law would ne!er be
able to sol!e the problem of untouchability ?"oshi BB@. 1ue to what Barbara "oshi refers
2F
to as a deep distrust of the coerci!e powers of the state, ;andhi pressed for change in
the hearts and the minds of people o!er structural modifications of the political system
?BB@. ;andhi belie!ed that lasting social change would occur only if caste 3indus
recognized the injustices of the caste system and then changed their actions accordingly.
The second ideological difference between ;andhi and &mbed'ar was that ;andhi
opposed untouchability but did not reject the caste system. &n article that he wrote for
0oun% 1ndia in 2G,C outlines his thin'ing<
In accepting the fourfold di!ision ?of caste@, I am simply accepting the laws of $ature,
ta'ing for granted what is inherent in human nature, and the law of heredity. 8e are born
with some of the traits of our parents. The fact that a human being is born only in the
human species shows that some characteristics, i. e. caste, is determined by birth. There is
scope enough for freedom of the will inasmuch as we can to a certain etent reform some
of our inherited characteristicsH& Brahmana may, by doing the deeds of a )hudra, become
a )hudra in this !ery birth, but the world loses nothing in continuing to treat him as a
Brahmana ?"oshi B>@.
In later years ;andhi also defended the concept of hereditary occupations but not the
prohibition of intermarriage and inter:caste dining ?"oshi B>@. 3e argued that once people
understood the !alue of all occupations they would gi!e e7ual respect to all members of
society, and thus the caste system would pro!ide di!ision of labor without !alue
judgement. Let two problems arise for untouchables if one accepts ;andhi+s arguments.
4irst, his !iew differs little from that of classical Brahmanism, which does not bode well
for his aim to change hearts and minds without radical the use of institutional reform.
)econd, the last part of his statement, the world loses nothing in continuing to treat him
?the errant Brahmin@ as a Brahmana, seems to promote apathy in the face of mo!ements
for structural social change. $ot only does ;andhi fail to eplain eactly how a Brahmin
would be treated under the proposed system, but also one wonders if he means to imply
that the world loses nothing by continuing to treat a )udra as a )udra. If this is the case,
2J
then the ;andhian !ision of India lea!es little=if any=opportunity for social mobility
on the part of the depressed classes.
The &mbed'ar:;andhi conflict embodies the conflict surrounding untouchable
leadership. Could untouchables rely on anyone other than another untouchable to
procure and maintain their fundamental rights6 Both &mbed'ar and ;andhi laid claim to
the same role. &mbed'ar clearly structured all of his political thin'ing around the
concept of untouchability, yet ;andhi told the 5inorities Committee in 2G>2, I claim
myself in my own person to represent the !ast mass of .ntouchables ?0m!edt 2F2@.
Kelliot writes of the /ound Table Conferences<
The conflict between the two men ?;andhi and &mbed'ar@ can be defined in se!eral
ways< &mbed'ar+s stress upon the ri%hts of the 1epressed Classes !ersus ;andhi+s stress
upon the duty of the caste 3indus to do penance9 &mbed'ar+s complete rejection of caste
!ersus ;andhi+s defense of chaturvarnaHas necessary to 3induism9 &mbed'ar+s rational
democratic liberalism !ersus ;andhi+s appeals to traditional modes of thought9 and the
ine!itable clash between the aggressi!e demands of a minority group leader and the
slower, broader:based and somewhat paternalistic etension of rights by the majority
group reformer ?2>>@.
0m!edt is less neutral in her assessment of the difference in leadership that the two men
presented. )he writes<
The point is that ;andhi, who feared a political di!isionHin the !illages, ignored the
di!ision that already eisted9 in his warning against the spread of !iolence, he ignored the
!iolence already eisting in the li!es of the 1alits. Claiming to spea' in the name of
untouchables, claiming to represent their cause and their !ital interests, ;andhi was
not spea'ing from their perspecti!e9 he was not e!en spea'ing as a national leader9 he
was spea'ing as a Hindu in his appearance at this )econd /ound Table conference ?2F,@.
;andhi and &mbed'ar thus presented two radically differing !iews on the best way to
alle!iate the problems facing untouchables9 the first is rooted in the caste 3indu
perspecti!e and the second in the eperiences and aspirations of untouchables
themsel!es.
2G
Indeed, &mbed'ar+s assertion that the rights of untouchables could ne!er fully be
protected by caste 3indus seems to be pro!en correct when one eamines the series of
e!ents that lead to the (oona (act in 2G>,. &fter the Third /ound Table conference, the
British interceded into what they belie!ed was a stalemate between the depressed
classes and caste 3indus by issuing the /amsey 5ac1onald &ward. This compromise
document ga!e untouchables an altered form of the separate electorates they desired
?Kelliot 2CC@. ;andhi responded by underta'ing a fast unto death until the pro!ision
for separate electorates was remo!ed. Kelliot writes, ;andhi+s fast unto death against
separate electorates placed his life in &mbed'ar+s hands ?2>>@. If &mbed'ar refused to
gi!e up his ideal of separate electorates, the frail 5ahatma would surely ha!e died.
5oreo!er, once it became 'nown that the cause of his death was related to issues of
untouchables in legislature, caste 3indus would ha!e li'ely retaliated against the
untouchable community with etreme !iolence.
In light of the seriousness of ;andhi+s action, both in terms of the affects it would
ha!e had on his own person and the dangerous situation it created for untouchables, it is
important to note that his moti!ations were connected as much to caste:based prejudices
as they were to a desire to promote the welfare of the Indian people. Kelliot, for eample,
points out discrepancies between the reasons ;andhi used to justify his fast when tal'ing
to untouchables and the eplanation he ga!e close ac7uaintances. In a letter to
untouchable leaders he stated<
I ha!e not a shadow of a doubt that it ?separate electorates@ will pre!ent the natural growth
for the suppressed classes and will remo!e the incenti!e to honourable amends from the
suppressors. 8hat I am aiming at is a heart understanding between the twoH ?Kelliot 2CF@
Let the net day he remar'ed to one of his friends<
,-
)eparate electorates for all other communities will still lea!e room for me to deal with
them, but I ha!e no other means to deal with untouchables. These poor fellows will as'
why I who claim to be their friend should offer )atyagraha ?non:!iolent resistance, i.e. the
fast unto death@ simply because they were granted some pri!ilegesH.ntouchable
hooligans will ma'e common cause with 5uslim hooligans and 'ill caste:3indus ?Kelliot
2CF@.
Besides the fact that one statement appears to be moti!ated by ethical idealism and the
other by political epediency, one must as' how ;andhi could ha!e epected
honourable amends and a heart understanding between untouchables and people of
high caste when he himself referred to them as poor fellows and hooligans in the
company of friends. In another con!ersation, this one on the subject of untouchable
con!ersion to Christianity, he eclaimed, 8ould you preach the ;ospel to a cow6 8ell,
some of the untouchables are worse than cowsHI mean they can no more distinguish
between the relati!e merits of Christianity and 3induism than a cow ?"ohn 8ebster
22B@.
These remar's ha!e been selected to illustrate the formidable gap that can eist
between untouchables and e!en the most well:intentioned Indian leaders. ;andhi was a
!ocal opponent of untouchability and tra!eled some 2,,--- miles across India to educate
people about the problems that arise from its practices9 yet it is clear that his own !iew
was colored by paternalism and, as 0m!edt points out, it is unli'ely that he had a
thorough understanding of the untouchable eperience. 3e claimed to be a leader of the
untouchables but he could ne!er be a leader from the untouchables. (erhaps this would
not be so problematic if ;andhi did not seem to thin' that untouchables were incapable
of leading themsel!es. ;andhi+s beha!ior and the outcome of the (oona (act con!inced
many untouchables that they would ha!e to turn to a member of their own community=
namely &mbed'ar=if they wanted to effect real social change.
,2
&mbed'ar e!entually signed the (oona (act to ma'e ;andhi brea' his fast, and
doing so re7uired him to trade his goal of separate electorates for a significantly increased
number of reser!ed seats. 4or &mbed'ar, the (oona (act constituted a direct insult to the
untouchables+ cause and caused him to doubt the efficacy of using political means alone
for the creation of radical change. &s it turns out, &mbed'ar+s concern was not
unfounded. The system of reser!ation of seats as outlined in the (oona (act was
incorporated into the Indian Constitution in nearly eactly the same form, the end result
being that untouchables were consigned to !ote for their representati!e from
constituencies in which they are always a minority ?/obert 1eliege 2G>:2GB, )elected
&rticles of the Indian Constitution@. In short, the power of untouchable representation
was all but negated by the way in which their representati!es were elected.
&mbed'ar realized that he had forfeited a powerful political safeguard for
untouchables, and felt that he had been forced to do so because of a stubborn politician
who merely pretended to be a religiously moti!ated leader. 0ne of &mbed'ar+s recently
published papers, ;andhi and 3is 4ast, re:eamines the /ound Table conferences, the
/amsay 5ac1onald &ward, and the (oona (act. This F-:page document shows that
&mbed'ar ne!er reco!ered from the way in which the safeguards of the /amsay
5ac1onald &ward were lost. 3e concludes< Hthere has been a tragic end to this fight
of the untouchables for political rights. I ha!e no hesitation in saying that 5r. ;andhi is
solely responsible for this tragedy ?$ritin%s and S"eeches, .ol- . >EE@. Thus 0m!edt
writes that the (oona (act brought &mbed'ar to the final disillusionment with ;andhi
and with 3induism, pro!ing to him that untouchables would ne!er be able to gain the
e7uality they sought while remaining with their nati!e religion ?2FC@.
,,
Thus &mbed'ar+s approach to politics mar's the confluence of two distinct
mo!ements< the 5ahar struggle for social e7uality and the pan:Indian struggle for
independence. &lthough the goals of these groups were not mutally eclusi!e, the socio:
cultural differences between their respecti!e leaders 7uic'ly lead to the perception of a
political dichotomy on both parts. 0n the one hand, there were Indian nationalists,
eemplified by ;andhi, who ad!ocated cultural and political unity as the only way of
preser!ing indigenous India in the face of the British raj. .ntouchable acti!ists, on the
other hand, ac'nowledged that in some ways their community had benifitted from British
go!ernment. In addition, their social project assumed the eistence of societal di!isions
along catse lines. &lthough they ad!ocated independence, they also !iewed the creation
of a new go!ernment as a means for bringing their dream of social e7uality to fruition.
Thus the defining moment for the untouchable mo!ement occurred at an e!ent
orchestrated by both British and Indians< the signing of the (oona (act in 2G>,. The
e!ents surrounding the pact were significant, not only in pro!ing une7ui!ocally that
&mbed'ar was the political leader of India+s untouchables, but also in laying the
foundation for &mbed'ar+s con!ersion to Buddhism in 2GEC.


,>
Chapter !
Ambedkar and "eligion
In 2G>E &mbed'ar made the following public announcement< Because we ha!e the
misfortune of calling oursel!es 3indus, we are treated thusHI had the misfortune of
being born with the stigma of an .ntouchable. 3owe!er, it is not my fault9 but I will not
die a 3indu, for this is in my power ?Kelliot ,-C@. 1espite the radicalism of &mbed'ar+s
proclamation there were few internal protests from the 5ahar community, and one year
later a 5ahar conference in Bombay unanimously passed a resolution to con!ert from
3induism ?&mbed'ar $ritin%s and S"eeches B->, Kelliot ,-F@. 8e ha!e re!iewed the
political and historical factors that contributed to &mbed'ar+s decision to con!ert from
3induism. 3owe!er his choice also stemmed from a modern understanding of religion
and its functions. This understanding ga!e primacy to the social nature of religion, and it
would lead him to choose and reinterpret Buddhism as the ideal religion for the
untouchables.
.nderstanding of Con!ersion
& recently published manuscript entitled &way from the 3indus eplains
&mbed'ar+s understanding of religion and con!ersion. It responds to four common
arguments against the religious con!ersion of untouchables< 2@ con!ersion can ma'e no
real change in the status of untouchables, ,@ all religions are true and good, and thus
changing religion is futile, >@ the con!ersion of untouchables is moti!ated by political
rather than religious reasons, and B@ the con!ersion of untouchables is neither genuine nor
based on faith ?&mbed'ar B->@. &mbed'ar answers these objections in re!erse order,
,B
stating first that there are numerous eamples throughout history of groups that ha!e
con!erted because of compulsion, or deceit, or with the hope of political gain ?B-B@. In
contrast to these early con!ersions, and to contemporary religion ?referred to as a piece
of ancestral property@, the con!ersion of untouchables would follow their careful
eamination of what they !alue in religion, thus constituting the first case in history of
genuine con!ersion ?B-E@. )econd, &mbed'ar eplains that untouchables would gain no
new political protections under the constitutional law of India if they were to change their
religion ?B-E@. Third, he warns against essentializing religion. &mbed'ar writes that the
science of comparati!e religion has created the false notion that all religions are good
and that there is therefore no reason to discriminate between them ?B-C@. &lthough he
gi!es no eamples, he states that religions clearly differ in their conceptions of the
good and that because of this it is possible to assess the merits of one religion with
respect to another ?B-C@.
These three arguments attempt to justify the act of con!ersion from historical,
political, and academic perspecti!es. 3e shows that religious con!ersion is an act
supported by past eamples, the newly emerging science of comparati!e religion, and
contemporary political realities. 3e associates it with ancient history and modern
scholarship. In this way he ad!ocates a contemporary act of con!ersion by placing it on a
continuum with both tradition and modernity. $ot only does con!ersion constitute a
symbolic act that has been ta'ing place for thousands of years, but also indi!iduals are
better e7uipped to ma'e con!ersions than they e!er ha!e been before. In short,
con!ersion is legitimate both in terms of the need it fulfills and the methods that are used.
,E
&mbed'ar then proposes that religious con!ersion will ser!e untouchables
positi!ely. 3e begins by eamining the content and function of religion. The primary
things in religion are its usages, practices and obser!ances, rites and rituals, he states,
Theology is secondary. Its object is merely to nationalize them ?B-F@. &mbed'ar+s
unorthodo use of the word nationalize implies a fundamental relationship between
religious and political systems. Theology, li'e the political process of nationalization,
unifies disparate groups and practice under a common=in this case religious=label. Let
just as distinct groups and indi!iduals comprise the heart of a modern nation:state, so
!aried practices and rituals pro!ide religion with its uni7ue characteristics. In this way
&mbed'ar tries to show that one who describes religion must gi!e priority to religious
practice of religious dogma.
&mbed'ar concludes that religion is fundamentally social in both origin and
function ?B-G@. It originated not through the supernatural but through what &mbed'ar
refers to as )a!age society9 its purpose is to emphasize and uni!ersalize social
!alues, and its function is to act as an agency of social control ?B2-@. 3e 7uotes the
2ncyclo"edia #ritannica<
The function of religion is the same as the function of *aw and ;o!ernmentHIt may not be
used consciously as a method of social control o!er the indi!idualH$onetheless the fact is
that religion acts as a means of social control. &s compared to religion, ;o!ernment and
*aw are relati!ely inade7uate means of social control ?B2-@.
Thus, as ;auri Aiswanathan notes, part of &mbed'ar+s project is to deconstruct the
commonly accepted dichotomy between religious and political systems ?,>E@. Let
whereas &mbed'ar used the lin' between religion and politics to argue for political
,C
solutions to untouchability before the )outhborough Committee, here he uses it to justify
an o!ertly religious act.
&mbed'ar+s choice of order in which to respond to the four criticisms of con!ersion
now becomes clear. 3a!ing legitimized comparati!e analysis of con!ersion, he can show
that this comparison should focus on the ways that religion go!erns society through ritual
and practice. $ot surprisingly, he turns to 3induism and uses a series of eamples to
demonstrate that 3induism cannot offer a model for society that is amenable to
untouchables ?B2,@. These eamples are organized around classical 3indu definitions of
untouchability that are pro!ided in tets such as the Manusmriti ?B2,@. 3e concludes that
untouchables suffer from two burdens as a result of 3induism< social isolation and a
sense of psychological inferiority ?B2>@.
&mbed'ar asserts both of these problems can be sol!ed through religious
con!ersion. & new religion will address the problem of social isolation by pro!iding a
new community, referred to as 'inship, which will counter old forms of social isolation.
&mbed'ar writes, If for the .ntouchables mere citizenship is not enough to put an end
to their isolation and the troubles which ensue therefrom, if 'inship is the only cure then
there is no other way ecept to embrace the religion of the community whose 'inship
they see' ?B2J@. 0nce again, it is clear that &mbed'ar+s thought has shifted since the
)outhborough Committee. &mbed'ar+s aim had been to de!elop true citizenship for
untouchables=defined in terms of representation and the right to hold office=through
the enactment of political controls. Let history presented &mbed'ar with a troubling
dilemma< untouchables were able to procure the rights to representation and office but,
due to the outcome of the (oona (act, they were still powerless in the realm of Indian
,F
politics. Thus he abandons citizenship in fa!or of 'inship a more nebulous term that
denotes membership in a common religious community. (olitical systems, he implies,
are too abstracted from common eperience to sol!e a problem that is rooted in the
untouchables basic understanding of himself and his relationships with others. 8hereas
he once !iewed the solution to untouchability in terms of the relationship of one
community to another ?i.e., untouchables and caste 3indus@, here he phrases it in terms of
a single community+s ability to impro!e its relationship with itself.
&mbed'ar argues that a corresponding label must accompany a new form 'inship.
This label is needed as an assertion of independence to indi!iduals outside the
community and it pro!ides the untouchable with a new way of regarding herself. This
section is the most forcefully worded portion of his essay, and it comes to the heart of
what religious con!ersion means to &mbed'ar<
.nfortunately, names ser!e a !ery important purpose. They play a great part in social
economy. $ames are symbols. %ach name represents association of certain ideas and
notions about a certain object. It is a labelHThe name .ntouchable is a bad name. It
repels, forbids, and stin'sHthe .ntouchables 'now that if they call themsel!es
.ntouchables they will at once draw the 3indu out and epose themsel!es to his wrath
and his prejudiceH4or to be a 3indu is for 3indus not an ultimate social category. The
ultimate social category is caste, nay sub:caste if there is a sub:caste ?B2G@.
This leads &mbed'ar to his final conclusion<
Htwo things are clear. 0ne is that the low status of the .ntouchables is bound upon with
a stin'ing name. .nless the name is changed there is no possibility of a rise in their
social status. The other is that a change of name within 3induism will not do. The
3indu will not fail to penetrate through such a name and ma'e the .ntouchable and
confer himself as an .ntouchable.
The name matters and matters a great deal. 4or, the name can ma'e a re!olution in the
status of the .ntouchables. But the name must be the name of a community outside
3induism and beyond its power of spoilation and degradation. )uch name can be the
property of the .ntouchable only if they undergo religious con!ersion. & con!ersion by
change of name within 3induism is a clandestine con!ersion which can be of no a!ail
?B,-@.
,J
These statements show that the content of religious con!ersion is, according to
&mbed'ar, a change in the way an indi!idual or group !iew themsel!es with respect to
society. It is a social phenomenon9 religious labels are li'e all other linguistic signifiers
in that they ha!e little !alue if there is no second party to witness their use. &mbed'ar
does argue that a change in this outward label will e!entually lead to interior changes
such as increased self:esteem, but it is important to note that personal enhancement is
contingent upon a change in how untouchables present themsel!es to the world. Thus
religious con!ersion allows untouchables to restructure, from the outside in, the
definitions that 3indu society has pre!iously projected upon them.
4ollowing his con!ersion speech of 2G>E, &mbed'ar began a public search for a
religion that would be most appropriate for untouchables. 3e considered Islam,
Christianity, )i'hism, &rya )amajism, and Buddhism, all of which openly recruited
&mbed'ar and his followers ?Kelliot ,-F@. %!entually he chose Buddhism, a religion that
was both nati!e to India and a minority in Indian culture ?there were only 2J-,---
Buddhists in India according to the 2GE2 census@ ?Kelliot 2JF@. It should be noted that
Buddhism+s Indian origins were etremely important to &mbed'ar, who fre7uently
referred Christianity and Islam as foreign religions that would further alienate con!erts
from Indian culture ?Aiswanathan ,>B@. 3owe!er, &mbed'ar formally outlines his
reasons for choosing Buddhism in an article for the Maha #odhi Journal entitled
Buddha and the 4uture of 3is /eligion. 3e writes that he prefers Buddhism to
Christianity and Islam because the Buddha ne!er claimed to ha!e di!ine origin or
powers, he prefers Buddhism to 3induism because the Buddha opposed the caste system
and stood for e7uality between indi!iduals ?>-, >2@. The social gospel of 3induism is
,G
ine7uality, he states, 0n the other hand Buddha stood for e7uality. 3e was the greatest
opponent of Chatur!arna ?>>@. Buddhism, in addition to pro!iding a new name for
untouchables, would assure that this name is fundamentally anti:caste and anti:Brahman.
The Buddhist label is also rooted in liberty, e7uality, fraternity and does not sanctify
or ennoble po!erty ?>J@. .ntouchables are liberated from insults in!ol!ing caste and
class and are pro!ided for in that po!erty will not tied to this new moral system.
Buddhism therefore pro!ides untouchable with a 'inship association that connotes
rationality, egalitarianism, and social change=all of which are re7uirements for a
religion which pro!ides just social go!ernance ?>J@.
&mbed'ar+s Buddhism
There are three primary components of &mbed'ar+s Buddhist message. The first is
the anti:Brahmanical, or destructi!e element. In this respect 1alit Buddhism is the most
recent in a long line of protest mo!ements that ha!e aimed to de:legitimize caste 3indu
appropriation of social and political power. The second component of 1alit Buddhism is
a myth of origin, and the third is a uni7ue form of Buddhist doctrine as presented in 3he
#uddha and His Dhamma. Together, the myth of origin and 3he #uddha and His
Dhamma comprise the constructi!e core of &mbed'ar+s Buddhism. In turn, the
destructi!e and constructi!e elements of 1alit Buddhism combine to pro!ide an alternate
world!iew that legitimizes and stimulates 5ahar social struggles.
4nti*#rahmanism
>-
Tre!or *ing states that that untouchables in modern India can use two methods to
achie!e social mobility. The first is to appropriate the symbols and lifestyle of the upper
castes, and the second is anti:brahmanism, which *ing defines as rejecting the culture
and !alues of the Brahmanical ;reat Tradition while adopting of alternati!e cultural
traditions ?F>@. Nuoting 5. 5. Thomas, *ing describes anti:Brahmanism as the one
modern pattern of social thought which is distinctly Indian in origin and characterH?it is@
the awa'ening of the non:Brahmans to their essential rights of human eistence which
caste has denied them for ages ?FB@. 3e gi!es eamples of se!eral social mo!ements in
India that ha!e used rejection of caste an impetus for action. 3e then places &mbed'ar
within this tradition of anti:Brahmanic social acti!ism ?FJ@. 3e cites well:'nown
eamples such as &mbed'ar+s announcement to con!ert to Buddhism and his depiction of
Brahmanism in 3he 4nnihilation of 5aste to demonstrate that &mbed'ar associated social
e7uality with the destruction of the caste system ?J-:J2@.
Buddhism pro!ides &mbed'ar with an alternati!e cultural tradition that ma'es his
rejection of caste:based 3indu !alues complete. This is most e!ident in the twenty:two
!ows that &mbed'ar prescribed for the con!ert from 3induism to Buddhism. )e!eral do
not e!en mention Buddhism9 and instead aim at separating new Buddhists from their
3indu past. The anti:Brahmanic !ows follow<
2. I shall not recognize Brahma, Aishnu and 5ahesh as gods, nor shall I worship them.
,. I shall not recognize /ama and #rishna as gods, nor shall I worship them.
>. I shall not recognize ;owrie and ;anpati as gods nor shall I worship them.
B. I do not belie!e in the theory of incarnation of ;od.
E. I do not consider the Buddha as the incarnation of Aishnu.
C. I shall not perform shradh for my ancestors, nor shall I gi!e offerings to ;od.
F. I shall not perform any religious rite through the agency of a Brahman.
2G. I hereby reject my old religion 3induism which is detrimental to the prosperity of
human 'ind which discriminates between man and man and accept Buddhism ?(andyan
2>J@.

>2
If one imagines B-,--- con!erts at $agpur as they repeat these !ows in unison she begins
to understand the sociological significance of the &mbed'arite rejection of 3induism.
&mbed'ar+s initial presentation of Buddhism includes an itemized list of forbidden 3indu
practices, and as con!erts swear to abstain from these practices they effecti!ely se!er
themsel!es from a 3indu past. In theory, there was no way of regarding a con!ersion to
Buddhism as anything other than a formal rejection of 3induism. Thus 1alit Buddhism,
in its destructi!e form, is both necessitated and defined by a desire to de:legitimize the
caste system.
Myths of 6ri%in
&mbed'ar+s myth of origin has both a politicalDhistorical and a religious aspect.
&mbed'ar de!elops the new account of untouchable origins most fully in $ho $ere the
Shudras7 How they came to be the 8ourth .arna in the 1ndo*4ryan Society and 3he
9ntouchables: $ho $ere 3hey and $hy 3hey #ecame 9ntouchables7 These boo's are
among the earliest attempts to ma'e a formal study of the Indian caste system, and their
eplicit aim is to present an alternate understanding of caste for both the uneducated and
the intellectual. Briefly, &mbed'ar+s thesis in 3he 9ntouchables is that untouchability
has no origin in race or occupational differences, and that it constitutes an unjust
discrimination concocted by Brahman 3indus ?,B,@. 3e refers to ancient untouchables
throughout as Bro'en 5en, an ancient tribe of indi!iduals who had a culture and
religion distinct from that of the 3indus ?,FG@. These Bro'en 5en were the first
Buddhists and the last ancient Indians to gi!e up the practice of eating beef. 3e ma'es a
special note, howe!er, that the Bro'en 5en were not the same as the Impure ?,B,@. 3e
>,
argues that untouchability was a product of Brahman contempt for Bro'en 5en, due to
their heretical religion and the continuation of eating beef ?,B,@. 3e states, The Bro'en
5en hated the Brahmins because the Brahmins were the enemies of Buddhism and the
Brahmins imposed untouchability upon the Bro'en 5en because they would not lea!e
Buddhism ?>2F@. Thus &mbed'ar se!ers untouchability from its pre!ious associations
with race, purity, and occupation, and lin's it instead to the practice of Buddhism.
&mbed'ar+s preface to 3he 9ntouchables implies that the new understanding of
untouchable origins was meant to be a starting point for further re!olutions in thought.
3e writes<
The eistence of these classes ?untouchables@ is an abomination. In any other country the
eistence of these classes would ha!e led to searching of the heart and to in!estigation of
their origin. But neither of these has occurred to the mind of the 3induH?,>G@
8hat is strange is that .ntouchability should ha!e failed to attract the attention of the
%uropean student of social institutionsHThis boo' may therefore, be ta'en as a pioneer
attempt in the eploration of a field so completely neglected by e!erybody. The boo', if I
may say so, deals not only with e!ery aspect of the main 7uestion set out for in7uiry,
namely, the origin of .ntouchability, but it also deals with almost all 7uestions connected
with it ?,B2@.
&mbed'ar+s boo' pro!ides an assertion of untouchable self:definition in the face of
intellectual apathy and religious discrimination. Its purpose is to shift the way
untouchables thin' about themsel!es and the way caste 3indus and scholars !iew
untouchables. Thus &mbed'ar+s response to the 7uestion of untouchable origins
constitutes of a dual triumph of rationality o!er uninformed religious tradition and of
e7uality o!er caste. &lthough he admits to ha!ing used a certain amount of imagination
and hypothesis to fill in historical gaps, &mbed'ar clearly wants others to !iew his wor'
as an empirical historical study. I ha!e at least shown that there eists a preponderance
of probability in fa!our of what I ha!e asserted, he writes, It would be nothing but
>>
pedantry to say that a preponderance of probability is not sufficient basis for a !alid
decision ?#adam 2>@. This places his analysis of caste outside the traditional 3indu
paradigm9 therefore it challenges his critics to follow his mo!e if they wish to respond to
him in 'ind. &s both *ynch and Kelliot document, the notion of using mythic tradition to
eplain unpleasant social conditions was not new to untouchable communities.
&mbed'ar+s project, howe!er, was the first to accomplish this in the name of rational
historical in7uiry and the scientific method.
3he #uddha and His Dhamma
It is important to establish at the outset that &mbed'ar significantly altered the
teachings of the Buddha from pre!ious presentations in writing 3he #uddha and His
Dhamma. )ome critics ne!ertheless go to great lengths to pro!e that &mbed'ar+s
Buddhism does not depart from traditional Thera!adin orthodoy. 1.C. &hir, for
eample, attempts to associate each section of 3he #uddha and His Dhamma with the
(ali Canon, yet the chart he creates is !ague and difficult to !erify. &dditionally, when
&hir reaches his conclusion it becomes clear that the outcome of his project was
predetermined. 8here!er the modern Bodhisatt!a ?&mbed'ar@ has added something of
his own, &hir writes, it is only to present the Buddha+s teachings in the right
perspecti!e ?22,@. 0n the other hand, Christopher Nueen cites two unpublished studies
by &dele 4is'e which carefully analyze &mbed'ar+s use of (ali scriptures. 3e writes,
4is'e documents &mbed'ar+s repeated use of omission, interpolation, paraphrase, shift
of emphasis, and rationalization in passages that are presented as, in &mbed'ar+s words,
Osimple and clear statement?s@ of the fundamental Buddhist thoughts+ ?BJ@. /ichard
>B
Taylor assesses 3he #uddha and His Dhamma in a similar manner< 3e has ta'en what
seemed to him the most rele!ant parts of se!eral Buddhist traditions, edited them,
sometimes drastically, added material of his own, and arranged them in an order ?2BC@.
These remar's suggest that a discussion of 3he #uddha and His Dhamma should
dispense with the 7uestion of if &mbed'ar changed Buddhist doctrine and focus on why
and how this change occurred.
&mbed'ar himself ma'es no pretense of directly transmitting traditional Buddhist
doctrine, and his introduction outlines four ways in these teachings are lac'ing< 2@ The
Buddha could not ha!e had his first great realization simply because he encountered an
old man, a sic' man, and a dying man. It is unreasonable and therefore false to assume
that the Buddha did not ha!e pre!ious 'nowledge of something so common. ,@ The 4our
$oble truths ma'e the gospel of the Buddha a gospel of pessimism. If life is composed
entirely of suffering then there is no incenti!e for change. >@ The doctrines of no:soul,
'arma, and rebirth are incongruous. It is illogical to belie!e that there can be 'arma and
rebirth without a soul. B@ The Bhi''huPs purpose has not been presented clearly. Is he
supposed to be a perfect man or a social ser!ant6 ?Introduction, no page number
gi!en@. &lthough there are numerous other ways in which &mbed'ar crafted his boo'
specifically to meet the needs of untouchables, an eamination of these four major
reinterpretations pro!ides sufficient illustration of &mbed'ar+s creation of a Buddhism
for untouchables. 5ore specifically, it shows that &mbed'ar+s Buddhism is centered on a
self:conscious acti!ism that meets the needs of untouchable social mo!ements.
&mbed'ar+s first major reinterpretation in!ol!es the Buddha+s reununciation of
worldly life. 8hereas traditional biographies of the Buddha emphasize the empathy the
>E
young prince felt when he first encountered sufferring, &mbed'ar highlights the strength
of the Buddha+s social conscience during a conflict o!er water rights. &ccording to
&mbed'ar, the Buddha ad!ocated rational and a peaceful resolution of a tribal water
conflict but was unable to gain political le!erage because he lac'ed a majority !ote ?,F@.
3e then went into ehile and became a renunciant because it was the only way to pre!ent
the )a'yas from going to war with a neighboring tribe ?,J@. &mbed'ar omits any
mention of old age, sic'ness, and death. In this account, Buddha+s renunciation is
moti!ated by political eigencies rather than a desire find ultimate truth. Thus the
Buddha becomes a figure similar to a minority politician in contemporary India< his
concerns are social and rational, he clearly has an eceptional moral conscience but he is
not a god, and his reality is shaped by politics that are ultimately beyond his control. The
Buddha+s political difficulties mirror the problems untouchables ha!e gaining proper
representation in the Indian parliament, and the discussion of water rights was a familiar
topic after the 5ahad )atyagraha. These changes, though unorthodo, create a character
for the Buddha that is easily understood by the untouchable community.
&mbed'ar subjects the 4our $oble truths to the same type of interpretation. 3is
description of the first sermon at 1eer (ar' follows<
The centre of his 1hamma is man and the relation of man to man in his life on earth. This
he said was his first postulate. 3is second postulate was that men are li!ing in sorrow, in
misery and po!erty. The world is full of suffering and that how to remo!e this suffering
from the world is the only purpose of 1hamma. $othing else is 1hamma. The recognition
of the eistence of suffering and to show the way to remo!e suffering is the foundation and
basis of his 1hammaH& religion which fails to recognise this is no religion at allHThe
Buddha then told them that according to his dhamma if e!ery person followed ?2@ the (ath
of (urity9 ?,@ the (ath of /ighteousness9 and ?>@ the (ath of !irtue, it would bring about the
end of all suffering ?2,2:2,,@.
&mbed'ar ma'es se!eral ob!ious changes to traditional Thera!adin doctrine. The first
$oble Truth of suffering becomes the second postulate, and the most important
>C
characteristic of Buddhism becomes its concern for human relationships. The second
$oble Truth, that suffering arises from mental cra!ing, is also described in social terms,
as sorrow, misery and po!erty. In turn he refers !aguely to the third $oble Truth of
Cessation as the remo!al of suffering. Nueen+s detailed analysis of &mbed'ar+s
presentation of the 4our $oble Truths re!eals still more ways in which they ha!e been
altered to create a message of social acti!ism. &s the Buddha+s teachings continue it
becomes clear that the (ath of (urity is the 4i!e (recepts, the (ath of /ighteousness is
the %ightfold (ath, and the (ath of Airture is the Ten aramitas, or perfections ?Nueen
EC@. Let &mbed'ar does not present any of these concepts in their traditional format.
)e!eral elements of the %ightfold (ath and the ten perfections are also reinterpreted for a
social contet. The goal of %ightfold (ath, for eample, is to remo!e injustice and
inhumanity that man does to man, rather than nir!ana ?Nueen EF@. $ir!ana itself is then
described as the realization of two fundamental problems< that there was suffering in the
worldHand how to remo!e this suffering and ma'e man'ind happy ?Nueen EF@.
These changes spea' specifically to untouchables in a number of ways. 4irst, there
is a distinct element of anti:Brahmanism in &mbed'ar+s rendering of the 4our $oble
Truths. $othing else is 1hamma, he states, and & religion which fails to recognize this
is no religion at all. &lthough &mbed'ar does not criticize other religions in this section
=as he does in other chapters of the boo'=these statements bear close resemblance to
his earlier attac's on 3induism. It is li'ely that con!erts who read 3he #uddha and His
Dhamma would 'now eactly what he was referring to. By incorporating anti:
Brahmanism into the 4our $oble truths=by all accounts the central teaching of
Buddhism=&mbed'ar once again legitimizes the use of Buddhism to oppose old
>F
traditions that are unsatisfactory. )econd, as Nueen notes, &mbed'ar understands that the
traditional presentation of suffering=which places the blame on the cra!ings of each
indi!idual=would alienate Buddhism from the socially and politically oppressed ?EG@.
Thus suffering is described in transitory terms as sorrow, misery, and po!erty.
These unpleasant states lend themsel!es more easily to remedy than the traditional
Buddhist understanding of suffering as an intricate networ' of mental cra!ings. The
focus on cra!ing also lends itself to manipulation by people of power, who can ad!ocate
renunciation instead of responding to the materially based claims of the dispossessed.
Third, by placing the 4our $oble Truths, the %ightfold (ath, and the Ten (erfections in a
social contet he pro!ides religious justification for untouchable social mo!ements.
*astly, and perhaps most importantly, his definition of nir!ana is not only easily
understandable but theoretically attainable within a single lifetime.
&mbed'ar+s eplanation of 'arma and rebirth further legitimizes both the source
and the goal of untouchable social acti!ism. 3e defends the concept of rebirth but
changes the concept of the soul. %ach time a person is reborn his or her soul is then
di!ided and recombined with parts of many other peoples+ souls. There is no single soul
that is reborn o!er and o!er again ?>>>@. Thus &mbed'ar establishes that there is no
inheritance of traits from one lifetime to the net=a direct rebuttal to the ;andhian !iew
of caste. This negates the idea that current social injustices are a result of past misdeeds
and assures untouchables that their new framewor' does not contain the possibility for
religiously sanctioned hierarchy. 3e also eplains that 'arma wor's only within one
lifetime and cannot affect future li!es ?>B-@. & this:worldly emphasis on 'arma gi!es
added significance to societal changes, as each life is now a uni7ue and unrepeatable
>J
opportunity for change and growth. The tas' of impro!ing one+s situation in life thus
ac7uires the utmost importance. 8hereas traditional conceptions of 'arma and rebirth
render material changes insignificant on a cosmological scale, &mbed'ar+s
reinterpretation implies that they ha!e ultimate importance. Thus untouchables are
!indicated in their sense of social outrage and are informed once again of the importance
of social struggle.
*astly, &mbed'ar+s reinterpretation of the role of the mon' shows untouchables that
Buddhism ta'es a proacti!e stance towards radical change. 5on's should not be content
merely to ser!e society=they are instead the acti!e participants and creators of history.
3e writes that the Bhi''hu+s duties are to proselytize for Buddhism and ser!e the laity.
The bhi''hu is commanded specifically to fight to spread dhamma ?BBF@. 8e wage
war, 0 disciples, therefore we are called warriors, the &mbed'ar+s Buddha tells his
disciples, 8here !irtue is in danger do not a!oid fighting, do not be mealy:mouthed
?BBF@. 5on's are not hermetic ascetics who are focused on the attainment of
otherworldly states. /ather, they constitute the dri!ing force behind a re!olution in mind
and body. This and other statements show the reader that Buddhism is a dynamic and
forceful source of social change. 1hamma is the correct go!ernance for society and the
use of force is perfectly acceptable in the endea!or to spread it. In short, these passages
pro!ide precisely the 'ind of moti!ation that a burgeoning social mo!ement of oppressed
people would need.
It is now possible to summarize the salient characteristics of &mbed'ar+s Buddhist
doctrine. Buddhism for untouchables is a fundamentally social message. In addition, this
message must be understood as proacti!e instead of passi!e. It both demands and
>G
pro!ides a means for social change. It is impossible to interpret &mbed'ar+s Buddhism
as acceptance of the status 7uo, and se!eral 'ey elements such as the new understanding
of suffering, 'arma, and nir!ana are easily identifiable with the eperiences of the
oppressed. Therefore &mbed'ar+s Buddhism is self:consciously aware of what it is as
well as what it is not ?i.e. 3induism@. This and the other aspects of &mbed'ar+s
Buddhism mentioned abo!e relate directly to the eperiences of the untouchables, and
thus 3he #uddha and His Dhamma pro!ides an ideology suited specifically for the
present conditions of 5ahar life.
&mbed'ar+s /elationship to Buddhism
&mbed'ar+s relationship to Buddhism is characterized by a !ariety of political,
religious, and historical factors. 0n the one hand, it is clear that the political failure of
the (oona (act pro!ided the primary catalyst for his decision to con!ert to Buddhism.
&mbed'ar realized that citizenship would ne!er lead to full realization of rights if the
go!ernment did not also implement a correcti!e electoral framewor' for untouchables.
&s Aiswanathan writes<
&mbed'ar sought to epose the wide gap between the secular commitment to the remo!al
of ci!il disabilities and the secular state+s persistent functioning within a majoritarian ethic.
3is primary objecti!e thus lay in demonstrating that modern secularism was essentially a
uni!ersalist world!iew stalling the processes of enfranchisement and creating the
conditions for partial, rather than full, citizenship ?,2E@.
This analysis recognizes that &mbed'ar+s adoption of Buddhism was basically an attempt
to replace the ideal go!ernance of secular democracy with religious morality. 3a!ing
realized that an emphasis on rights in terms of citizenship and political participation
would ne!er procure e7uality for untouchables, he created an alternate system=based on
'inship and religion=that would circum!ent the wea'nesses of India+s electoral policy
B-
and would allow untouchables to achie!e the goals which they sought ?Aiswanathan
,2C@.
3owe!er, &mbed'ar+s Buddhism is not simply a reacti!e ideology that aims to
accomplish political ends through religious means. This is shown by Nueen+s percepti!e
description of &mbed'ar+s Buddhism as a form of postmodern religious reconstruction.
1rawing on the wor' of (eter Berger, Nueen begins with the concept of modernity, which
he defines as the uni!ersalization of heresy, or the eercise of personal choice ?BE@.
Berger writes, In the matter of religion, as indeed in other areas of human life and
thought, this means that the modern indi!idual is faced not just with the opportunity but
with the necessity to ma'e choices as to his beliefs. This fact constitutes the heretical
imperati!e in the contemporary situation ?>-@. Nueen recognizes that &mbed'ar+s
etraordinary education, especially his time spent at Columbia, introduced him to this
type of modern world!iew. 3e writes of &mbed'ar+s time at Columbia, &mbed'ar
cannot ha!e missed the progressi!ist and modernist ;eit%eist that permeated 5orningside
3eights, including Columbia .ni!ersity ;raduate )chool, Columbia Teacher+s College,
and .nion Theological )eminary, all within a few bloc's of &mbed'ar+s apartment ?CB@.
Nueen notes that this was the pinnacle of the )ocial ;ospel mo!ement in liberal
(rotestant mo!ement, and indeed &mbed'ar+s fre7uent echange of gospel for
dhamma indicates that his thin'ing was shaped by this foreign mo!ement of Christian
social acti!ism ?CB@. #. $. #adam+s analysis of the numerous parallels between
&mbed'ar+s thought and that of "ohn 1ewey further supports Nueen+s argument that
&mbed'ar was influenced by the thin'ers he encountered at Columbia ?2:>>@. Thus, in
addition to its political significance, &mbed'ar+s decision to lea!e 3induism embodies
B2
the modern man+s rejection of tradition. 3is subse7uent reinterpretation of Buddhism is
then a deliberate eercise of Berger+s heretical imperati!e.
&mbed'ar must ha!e realized that his religious 7uest embodied a method of
intellectual in7uiry that was !iewed as the pinnacle of philosophical discourse at the time.
Nueen goes so far as to argue that &mbed'ar related to religion in terms of a postmodern
rejection of traditional metadiscourse, and that his reconstruction of Buddhism was an
act of postmodern faith ?CC@. Let regardless of whether &mbed'ar should most properly
be considered as modern or postmodern ?whate!er this term may mean@, it is clear that
his religious project has philosophical significance distinct from=perhaps e!en
surpassing=its impact on Indian politics.
&mbed'ar+s Buddhism is also infused throughout with the culture and history of the
5ahars. Kelliot s'illfully eplains how &mbed'ar+s leadership and his use of Buddhism
places him within the tradition of other 5ahar social mo!ements ?2GF:,2F@. 3is decision
to con!ert was moti!ated by Indian national politics, and the way he approached
con!ersion was influenced largely by modern thought from the 8est, but the specifics of
his interpretation are rooted most firmly in his eperiences of untouchability in
5aharashtra. The twenty:two !ows, the myth of origin, the alterations in the Buddha+s
biography, and the departures from traditional Buddhist teachings all constitute a
projection of the 5ahar eperience onto &mbed'ar+s religion of choice. In this way
&mbed'ar+s Buddhism constitutes a response to the past as well as a compelling
illustration of the possibilities for the present and future.
B,
Chapter #
Ambedkar$s %uddhism as &i'ed by the Mahars
The Buddhism one finds in the daily life and practice of 5ahars differs significantly
from the principles described in 3he #uddha and His Dhamma. These differences, which
!ary according to location and socioeconomic situation, range from minute
reinterpretations to fundamental contradictions. This chapter draws on Timothy
4itzgerald+s tripartite analysis of Buddhism in 5aharashtra to describe the basic forms
that 1alit Buddhism ta'es today. I first consider 4itzgerald+s theoretical classifications of
1alit Buddhism as, 2.@ rural Buddhism as a !ariant of 3induism, ,.@ intellectual
Buddhism as secular rationalism and social democracy, and >.@ Buddhism of the
Trailo'ya Bauddha 5ahsangha )ahaya'a ;ana ?TB5);@. I then add a fourth possible
classification of 1alit Buddhism< secular political Buddhism. This pro!ides a framewor'
for the following chapter+s analysis of 1alit Buddhism as a whole.
4itzgerald+s description of rural Buddhism relies o!erwhelmingly on negati!e
terms. &lthough he does write that rural 5ahars ha!e begun to refuse to perform
traditional duties such as sca!enging and ha!e gi!en up the practice of eating beef, he
cites their recognition and practice of sub:caste hierarchy and untouchability, lac' of
intercaste marriage, and worship of 3indu gods and goddesses as e!idence that they
practice the 'ind of Buddhism which has not really changed anybody or anything !ery
radically ?,-@. 3e notes, howe!er, that his e!idence is indirect and relies solely on
descriptions gi!en by indi!iduals he refers to as community spo'esmen ?,2@. 3e
defines these spo'esmen as, men who in most communities tend to be loo'ed up to by
their neighbours for their education, wisdom andDor eperience, and who are relied on to
B>
spea' for the community ?>>@. Thus, although this category is useful, he admits that the
description he pro!ides is incomplete and tentati!e ?2G@.
$eera Burra+s study of !illage life pro!ides futher detail of this first type of 1alit
Buddhism. )he notes that although F- out of the 2-, respondents to her 7uestionnaire
classified themsel!es as Buddhist, none of them had ta'en &mbed'ar+s ,, !ows ?2C-@.
)he argues that this reflects both a lac' of 'nowledge about the !ows and a general
hesitancy to ta'e oaths that characterizes rural society ?2C-@. &dditionally, there were
statues of 3indu gods and goddesses=alongside pictures of &mbed'ar and the Buddha=
in e!ery household she !isited ?2C2@. 0!er half of the people she inter!iewed said that
they prayed to all gods, including 3indu deities, and she documents the persistence of
traditional 3indu concepts of 'arma, dharma, and the transmigration of the soul persisted
as well ?2C2, 2C,@.
Burra characterizes the religious practice of rural 5ahars as fundamentally 3indu
with a Buddhist eterior. 4or eample, she describes how the premarriage acti!ities of
the 5ahars are still 3indu ?one eample is matching horoscopes@, yet the marriage
ceremony itself consists of placing garlands o!er the bride and groom as they stand in
front of pictures of &mbed'ar and the Buddha ?2CE@. This dichotomy between pri!ate
3indu practice and public Buddhist practice mar's other rituals as well. )he summarizes,
In the absence of a machinery to get the religion=as interpreted by &mbed'ar=
internalized, ignorance, ambi!alence and misinterpretation are widespread. &ll this
would suggest that the spiritual content of the Buddha+s message=again as interpreted by
&mbed'ar=has not gone home ?2C-@.
BB
&t the same time, Burra notes that 1alit Buddhists now participate with great
enthusiasm in 3indu festi!als and ceremonies that were pre!iously forbidden to them
?2CC@. This and other positi!e changes allow her to conclude that the 1alit Buddhist
mo!ement is a symbol of identity transformation rather than a true religious con!ersion
?2CJ@. The Buddhist identity is important mainly for the outside world, she writes,
There is an attempt to emphasize one+s distincti!eness and this is achie!ed by different
methods. The inner core may remain 3indu but this in no way reflects a betrayal of the
cause ?2CJ@. Thus rural 1alit Buddhist practice is distinguished from other forms of
Buddhism primarily by its continued reliance on 3indu themes and rituals ? 4itzgerald
,-@.
4itzgerald+s referts to the second type of 1alit Buddhism as intellectual Buddhism
as secular rationalism and social democracy ?,2@. 3e refers to it as the ideal type of
Buddhism, articulated by well:educated men who are often leaders in their communities
?,,@. .sually these men ha!e had some training at a Buddhist temple and they often
officiate in Buddhist ceremonies for other members of the community ?,,@. 5ost,
howe!er, do not meditate ?,,@. 4itzgerald writes that these men e7uate Buddhism with
e7uality, human dignity, self:help, rejection of caste ine7uality, rejection of reliance on
supernatural agencies, accpetance of scientific rationality, modern education, democracy,
and the rights of the indi!idual ?,,@. They also follow &mbed'ar+s interpretation of
traditional Buddhist doctrines such as 'arma, rebirth, and nir!ana ?,,@. 4itzgerald
characterizes this process as a secularization of soteriology ?,,@.
The educated men I inter!iewed in Bombay usually model their li!es and their
thin'ing after 1r. &mbed'ar, and their !iew of Buddhism shares his rational secularism.
BE
4or eample, the only man who spo'e %nglish at ;autam $agar ?a Buddhist community
of >,--- in the 1adar neighborhood@ told me that the meaning of Buddhism is
education, the !alue of human life, and cooperation. 3e emphasized that Buddhism is
not based on blind faith, and that the Buddha was a man and not a god. )agar *o'hande,
a barrister at the 5umbai 5unicipal Courts, told me that the principles of Buddhism
hinged on natural justice and the rights of the human being. 3e also stressed the
importance of rationality, empiricism, and education. &nant )hamu'la, the president of
the 1r. &mbed'ar College of %conomics and *aw, continually returned to the themes of
self:respect, dignity, and honor throughout our hour:long inter!iew. 3e prominently
displayed the following 7uote by &mbed'ar on his des'< The (eople+s %ducation
)ociety+s objecti!e is not merely to gi!e education but to gi!e education in such a manner
as to promote intellectual, moral and social democracy. This is what modern India needs
and this is what all well wishers of India must promote. *astly, &rjun 1angle, a 1alit
poet and editor of oisoned #read: Marathi Dalit <iterature , made sure to contrast the
correct understanding of Buddhism with that of the common 1alit Buddhist who does
not go to the temple to worship, has not read 3he #uddha and His Dhamma, !alues
Buddhism only for its political use, or merely worships &mbed'ar li'e a 3indu deity.
&lthough I did not classify them as such at the time, most of the men I inter!iewed in
Bombay fit this model of the 1alit Buddhist practitioner.
4itzgerald+s final classification of 1alit Buddhism is based on differences in
soteriology. 3e focuses on the practice and interpretations offered by the TB5);, a
branch of )anghara'shita+s 4riends of the 8estern Buddhist 0rder. )anghara'shita, a
western Buddhist mon', founded the 4riends of the 8estern Buddhist 0rder in 2GCB in
BC
*ondon. It currently has worldwide branches such as the TB5); that teach basic
Buddhist doctrine and meditation ?Beltz 2-C-@. In India, the TB5); has played a major
role in filling the !acuum of 1alit Buddhist leadership that resulted from &mbed'ar+s
death. Thus the !ast majority of Indians associated with the TB5); are also followers
of &mbed'ar.
The TB5);+s message of social action begins with the indi!idual practioner and
then mo!ies outward to encompass the rest of society. It teaches that Buddhist practice
focuses on the achie!ement of transcendental 'nowledge of the self ?Beltz 2-EG@. This
understanding then forms the basis of a new society, which focuses on the needs of the
indi!idual and emphasizes by social e7uality ?Beltz 2-EG, 4itzgerald ,B@. In India, the
TB5); specifically rejects the caste system ?4itzgerald ,B@. 5editation, according to the
TB5);, will automatically lead to a desire to perform compassionnate ser!ice for the
community ?4itzgerald ,B@. 4itzgerald writes that 1alit Buddhists who are associated
with the TB5); represent the more spiritual side of 1alit Buddhism ?,>@. Their
interpretation of Buddhism is compatible with &mbed'ar+s because it emphasizes
rationality, moral action, and social reform ?4itzgerald ,B@. 3owe!er, the TB5); stri!es
for total political nonpartisanship and many of its members !iew nir!ana not in
materialist terms but as a transcendent state of awareness ?4itzgerald ,E@.
I attended two meetings of the TB5); while in Bombay. The first was a wee'ly
meeting at the 1r. &mbed'ar )chool of %conomics and *aw. Thirty:two men and three
women meet for one hour on Tuesday nights to listen to a dharma tal' and engage in
group meditation
2
. The students who directed us to the meeting seemed unfamiliar with
2
It is important to note that the meeting did not usually ha!e foreign participants and that practitioners did
not 'now beforehand that we were going to attend.
BF
the TB5);. They merely told us that Buddhist followers of &mbed'ar gathered once
or twice a wee' to worship at their college. Aery few, if any, of the practitioners were
students at the College of *aw and %conomics.
The ser!ice consiststsed of a BE:minute dharma tal' followed by 2E minutes of
!ipassana meditation. The majority of the dharma tal' was in 5arathi, but the spea'er
included some %nglish phrases so that my three &merican companions and I could
understand important sections of his lesson. 3e emphasized the Buddhist principles of
e7uality and fraternity and the importance of basic practices such as the fi!e silas.
Buddhism meant two things to the spea'er< commitment and life:style. 3e stated that
they were engaging in the real path of dhamma practice, and that through our practice
we get recognized by other people. Lou are your worldly master, he told the
congregation at one point. 3e reiterated a similar point later and stated, 1on+t ha!e any
god.
The second TB5); e!ent I attended was the dedication of a new statue of the
Buddha. This gathering of perhaps ,E- people included many of the same indi!iduals
who had been at the wee'ly meeting at the college. This group consisted almost entirely
of families, although men still outnumbered women as in the first meeting. $o mon's
were present, and we were the only foreigners. 0nce again, dharma tal's were followed
by a brief period of meditation. This time, howe!er, the spea'ers almost eclusi!ely used
5arathi, and thus I can pro!ide few details about their understanding of Buddhism. I did
note that the !ast majority of practitioners were comfortable chanting in (ali, which they
had learned from a prayer boo' that consisted of 5arathi transliterations of (ali. I do
BJ
not 'now how many people learned the (ali chants by reading them on their own and
how many learned them by repetition in the meetings.
&lthough my obser!ations do not contradict 4itzgerald+s assertion that the TB5);
has a more transcendental and spiritual focus than the other forms of 1alit
Buddhism, I would feel uncomfortable categorizing them as such. To a relati!ely ignorant
obser!er these meetings seemed to be no different from any other gathering of committed
1alit Buddhist practioners. The only indication of the differences that 4itzgerald
describes was in the meditation, which as far as I could tell was not a core part of the
practice of the academics and businessmen I inter!iewed. It is also possible that the
emphasis on commitment to the teachings, the Buddhist lifestyle, and the spiritual
dhamma re!olution indicates a soteriology that is less materialistic than that of the
other Buddhists I tal'ed to=although again I did not thin' so at the time. It was not e!en
clear to me why they associated themsel!es with the TB5);, as I saw no western
leaders and the focus of e!ery speech was on &mbed'ar, not )anghara'shita. &lso, in
contrast to 4itzgerald+s statement that the TB5); stri!es to remain politically neutral, I
recei!ed the impression that at least one of the speeches at the dedication ceremony was
of a political nature.
"ohannes Beltz+ study of the TB5); in 5aharashtra pro!ides more information on
the type of Buddhism that 4itzgerald seems to be describing. 3e inter!iewed se!eral
memebers of the TB5); at a retreat center outside (une, many of whom described a
Buddhist message of increased spirituality. 4or eample, one practioner eplains<
I was born Buddhist. But in reality, no one can be Buddhist without practicing the
dhamma. To be Buddhist from birth is not possibleHI too' refuge in the Buddha, the
dhamma, and the sangha. I thin' that I am on the path of the Buddha. I want to become a
BG
dhammamitra ?a lay leader in the TB5);. & Buddhist is more than a physical man. 3e is
spiritualHI would li'e to become 2--M Buddhist ?2-C,@
,
.
&nother tells him<
I consider myself Buddhist because I belie!e not in ;od but in humanity. I practice
Buddhism. I want to positi!ely de!elop my personality and help othersHThrough
meditation, we augment our state of consciousness to become better men ?2-C>@.
These statements embody the spirituality and humanism of Buddhism as en!isioned by
)angharashita. 5editation lies at the center of indi!idual practice, and only through
'nowing oneself does one enter a state where he or she truly begins to help others. In
addition, these practitioners negate a materialistic understanding of the world. &
Buddhist is more than a physical man, one states, 3e is spiritual. This eplains why
no one can be Buddhist without practicing the dhamma< meditation and action are two
aspects of the same teaching, and to engage in one without the other is, according to the
TB5);, to ignore the meaning of Buddhism.
)e!eral of Beltz+ subjects also draw a sharp a distinction between 1alit Buddhists
who do not practice and real Buddhists who do. The 1alit mo!ement results in bad
social conditions for untouchables, one 1hammacari asserts, It is for politics. The
1alit mo!ment does not ha!e a positi!e approach to BuddhismH5y personal eperience
is different. I ha!e de!eloped my personality. I do not call myself 1alit. I consider
myself Buddhist ?2-CE@. &n employee at the .ni!ersity of (une went so far as to state,
The leaders of the 1alit mo!ement are selfish and corrupt. They are demagogues and
want to suppress other currents of Buddhist thought. They waste a lot of energy, time,
and moneyHThe TB5); serenely runs the buddhist mo!ement and continues the wor'
of 1r. &mbed'ar with respectH.There is no lo!e between the acti!ists ?2-CC@.
,
Beltz+ article is written in 4rench. Translations are my own with the help of &bby 1ean.
E-
Beltz cites the public debate between ;opal ;uru, a 1alit Buddhist and professor at
the .ni!ersity of (une, and 1hammacari *o'amitra, a member of the TB5); who was
born in %ngland, as an eample of the growing conflict between spiritual and
political Buddhism. In 4ebruary 2GG2 ;uru wrote an article for 2conomic and
olitical $ee&ly entitled 3induisation of &mbed'ar in 5aharashtra in which he attac's
the reinterpretation of &mbed'ar+s message by 3indu nationalists and transcendental
Buddhist groups. 3e is particularly critical of the TB5);, which he describes as a self:
proclaimed Buddhist organization with foreign connections ?>B-@. 3e writes that their
emphasis on transcendental meditation as a form of social outreach remo!es the
political aspect of &mbed'ar+s message ?>B2@. 3e states<
3is ?&mbed'ar+s@ con!ersion mo!ement though o!ertly cultural was inherently
political inasmuch as it created among the dalits a tendency to negate the cultural
domination of the upper castesHThe Trailo'y a Buddha 5ahsangh is doing eactly
the opposite by confining the dalits within the four walls for ruminating on
transcendental meditation which is in effect ma'ing the dalits 7uite inattenti!e to
the problems of the dalits ?>B2@.
This !iew of Buddhism ta'es &mbed'ar+s blending of political and religious ideologies
to an etreme. /eligion is inherently political and material, and an o!ert emphasis on
spirituality implies a dismissal of more pressing material and social problems at hand.
4or ;uru, meditation seems to constitute an acti!e choice to disengage oneself from
social action and thus negates &mbed'ar+s social philosohpy.
*o'amitra+s rebuttal cites se!eral passages from 3he #uddha and His Dhamma
which emphasize that mental states of mind are an integral part of practicing the dharma.
3e draws a careful distinction between achie!ing a tranceli'e state and increasing
awareness through meditation ?2>->@. 3e holds that spirituality, or 'nowledge of the self,
is an integral part of &mbed'ar+s Buddhism and that it does not conflict with social action
E2
?2>->@. 3e then lists se!eral ways that the TB5); pro!ides social aid. In addition to
pro!iding traditional forms of social ser!ice such as education and healthcare, *o'amitra
writes that the TB5); initiates untouchables into true Buddhist pratice. The sad fact is
that many Buddhists still worship the old gods, he writes, thus unwittingly maintaing
the old religious conditioning ?2>-B@. &fter they attend a retreat organized by the
TB5);, howe!er, they ta'e the ,, !ows, learn meditation, and study a Buddhist tet=
often one written by &mbed'ar ?2>-B@. 3e concludes< Buddhism becomes meaningful
to them as ne!er beforeH5ost of them will go home and throw out the pictures and
murtis of the old gods, ha!ing eradicated their psychological dependence on them
?2>-B@.
The debate between ;uru and *o'amitra illustrates the comple nature of
intraBuddhist debates in India. 4or eample, this argument between a politically minded
academic and foreign representati!e of the TB5); implies the eistence of a third party
whose !oice is not heard< the !illagers who sadly continue to worship 3indu gods and
are trapped by ancient religious conditioning. &dditionally, ;uru and *o'amitra raise
issues of spirituality, materialism, meditation and social action, all under the sub:heading
of more pan:Indian conflicts such as nati!e ideology !ersus foreign ideology, and the
meaning of a 3indu nation. *astly, ;uru+s line of reasoning necessitates the inclusion
of what I refer to as a fourth category of 1alit Buddhism, that of the secular political
Buddhist.
8hereas the intellectual focuses on Buddhism+s rationalism, humanism, and
principles of social democracy, and the member of the TB5); focuses on Buddhism as a
path to inner and outer 'nowledge, the political Buddhist !iews his religion primarily in
E,
terms of its political connotations and functions. This is eemplified by ;uru+s response
to *o'amitra, printed in the "uly 2GG2 issue of 2conomic and olitical $ee&ly. 3e
writes, Thus I am adding a political dimension to Buddhism, but it is &mbed'ar who
tried to enthuse it in Buddhist teaching and practice to help the Odalit+ masses understand
that the solution to their problems lies in their radical politicisation and not in
spiritualism ?2CGG@. 4or ;uru, Buddhism constitutes a way of doing politics on both an
ideological and practical le!el. Thus he goes out of his way, for eample, to criticize the
TB5);+s policy of political neutrality and a!oidance of social confrontation< I reassert
that TB5);+s acti!ities lead to the 'illing of political initiati!e of Odalits+ who are trying
to confront the state and other communal forces not through the meditation but on the
street, well outside the four walls of 1hyan )adhana class room ?2CGJ@.
I obser!ed this type of street Buddhism at the annual remembrance of
&mbed'ar+s death in Bombay. 3undreds of thousands of dalits gather in )hi!aji (ar'
e!ery year to celebrate the day of &mbed'ar+s death, and I was told by e!ery Buddhist I
tal'ed to that the obser!ation of &bmed'ar+s birth and death were the major religious
e!ents of the year. 5ost milled around the par' area and either tal'ed to friends, ate food,
or entered the maze of stalls that sold a plethora of &mbed'ar and Buddhist
paraphernalia. There were at least three spea'ing platforms set up. The speeches,
howe!er, were sa!ed for the afternoon, and as the day wore on I noticed that women and
children were being replaced by increasing numbers of energetic young men. They
tra!eled in groups of ,- or >-, often pushing their way through the thic' crowds,
chanting songs and wa!ing flags. 5any had blue scar!es printed with the Buddhist
wheel and the words "ai Bhim tied around their heads, nec's, or arms. These men did
E>
not seem concerned with rational humanism or transcendent spirituality. They felt
marginalized by mainstream 3indu society, and Buddhism ga!e them a political cause to
rally around.
&t the same time, howe!er, this day illustrated that the different types of 1alit
Buddhism often share the same space without conflict or debate. I am left with two
oustanding impressions of the celebration of &mbed'ar+s death< first is the scene just
described, and second is the line, thousands of people long, to enter the shrine containing
&mbed'ar+s remains. These indi!iduals waited patiently in the Bombay heat for hours,
usually tal'ing among themsel!es but ne!er pushing or surging forward. )ome prayed.
8omen mar'ed by a uniform white salwar 'ameez and blue ribbon directed the line, and
I did not see anyone hassle them. &lthough I did not enter the temple, I assume that those
who did enter it made a brief offering or gesture of re!erence before &mbed'ar+s statue.
The ritual seemed similar in purpose to a traditional 3indu 1arsan. Their attitude of
7uiet faithfulness presented sharp contrast to the agitated faces of the men I encountered.
It is 7uite possible that these urban 5ahars, eager to use traditional 3indu means to pay
homage to &mbed'ar, constitute yet another category of 1alit Buddhists.
In short, although the 5ahars are a distinct group within Indian culture, the ways
they li!e out the ideology presented by their leader !ary greatly. (olarizing concepts
include 'arma, rebirth, dharma, meditation, spirituality, materialism, politics,
indi!iduality and social action. (olarizing social categories include the urban, rural,
educated, uneducated, and in many cases, old and young. These themes and social
conditions, howe!er, are merely central points around which different groups of 1alit
EB
Buddhists can rally. 8hile the reference points seem static, the categories themsel!es
appear to be more fluid.
This offers a cautionary statement for those who may be eager to e7uate
&mbed'ar+s thin'ing directly with that of his community or !ice !ersa. &mbed'ar,
&mbed'ar+s Buddhism, and the 5ahar community are merely the loci for numerous
personal and communal interactions that comprise the forms of 1alit Buddhism that we
ha!e been eamining. In turn, many of the differences between 1alit Buddhism and
&mbed'ar+s Buddhism stem more from the ine!itable o!erlap of religion and culture than
the conscious religious reconstruction that &mbed'ar engaged in. The 5ahars+ most
radical departures from &mbed'ar+s message are caused by the !agueness of the
distinction between 3indu culture and Indian culture. &s Aiswanathan notes, e!en the
beginning of &mbed'ar+s political career was mar'ed by ambi!alence about what
constitutes 3induism and what constitutes India. This caused him to de!ote tremendous
time and energy to a temple entry campaign=e!en as he denounced Brahmans and
traditional 3indu religiosity in writings such as 4nnihilation of 5aste ?,>E@. It should
therefore come as no surprise that rural 1alit Buddhists ha!e used their newfound self:
confidence to engage in traditionally 3indu forms of worship. Indeed, the ;andhian
notion of 3indu nationalism was based on obser!ations of !illage life that would still
hold true in many parts of India today. 4or !illagers, most societal roles that are a!ailable
for reclamation are also related to 3induism in some way.
)imilarly, those poc'ets of 1alit Buddhism that bear closest resemblance to
&mbed'ar+s Buddhism are comprised of indi!iduals whose li!es are most similar to
&mbed'ar+s life. .rban intellectuals, 4itzgerald+s ideal Buddhists, ha!e usually read
EE
3he #uddha and His Dhamma and ha!e no 7ualms stating that the !ast majority of 1alit
Buddhists, unli'e themsel!es, ha!e little or no understanding of &mbed'ar+s message.
Thus 1alit Buddhism is an e!ol!ing set of practices and beliefs9 it is a religious wor' in
progress.
EC
Chapter (
The )alit %uddhist Myth
3a!ing established a broad picture of &mbed'ar+s Buddhism as it is li!ed out by
the 5ahars, we can now return to the three core elements of &mbed'ar+s Buddhist
message. 3ow, if at all, do they inform contemporary practice6 Based on &mbed'ar+s
own words, one might predict that 3he #uddha and His Dhamma would ha!e the most
influence on the 5ahars+ daily li!es. 3owe!er, one can 7uic'ly establish that this is not
the case. 0ne also finds that although anti:brahmanism and alternate myths of origin
ha!e had great impact on the 5ahars, they too fail to encapsulate 1alit Buddhism as it
eists today. This chapter discusses these compleities and attempts to construct a
typology of the 1alit Buddhist myth that ta'es both &mbed'ar+s message and the actions
of his followers into account. In turn, it becomes clear that the aspect of the 1alit
Buddhist myth that has had the greatest impact on the 5ahar+s li!es is something that
was not part of &mbed'ar+s original message at all.
The Three %lements of &mbed'ar+s 5essage
In theory, 3he #uddha and His Dhamma would ser!e as the philosophical,
ideological, and religious template for 1alit Buddhist communities. &s one critic states,
3he #uddha and His Dhamma is a true guide for all the Buddhists. It is the best basis
for propagating the 1hamma, at least in India ?&hir 22-@. There are se!eral plausible
models that would eplain how a narrati!e tet such as 3he #uddha and His Dhamma
could become the just go!ernance for society that &mbed'ar holds a good religion
should be. Charles 3allisey and &nne 3ansen, for eample, pro!ide a useful framewor'
EF
for understanding the inner moral transformation that result from repeated eposure to the
"ata'a tales. They hold that narrati!e has the uni7ue ability to prefigure, configure,
and e!entually transfigure moral life ?>,>@. They place their wor' on a continuum with
the writing of 5artha $ussbaum, 1ominic *aCapra, and (aul /icoeur by asserting that
language creates a process by which a reader can internalize moral structures ?>-E@.
3allisey and 3ansen gather sufficient field e!idence to show that an inner moral
transformation ta'es place when indi!iduals hear the "ata'a tales repeatedly throughout
their li!es, and it seems plausible that the narrati!e aspects of 3he #uddha and His
Dhamma might lend themsel!es to a similar process ?>-E@.
3owe!er, field data suggests that 3he #uddha and His Dhamma does not occupy a
central place in 1alit Buddhists+ li!es. This is due as much to the high illiteracy rates
among 5ahars as to the general lac' of agreement about whether &mbed'ar+s Buddhist
message was primarily political ?as eemplified by ;uru@ or spiritual ?as eemplified by
*o'amitra@. 0ne basic difficulty I found was that copies of 3he #uddha and His
Dhamma are etremely rare, e!en in urban centers li'e Bombay. This and the
discrepancies in practice that were outlined in the pre!ious chapter ma'e a strong
argument against the influence that &mbed'ar+s alteration of traditional Buddhist
doctrine has had on the 5ahars on the whole.
0n the other hand, the anti:brahmanical element is the primary source of the initial
psychological changes that ta'e place as a result of the adoption of Buddhism. This is
shown in &dele 4is'e+s study of 1alit Buddhists in 5aharashtra and $orth India. 1uring
2GCC:2GCF 4is'e conducted a sur!ey in an attempt to understand the !iew of Buddhism
that had de!eloped because of &mbed'ar. )he distributed 7uestionnaires in %nglish and
EJ
in 5arathi to 1alit Buddhists of !arying se, age, location ?urban !ersus rural@, and
socioeconomic bac'ground. 8hen she as'ed, 8hy did you become a Buddhist, the
most fre7uent answer by far was /ejection of 3induism ?>J out of 22B responses, or
>>M@. 4is'e writes, The negati!e answer accounts for >> percent9 the other answers are
all positi!e, i.e. CF percent. The rejection of 3induism is, howe!er, more clearly and
emotionally stated than is the positi!e choice of Buddhism ?2-F@. &lthough li'ing for
Buddhism was the second most popular response to 4is'e+s 7uestion, the !agueness of
this reply suggests that most informants did not ha!e etensi!e 'nowledge of Buddhism.
4is'e reports that eplanations of preference for Buddhism usually ran along the lines of,
I li'ed the Buddhist religion, or it gi!es mental health and ma'es us a man in the real
sense ?2-J@. &lthough both of these answers assign positi!e attributes to Buddhism,
neither pro!ides enough detail to suggest that the indi!iduals 4is'e inter!iewed had more
than a cursory 'nowledge of Buddhism before con!ersion. Thus it seems that first:hand
eperiences of the prejudices of the caste system=not appreciation of Buddhist doctrine
=pro!ided the primary catalyst for the rejection of one religion in fa!or of another.
1espite their ignorance of Buddhist doctrine, howe!er, the indi!iduals in 4is'e+s
study clearly felt that Buddhism had brought them positi!e psychological change. &s
4is'e writes, &lmost all of them claim that the new religion has actually impro!ed their
li!es, not eternally but internally, psychologically ?22G@. The anti:brahmanical element
of 1alit Buddhism pro!ides one lin' between an uninformed adoption of Buddhism and
an almost instantaneous increase in self:esteem and perception of self:worth. %!en if
con!erts did not remember each of the twenty:two !ows, for eample, they were bound
to remember the central theme of rejection of 3induism. Thus many 1alit Buddhists
EG
understand what Buddhism is not before they focus on what it is. The con!ersion
eperience can be powerful because the ideological !ictory o!er caste is epressed in
concrete actions on the part of the con!ert. 1a!id (andyan+s analysis of the !ows,
though stated rather aw'wardly, gi!es important insight into the way they function for the
Buddhist con!ert. These !ows, he writes, mar' a separate identity for the $eo:
Buddhists, simple and straight. There is no need to read the !oluminous canonical
literature that is there in Buddhism. There are complicated doctrines in BuddhismHBut
$eo:Buddhism is a simple and straight faith ?2B-@. By e7uating Buddhism with anti:
Brahmanism, &mbed'ar allows the Buddhist label, e!en without content, to be an
instrument of social and psychological change.
&t the same time, howe!er, it is important not to o!erestimate the per!asi!eness of
anti:brahmanism throughout the 5ahar community. 8hereas 4is'e+s study suggests that
a strong sense of anti:brahmanism eisted in early con!erts, Burra+s study, conducted
twenty years later, shows that it does not characterize all religious practice. &lthough one
must be careful not to etrapolate Burra+s findings to the entire 5ahar community, they
do offer a cautionary statement for the way one characterizes anti:brahmanism. Contrary
to what &mbed'ar writes, the 5ahar rejection of caste does not always entail rejection of
3indusim. 8hen the 5ahars align themsel!es with Buddhism they adopt a new social
and psychological paradigm that is characterized foremost by the !ictory of e7uality o!er
caste9 only secondary is the !ictory of Buddhist practice o!er 3indu practice.
&nti:brahmanism spar's a psychological deconstruction of the caste system, and in
turn &mbed'ar+s new myth of origin pro!ides the foundation for the creation of a new
5ahar identity. The lin' &mbed'ar creates between the origins of Buddhism and
C-
untouchability operates in three ways. 4irst, it recasts the role of untouchables in terms
of the 3indu caste system by de:legitimizing the caste system as a whole ?*ynch 2-E@.
)econd, it gi!es them a sense of ownership of the Buddhist religion. /eligious
con!ersion becomes a return to a distant and less oppressi!e past9 the untouchables regain
their unrightfully usurped social status and their original religion. Con!ersion is thus an
act of defiance and a logical reordering of Indian social structures. Third, the myth allows
the 5ahars to reclaim the geographical space they inhabit. Taylor lists se!eral ancient
Buddhists monuments in 5aharashtra such as &janta, #arli, and %llora, that ha!e now
been claimed by the 5ahars ?2B-@. In $agpur, the place of the 2GEC con!ersion, people
now belie!e that &nanda was the ancient chief of the $agas and that these $agas were
the ancestors of the first $agpur 5ahar Buddhists ?Taylor 2B2@. &nywhere in
5aharashtra, with the Buddhist sites near at hand, Taylor writes, this becomes a
completely credible myth of origin ?2B2@. ;ary Tarta'o! documents this process in &rt
and Identity< the /ise of a $ew Buddhist Imagery. 3e writes, Though they ha!e not
been able to ta'e direct possession of these monumentsHthey ha!e been able to assert
their new identity through !isits that amount to pilgrimage. &nd in this they gain the
access to a cosmic identification, denied them in many Brahmanical shrines ?2J-@.
8hen I as'ed 1alit Buddhists in Bombay about their places of worship they often tried to
direct me to &janta, %llora, $agpur, and e!en Bodh ;aya. &t the time I found this !ery
frustrating< all I wanted was to find a neighborhood shrine. 3owe!er, after reading
Taylor+s and Tarta'o!+s accounts, it occurs to me that geographical reclamation is an
important process for a community that has been consigned to li!e outside common
!illage boundaries for thousands of years.
C2
The 5ahar adoption of anti:Brahmanism and a new myth of origin illustrates two
crucial aspects of the way their collecti!e self:definition has changed after con!ersion to
Buddhism. 4irst, Buddhism gi!es them the power to discard an ideology of caste that is
psychologically and socially oppressi!e. This has undoubtedly led to increased self
worth and self respect, yet is not awlays contingent on the adoption of Buddhist doctrine.
It seems to pro!e &mbed'ar+s prediction that, the name can ma'e a re!olution in the
status of the .ntouchables ?&way from the 3indus B,-@. )econd, psychological
change is not always accompanied by rejection of all forms of 3indu culture. 0n the
contrary, in many ways the adoption of Buddhism has gi!en untouchables a !enue for
fuller participation in traditionally 3indu epressions of religiousity and community.
&lthough anti:brahmanism and myths of origin are clearly an integral part of the
5ahars+ Buddhism, I would argue that they do not encompass the 1alit Buddhist
phenomenon. The new myth of origin is more a point of departure than a plan for present
and future action. In turn, the forms of anti:Brahmanism are dependent on the differences
between 1alit Buddhists that were described in the pre!ious chapter. The resulting
!ariation is so great that one must 7uestion the etent to which it could ser!e as a
unifying principle or practice for 1alit Buddhists. $either the myth nor anti:brahmanism
could be used as justification for either position in the ;uru:*o'amitra debate. &lthough
anti:brahmanism and myths of origin are those aspects of 1alit Buddhism that can be
traced most easily to &mbed'ar+s thin'ing, the abo!e analysis suggest that 1alit
Buddhists must ha!e a common belie!e in additional concepts as well.
&lternati!ely, what if the figure of &mbed'ar is the defining element of 1alit
Buddhism6 The ;uru:*o'amitra debate supports this hypothesis. Though these men are
C,
at religious loggerheads, they both return continually to &mbed'ar for justification of
their arguments. *o'amitra writes, I am afraid the project ;opal ;uru is tal'ing about is
not that of &mbed'ar but of those who ha!e attempted to use &mbed'ar+s con!ersion to
Buddhism to ser!e their own political ends ?2>-B@. ;uru offers the following rejoinder<
*o'mitra and his TB5); are free to sell their pac'age of spiritual Buddhism and
synthesise it with anything but not with &mbed'ar+s Buddhism. Because it does not
allow such synthesis ?2CGG@. Both judge the other+s reasoning as flawed specifically on
the grounds that it represents a misinterpretation of &mbed'ar+s message. &s ;uru
ac'nowledges, he is bothered not so much by the TB5);+s false Buddhist doctrine as he
is by the fact that it has been associated with &mbed'ar. &mbed'ar is thus both founder
and standard bearer of contemporary 1alit Buddhism. &s such, any eplanation of the
mo!ement would be incomplete if it did not address the 5ahars+ !iew of him.
&mbed'ar+s (lace in 1alit Buddhism
&lthough &mbed'ar understood his own leadership role in 1alit Buddhism, he did
not intend to become an integral part of the religion he espoused. $one of his writings
indicate that he wished to become 1alit Buddhism+s central figure or the 5ahars+ patron
saint. 0n the contrary, he ad!ocated rationalism and eplicitly denounced hero worship.
Thus, unli'e the other elements of 1alit Buddhism, &mbed'ar+s role in 1alit Buddhism
cannot be studied through his writings and speeches but only through contemporary
epressions. Thus, unli'e the other elements of 1alit Buddhism, one cannot begin to
describe &mbed'ar+s role in 1alit Buddhism through writings and speeches but must turn
directly to contemporary epressions of 1alit Buddhist de!otion. This section will
C>
reconsider the four types of 1alit Buddhist practitioners, eamining how each epress
their !iew of &mbed'ar. Together, their images, words, and actions portray the
intricacies of the common belief that &mbed'ar pro!ides the sustenance and future hope
for 1alit Buddhism.
4itzgerald writes, 0ne of the most impressi!e characteristics of the ?rural@
Buddhists is their lo!e and admiration for 1r. &mbed'ar. Indeed, it seems that rural
1alit Buddhists pro!ide the most o!ert eamples of !eneration for &mbed'ar, usually in
the form of !isual imagery and fol' songs. Burra writes that e!ery family in the !illage
she studied had installed images of &mbed'ar alongside those of 3indu gods and
goddesses, and nearly one third of her respondents asserted that &mbed'ar was a god
?2C2@. In addition, many homes had pictures of 3indu deities and pictures of &mbed'ar,
but no pictures of the Buddha ?2CB@. This reflects the commonly accepted belief that the
Buddha was &mbed'ar+s guru, and thus the two figures are !iewed as interchangeable in
rural 5aharashtra ?Burra 2CE@.
Indira "unghara documents the adoption of &mbed'ar into 5ahar song traditions.
The songs for her study were collected in a !illage of G-- people that is about fourteen
miles west of $agpur ?GC@. )e!eral songs emphasize important e!ents in &mbed'ar+s
academic and political careers. 3owe!er, many ta'e adoration one step further and refer
to &mbed'ar as both an a!atar and a god. 4or eample, &mbed'ar, the &!atar of
Bhimaraya concludes<
5a'ing the Constitution in 2G>2, the protector of the poor left us
In 2GC,, lea!ing the downtrodden to grie!e. The a!atar of Bhimaraya appeared.
To this fortunate land of ours, appeared the a!atar of BhimarayaH
8ith all my heart I sing your deeds, please ma'e my pen succeedH
To this fortunate land of ours, appeared the a!atar of Bhimaraya.
Through his grace, millions of the poor and downtrodden are bettered ?22>@.
CB
The song does not mention the Buddha directly at all, and the only indirect reference
might be the use of the word compassion in describing the way the world regarded
&mbed'ar ?22>@. This song lea!es no doubt that &mbed'ar+s role as spiritual guide and
sa!ior has greatly surpassed that of the Buddha, suggesting that perhaps Buddhism is
important only insofar as it is connected to &mbed'ar. It is e7ually clear that &mbed'ar is
not regarded as a human being. "unghare writes that the 5ahars transformed &mbed'ar
into an a!atar of a deity, in this case the deity Bhimraya ?Bhim the #ing@ ?2--@. This
change remo!es the finality of &mbed'ar+s death, which can now be regarded as the
temporary disappearance of the incarnation of a god ?2--@. The process of deification
offers one possible eplanation for the historical inaccuracies of the song ?the
Constitution was written in 2GE2, and &mbed'ar died in 2GEC@ ?"unghare 2-B@.
Thus, for rural 5ahars &mbed'ar mo!es from being identified as political leader, to
religious leader, to guru, to a!atar, and finally, as another song entitled Bhima
%!erywhere shows, to god. Bhima is o!erhead, Bhima is beneath, it begins, Bhima
is in front, Bhima is behind. 0h my friend, nothing is here without him. 3e is
e!erywhere, he is e!erywhere ?22C@. 3ere, &mbed'ar becomes the supreme
cosmological deity ?"unghare 2-2@. &s "unghare writes, 3e is omnipresent, omnipotent,
and omniscient ?2-2@. 3e also represents the unity of god and uni!erse=he is ultimate
reality=and therefore union with &mbed'ar is union with the world.
"unghare eplains that the rural deification of &mbed'ar is due to two processes
that follow the typical pattern of ma'ing an Indian mythical hero. )he refers to one
process as descending, or the way in which a god is said to ha!e incarnated in the form
of a human hero ?2->@. "unghare writes, whene!er there is chaos, tyranny, and injustice,
CE
the god comes down to earth in human form in order to bring order and peace to the
community ?2->@. 0ne can find e!idence of this belief e!en in ancient tets such as the
#ha%avad !ita, where #rishna offers a similar eplanation of his earthly presence to
&rjuna. "unghare argues con!incingly that both the Buddha and &mbed'ar are !iewed as
a!atars of the same supreme being, and that this is a li!ed epression of the Aedic
philosophy of monism ?2-B@. This was eemplified in the first fol' song eamined
abo!e. The second process "unghare describes is ascension, by which the hero is made
into a deity ?2->@. This is illustrated 7uite clearly by the second fol' song. "unghare
concludes, To his followers, &mbed'ar is e!erything< god, saint, teacher, leader, father,
and mother ?2-,@. Thus, once again rural 1alit Buddhism pro!es the limitations of anti:
brahmanism< both descent and ascent are fundamentally 3indu, yet they are used as
epressions of de!otion for &mbed'ar and Buddhism.
)cholarly essays and highly educated 1alit Buddhists emphasize two characteristics
of &mbed'ar. 4irst, they ehibit etensi!e 'nowledge of and re!erence for &mbed'ar+s
educational and political accomplishments. 4or eample, #. (. Bhagat writes that as a
child &mbed'ar studied e!ery day from , a.m. until dawn. 3e was not permitted to
learn )ans'rit instead of (ersian at school because he was a dalit ?FC@. Bhagat+s article,
entitled 1r. &mbed'ar< the 5odern 5essiah of India, has eighteen different headings in
less than ten pages, each corresponding to an e!ent in &mbed'ar+s life as a student,
politician, or political theororist. These headings, though stylistically aw'ward, draw
attention to the fact that each e!ent in &mbed'ar+s life has great significance for
contemporary 1alit Buddhist scholars. &s I was told repeatedly in inter!iews with
educated 1alit Buddhists, &mbed'ar was often the only eample of an educated
CC
untouchable they had as a child, and has ser!ed as their primary inspiration in pursuing
their own studies and career ambitions.
)econd, some educated 1alit Buddhists use scholarly analysis to define &mbed'ar
as the cosmological e7ui!alent of the Buddha. 1. C. &hir structures #uddhism and
4mbed&ar around the argument that &mbed'ar was a modern bodhisatt!a. 3e uses (ali
scriptures to designate fi!e criteria for the life of a bodhisatt!a, and anylizes each to
pro!e that &mbed'ar+s life matches this pattern. 3e gi!es eamples of &mbed'ar+s
perfection of the 4our 4ields of 5indfulness, the 4our /ight %fforts, the 4our /oads to
(owers, the 4i!e )piritual 4aculties, the 4i!e 5ental (owers, the )e!en %lements of
%nlightenment, and the %ightfold (ath ?>J@. Together, these comprise the thirty:se!en
principles of %nlightement, all of which &hir adopted from the #uddhist Dictionary ?>F@.
In an interesting combination of religion and politics, &hir also 7uotes etensi!ely from
the transcripts of the /ound Table Conferences to show that &mbed'ar practiced the
dictate of /ight )peech from the %ightfold (ath. 3e then concludes with eamples from
other Buddhist cultures, such as the )ri *an'ans and the Tibetans, who worship their
gurus. 3e writes, There seems nothing wrong in showing such !eneration to 1r.
&mbed'arH& fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that
while others worship their gods, the Buddhists worship their ;urus ?2>E@.
(erhaps the best articulation I found of the type two Buddhist !iew of 1r.
&mbed'ar was put forth by 1r. (. T. Borhale, the former president of )iddharth College
of *aw and the first untouchable mayor of Bombay. Borhale, now in his late se!enties,
tal'ed with me and three other students for nearly two hours in his old office at the
)iddharth College. 3is response to our 7uestions can be summarized in one simple
CF
statement< I want you to understand Babasaheb. Borhale made numerous parallels
between &mbed'ar+s life, referring to $agpur, for eample, as the new Buddha ;aya
established by Babasaheb. The implication was that e!ery place &mbed'ar came into
contact with was now sacred in terms of &mbed'ar+s re!olution of dharma, and he calls
his first meeting with &mbed'ar as a blessing. Babasaheb+s mission is nothing but
human rights, he stated at another point, *et us hope the whole world comes together
and the dream of Babasaheb &mbed'ar is fulfilled. Borhale said that he prays for the
e!entual rebirth of &mbed'ar, &so'a, Christ, and 5uhammed so that the world can be
ruled with justice and morality.
Borhale+s words illustrate the etent to which &mbed'ar+s eample permeates the
li!es of highly educated Buddhists. 8hen I inter!iewed the president of the 1r.
&mbed'ar College of %conomics and *aw I as'ed him, 1o you thin' 1r. &mbed'ar is a
god6 3e replied without hesitation, 1r. &mbed'ar is more than a god, because he has
done the impossible for the community. 3e 7ualified his description by stating that only
two indi!iduals had e!er gone to "arinirvana< the Buddha and 1r. &mbed'ar. I ha!e to
admit that his words surprised me< it seemed that he epressed a superstitious belief
more suited to an uneducated person in a !illage than an urban academic. 3owe!er, I
now find a certain amount of truth in his assertion. If one defines a god as one who can
do the impossible, then what better candidate than a man who obtained two (h1+s and
helped draft the Indian constitution, all during a time when he could not e!en drin' from
a water source that the rest of his society shared6 I would argue that many educated 1alit
Buddhists, ha!ing struggled with discrimination themsel!es, combine their 'nowledge of
CJ
&mbed'ar+s biography with their 'nowledge of Buddhism to ma'e the same connections
that &hir, )hamu'la, and Borhale do.
5embers of the TB5);, howe!er, !iew &mbed'ar in a slightly different way.
&ccording to Beltz, The face of &mbed'ar is not the central reference one uses to
identify oneself with Buddhism. Certainly, it always has an important role in its
discourse. But the appearance of Buddhism is defined by ethical comportment and a
particular spiritual state ?2-C,@. Let once again my eperiences with the TB5);
suggest that &mbed'ar has more significance than might be inferred from this statement.
The importance assigned to &mbed'ar as the bearer of the Buddhist message cannot be
underestimated. &t the wee'ly meeting, the spea'er stated that &mbed'ar was a
bodhisatt!a and a person worthy for "uja ?worship@. 3e established a timeline of
Indian Buddhism that began with &mbed'ar, stating that the 1alai *ama+s arri!al from
Tibet, &nagari'a ;oen'a+s emigration from Burma, and )hangara'shita+s eit from the
.nited #ingdom all support 1r. &mbed'ar+s dhamma re!olution and confirm that 1r.
&mbed'ar+s re!olution is the only solution. %!en Thich $hat 3anh+s dharma acti!ities
in Thailand were thought to be a result of the &mbed'ar catalyst for Buddhist re!olution.
&s noted pre!iously, I was unable to understand the majority of the speeches at the
dedication ceremony. 3owe!er, the final spea'er did ma'e sure to state one sentence in
clear %nglish< (eople ha!e arri!ed here from the .)& to study our li!es and lifestyle,
and particularly the wor' of 1r. &mbed'ar. 8e welcome you. ?Then he insisted that we
four students come to the front of the gathering and address the crowd. %!eryone
responded 7uite positi!ely when the one male among us responded simply with Jai
#him ?Aictory to &mbed'ar@ when the microphone was passed to him.@
CG
4or the members of the TB5); that I encountered, &mbed'ar is a prophetic figure
who brought the great teachings of the Buddha specifically to their community. Their
pride in &mbed'ar is lin'ed to their simultaneous pride in the Buddha+s teachings. These
5ahars are certain that the dharma re!olution that started in their own community is
beginning to spread to the wider world. In turn, this infuses their actions with a greater
sense of confidence. It is not clear to me whether Buddhism deri!es its greatness from
&mbed'ar, or if &mbed'ar deri!es his greatness from Buddhism. ;i!en the feelings of
'inship that many 5ahars ha!e for &mbed'ar, it is possible that some combination of the
two describes the situation.
0ne of the best !isual depictions of &mbed'ar+s relationship to the political
5ahars is on an inepensi!e wall calendar that I purchased at a booth at the gathering for
&mbed'ar+s death in Bombay. %ach month has a separate page that is dominated by a
large blac' and white illustration. The first picture is of &mbed'ar, the poet:saint #abir,
5ahatma "otiba (hule
>
, and the Buddha. The caption states that these pro!ide !ision of
the correct way ?3ess@. )ubse7uent illustrations pro!ide alternating images of the
Buddha and &mbed'ar. )ome are clearly biographical< the Buddha accepting a bowl of
mil' from )ujata, &mbed'ar leading the 5ahad )atyagraha, the Buddha+s birth and
renunciation, and &mbed'ar seated at a des' with a copy of the Indian Constitution and
another caption that refers to &mbed'ar as the architect of the constitution
B
. There are
also images of the shrine built o!er &mbed'ar+s ashes in Bombay, another shrine built to
commemorate the con!ersion grounds in $agpur, and an ancient Buddhist ruins. These
images combine to pro!ide a clear lin' between &mbed'ar, political statesman and
>
(hule was a 2G
th
century reformer and the organizer of the first anti:Brahman mo!ements among the
5ahars ?Kelliot >F@.
B
&mbed'ar was chairman of the 2GBF drafting committee for the Indian Constitution and the *aw 5inister
in the first cabinet after independence.
F-
champion of untouchables, and the Buddha, spiritual leader and first propagator of the
dharma. The calendar is meant to be an epression of communal pride in its two greatest
leaders, a sentiment which is emphasized by the inclusion of the burial and con!ersion
shrines. &ll of the images loo' li'e they were ta'en out of a children+s tetboo' and are
non:confrontational in content.
The last picture, howe!er, is dominated by small child who is draped in rounds of
ammunition, carries a 'nife in his outstretched right hand, and wears a small amulet
around his nec' that reads Jai #him. 3is head is tilted upwards, his eyes loo' off into
the distance, and directly behind him=gazing at whoe!er holds the calendar=is a
somber &mbed'ar. (lumes of white smo'e swirl around the two figures. The caption
reads< It is a great sin to tolerate the oppressor+s oppression ?3ess@. The picture is both
dynamic and emotional, and the use of eyes ma'e the reader an acti!e participant in the
drama that is going to unfold.
The elements of this image combine to present &mbed'ar as a political leader cum
deity who, through the inspired teachings of the Buddha, will gi!e the young 5ahars the
tools to struggle towards their destiny. The child is the first figure in the calendar who is
not historical. Thus he seems to represent the acti!e agency that is forming the 5ahar+s
future. 3is young age suggests purity of purpose, further supported by his resemblance
to popular 3indu images of young #rishna. Let he has tools of war at his disposal and is
clearly, as can be seen from the way he holds the 'nife, not afraid to use them.
&mbed'ar, as a spiritual presence behind him, seems to pro!ide the impetus for the
child+s struggles. 8hereas pre!ious images seemed to suggest that the Buddha and
&mbed'ar were e7ually important, the picture that represents the future lac's any
F2
Buddhist iconography. Let the amulet the child wears is in the shape of amulets
commonly worn with the names of 3indu gods on them. The fact that instead the amulet
refers to &mbed'ar strongly suggests, as does the jutaposition of pictures of the Buddha
and &mbed'ar, that he has been ele!ated to a le!el that is higher than human in
5aharashtrian society. 8hen this final image of &mbed'ar and the child are ta'en in
contet with the preceding pictures, it becomes clear that the calendar contains a
powerful message< &mbed'ar, ha!ing followed (hule and #abir and adopted the message
of the Buddha, is the true spiritual and political leader of the 5ahars. The ideology he
has synthesized from that of his predecessors will lead the 5ahars to their ultimate
destiny. This destiny is understood in the contet of militant political re!olution, and
&mbed'ar+s justification of social re!olt has now been translated into a command. Thus
&mbed'ar becomes a militant messiah, specifically suited in training and in purpose to
help the urban 5ahars achie!e the future glory of social e7uality.
8e ha!e now eamined se!eral different depictions of &mbed'ar< deity, guru,
bodhisatt!a, scholar, politician, and social agitator. %ach portrayal emphasizes a certain
aspect of his biography, be it political or religious or a combination of the two. The
e!ents that are emphasized are those which correspond most closely to the historical
eperience of the community that produced the gi!en image or words. This ma'es
simple sense, yet it comes to the heart of &mbed'ar+s success as a spiritual and political
leader.
The 5ahars+ connection to &mbed'ar stems from the fact that they can easily
connect his life to theirs. They see in him their own struggles and goals, projected onto
the screen of Indian national history. 3e shared their bac'ground but, as )hamu'la
F,
reminded me, he did more than anyone would ha!e thought possible. This idea
permeates nearly e!ery aspect of 1alit Buddhism< e!en the formal 8estern clothes and
determined facial epression that mar' &mbed'ar+s appearance in popular art contradict
popular stereotypes of the 5ahars ?Kelliot C2@. Because of this close identification, his
accomplishments become their accomplishments, and his methods become theirs. In
some cases &mbed'ar+s success legitimizes the practitioner+s choice of the Buddhist
path. 3owe!er, it often seems that &mbed'ar is lin'ed to Buddhism in little more than
name only. In these cases &mbed'ar legitimizes his followers+ social and political
rejection of caste oppression. In e!ery instance &mbed'ar pro!ides an eample of and
hope for the possibilities of the future.
The 5ahar /elationship to /eligion< The 1alit Buddhist 5yth
5yth pro!ides one possible contet for understanding the 5ahars+ relationship to
Buddhism. %. /. *each, in his landmar' study of the tribal politics of highland Burma,
argues for an organic conception of myth that focuses not on its continuities o!er time but
on its contradictions and inconsistencies ?,CE@. )acred tales, he writes, ha!e no
special characteristics which ma'e them any different from tales about local happenings
,- years ago. Both 'inds of tale ha!e the same functionHwhich justifies the particular
attitude adopted by the teller at the moment of the telling ?,FF@. This allows him to
conclude that opposing social factions will also de!elop opposing myths that are meant to
legitimize their particular points of !iew ?,FF@. 0wen *ynch astutely applies this
understanding of myth to the de!elopment of 1alit Buddhism. 3e uses it to eplain the
way that &mbed'ar became a cultural hero and icon of Buddhism for the "ata!s in &gra,
F>
a tribe that has significant linguistic and cultural differences from the 5ahars. 3e
suggests that there is a $eo:Buddhist myth that pro!ides moti!ation and strategy for
the community it ser!es. I would argue that 1alit Buddhism has resulted in the
de!elopment of an e7ually pertinent myth for the 5ahars, and that this myth pro!ides a
new means of understanding the 5ahar+s past, present situation, and the potential for
their future. This then forms the content and constructi!e substance for a 1alit Buddhist
paradigm for social change.
*ynch+s interest lies in in!estigating why and how &mbed'ar, a 5ahar, was so fully
accepted and integrated into "ata! culture ?GJ@. To this end, he pro!ides se!eral
comparisons between "ata! myths of origin and the new myth of origin that was
presented by &mbed'ar. 3e !iews &mbed'ar as a 8eberian eemplary prophet who
has now become the chief hero of the myth that he himself created ?22-@. 3owe!er,
*ynch seems to imply that the entire $eo:Buddhist myth is encapsulated by
&mbed'ar+s eplanation of why and how untouchables arri!ed at their current situation.
3owe!er, it has been shown that the myth of origin is not the unifying factor in 1alit
Buddhism, and that this role must instead be assigned to &mbed'ar.
Characterizing &mbed'ar as the prophet of the de!eloping 1alit Buddhist myth
would lose sight of the fact that today the 5ahars, not the deceased &mbed'ar, shape
their religion. To illustrate this point, we can return to *each+s definition of myth as a
sacred tale that justifies the particular attitude adopted by the teller at the moment of
telling. The myth of origin is characteristic of Buddhism as told by &mbed'ar9 the 1alit
Buddhist myth must instead correspond to Buddhism as told by the 5ahars. 8ith this in
mind, I would argue that what *ynch refers to as the 1alit Buddhist myth might better be
FB
referred to as a myth of origin, and that it should be understood primarily as a point of
departure for untouchables, rather than a description of a future reality. It comprises the
first element of the 1alit Buddhist myth. The second is anti:brahmanism, understood
broadly as a rejection of any part of 3indu culture.
The remainder of the 1alit Buddhist myth is encapsulated in the comple
relationship between the 5ahars and &mbed'ar. &t one time I hypothesized that
Buddhist doctrine, or 3he #uddha and His Dhamma, might be the aspect of &mbed'ar+s
Buddhism which influences people+s daily li!es and practices the most. 3owe!er,
although this does describe the situation for some 5ahars, it seems that the !ast majority
remain unfamiliar with &mbed'ar+s Buddhist doctrine. Thus &mbed'ar+s figure fills in
the gaps that are left by the 1alit Buddhist myth of origin and anti:brahmanism. 3e is the
inspiration, moti!ation, and justification for the 1alit Buddhist mo!ement. 3is life
illustrates the possibilities of the future, and since his death those possibilities ha!e
become the center of a cult of worship that dominates contemporary 1alit Buddhism.
FE
Conclusion
Ambedkar and the &anguage of )alit *ahitya
Dalit sahitya represents the choice, made by untouchable writers in the 2GC-+s, to
reflect the uni7ue eperience of untouchability instead of remaining within the
constraints of traditional 5aharathi literature ?Kelliot ,CG@. In contrast to more organic
forms of 1alit epression such as rural fol' songs or urban iconography, the literature of
Dalit sahitya is part of a self:conscious body of wor' which centers around the careful
reflection on what it means to be a 1alit Buddhist. &lthough early Dalit sahitya writers
rarely focused on &mbed'ar or Buddhism, references to both are increasingly found in all
forms of 1alit literature ?Kelliot 2GG,,2,@. &s Kelliot notes, the way these writers
understand the word 1alit limits the true 1alit writer to a 5ahar 1alit Buddhist
?,CG@. Thus Dalit sahitya, also unli'e scholarly wor's, portrays 1alit Buddhism by
drawing only the language and eperience of 5ahars. & brief eamination of some
poems shows that e!en though the 1alit poet re!els in depicting a chaotic, uncertain
world, &mbed'ar is always !iewed as an unchanging source of liberation and pride. In
turn, the poetry that has emerged from the Dalit sahitya mo!ement pro!ides an elo7uent
summary of the relationship between &mbed'ar, his interpretation of Buddhism, and the
5ahars.
1alit poets often bombard the reader with sensory descriptions to e!o'e the s7ualor
and lawlessness of the urban slums that many of them grew up in. &s $amdeo 1hasal
writes in (o!erty as 5y 0wn Independent (iece of *and<
I am the headless body of a rat with a pyramid rising
abo!e me
5eat and fish
FC
/ice and eggs
Bootleg li7uor and the flowers of white champa'H
&nd beds, and a house with a lea'ing roofH
I too ha!e po!erty as my own independent piece of land ?F>@.
1alit writers use language to gi!e legitimacy to li!es that are often regarded as shameful
by the rest of Indian society. In 0n the 8ay to 1urgah 1hasal states, I grew up
nourished by roadside shitD )aying O;i!e me fi!e centsD I+ll gi!e you 4i!e punches+D 0n
the way to 1urgah ?F,@. By using offensi!e and words and images, they see' to shoc'
the reader out of social complacency. These poems are the urban underground come
ali!e, and the use of a highly intellectual means of epression shows that the authors are
certain that their li!es are as !alid as any in the human eperience.
Their emphasis on untouchable reality often leads to an enthusiastic embrace of
iconoclasm, especially with regard to 3indu religion. #esha! 5eshram, for eample,
titles a poem 0ne 1ay I Cursed that 5other:4uc'er ;od. It begins with an irre!erent
description of the way his neighbor, a born:to:the:pen Brahman, and fat uni!ersity
scholars reacted to defamation of Brahma ?22F@. 5eshram+s string of insults then brings
the pathos of the untouchable eperience to life<
8hipping him with words, I said
BastardQ
Lou could ne!er do such things.
8ould you chop a whole cart of wood
for a single piece of bread6
8ould you wipe the sweat from you bony body
with your mother+s ragged sari6
8ould you wear out your brothers and sisters
for you father+s fi6
8ould you wor' as a pimp
to 'eep him in booze6
0h 4ather, 0h ;od, the 4atherQ
4irst you+d need a mother
one no one honors
one who toils in the dirt
one who gi!es and gi!es of her lo!e.
one day I cursed that mother:fuc'ing ;od ?22J@.
FF
This poem presents an indictment of the complacency of 3indu society and a ;od who is
immeasurably remo!ed from his own eperience. 1irt, po!erty, prostitution, and
alcoholism are part daily life for the author, and his family, the most highly !alued sub:
structure in Indian society, has disintegrated. Let 5eshram+s poem, a prayer to
iconoclasm and untouchability, does not just attempt to ma'e marginalization into a form
of art. 3is curses pro!ide a picture of all that is antithetical to traditional 3indu culture,
effecti!ely turning the !alues of the Aedas and 3indu epics on end. 5eshram ma'es it
clear that the god of the Brahmans is not his god, and moreo!er he rejects their religious
framewor' as a source of authority in his life.
1alit poets also feel free to depict Buddhism in nontraditional ways, although here
they brea' with tradition to create a positi!e picture of religion. 4or eample, 1aya
(awar+s Buddha !ocalizes &mbed'ar+s reinterpretation of the Buddha as an acti!e
participant in society<
I ne!er see you
in "etawana+s garden
sitting with closed eyes
in meditation, in the lotus position9
or
in the ca!es of &janta and %lora
with stony lips sewn shut
ta'ing the last sleep of your life
I see you wal'ing, tal'ing,
breathing softly, healingly,
on the sorrow of the poor, the wea'9
going from hut to hut
in the life:destroying dar'ness
torch in hand,
gi!ing the sorrow that drains the blood
li'e a contagious disease
a new meaning ?2,F@.
The poem creates an arresting image of the Buddha as a social sa!ior who spreads
compassion, healing, and strength. This Buddha contrasts sharply with Dalit sahitya+s
FJ
fre7uently used images fat Brahmans, corrupt politicians, and smug 3indu gods. Let
perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the poem is its emphasis on the author+s
eperience as a source of truth in interpretation. (awar+s description of the Buddha
relates directly to his eperiences as an untouchable. 3is use of the first person, for
eample, shows that religious authority ultimately rests with the indi!idual. (awar does
not see' eternal justification for his !ision of the Buddha, and in this he embodies
&mbed'ar+s assertion that religion was created for man and not man for religion.
&lthough mar'ed by a great difference in language, these 1alit poems recall the
thought of "ohn 1ewey, the noted modern philosopher and one &mbed'ar+s professors at
Columbia. 1ewey argues, Hany genuinely sound religious eperience could and should
adapt itself to whate!er beliefs one found intellectually entitled to holdHIn7uiry and
reflection ha!e become for the educated man today the final arbiter of all 7uestions of
fact, eistence, and intellectual assent ?#adam ,2@. In this clear articulation of Berger+s
heretical imperati!e, 1ewey asserts the primacy of personal eperience o!er religious
dogma. 0bser!ation, not tradition, acts as the litmus test for religious legitimacy. 1alit
authors may not share 1ewey+s high regard for intellect and education, but their
conscious choice of material reality o!er transcendent religious doctrine illustrates a
shared belief that in7uiry and reflection ha!e becomeHthe final arbiter of all 7uestions.
/eligion also pro!ided &mbed'ar with an arena for the eercise of conscious, creati!e
choice. &s a uni7ue blend of political, religious, and social ideologies, his interpretation
of Buddhism pro!ides another stri'ing eample of the modern need for heresy. Thus
Dalit sahitya, as a form of self:conscious epression, eemplifies one form of 1alit
Buddhism that seems to regard religion from &mbed'ar+s modern standpoint.
FG
3owe!er, the cult of personality that has de!eloped around &mbed'ar is a notable
eception to this hypothesis. &mbed'ar+s authority, in contrast to that of the Buddha and
other figures in Indian culture, ne!er seems to re7uire eperiential !alidation. 8alman
#arda', for eample, describes a culture without morality in which petty !illagers ha!e
power, the narrator+s daughter is raped, and his brother burns down his home ?G>@. This
world is filled with profanity but &mbed'ar is always a separate presence, a 'ing among
men. The author+s only point of departure from his surroundings is #ing Bhim,
depicted as an otherworldly figure who pro!ides an essential element of resistance. Thus
#arda' writes, Bhim was with me, my head was held highD But today I ha!e diminished
the Bhim in me ?G>@.
1hasal, usually an unreser!ed critic, also !iews &mbed'ar as an omnipotent,
unchanging presence. 4or eample, &mbed'ar< 2GJ- eplores the !arious definitions
that ha!e been imposed on &mbed'ar. 1hasal refutes any categorization of &mbed'ar+s
accomplishments, writing, 4cademician=technician="olitician=scientist="hiloso"herD
E

these men will define you any which wayD But you li!ed li'e a man ?EC@. 3e implies that
labels are manipulated by a group referred to pejorati!ely as these men, who the reader
later identifies as Brahmans and paternalistic social reformers. 1hasal then describes
&mbed'ar as a figure who refuses to be co:opted by any community, whether 1alit or
Brahman. 3e writes<
I+!e cursed you too, but
you ga!e us the tongue
I+!e e!en sun' you in the water
C
, but
you ga!e us the water
8e+!e done things to you, e!en so,
anything can be done to you
E
Italicized words are written in %nglish, the rest of the poem is in 5arathi.
C
It is common 3indu practice to submerge clay images of deities at the end of
the ;anesh and 1urga festi!als ?Kelliot >2C@.
J-
But the 7uestion remains of my loyalty
my honesty
8ho are you6
8ho were you6
8hose are you6 ?Kelliot >22@
These lines differ from most 1alit writing about &mbed'ar because they confront rather
than praise and epress s'epticism instead of certainty. Let 1hasal+s doubts center
around himself=not &mbed'ar=and this is precisely where the strength of 1hasal+s
de!otion lies. 1hasal realizes that his curses are only possible because of self:confidence
that was gi!en to him by &mbed'ar. In what is probably a reference to the 5ahad
)atyagraha, he writes that &mbed'ar pro!ides the water he uses to incorporate his leader
into 3indu practice. 3owe!er, no actions affect &mbed'ar. &s 1hasal eplains,
&nything can be done to youD But the 7uestion remains of my loyalty. Thus problems
arise not from &mbed'ar but from his followers, who are ignorant and falter in their
loyalty. The three 7uestions at the end of the stanza imply that &mbed'ar embodies the
one principle worth searching for, the one ideology that cannot be subject to
reinterpretation.
The poetry of Dalit sahitya illustrates a great ambi!alence that characterizes e!en
the most reflecti!e and self:conscious 1alit Buddhists. 0n the one hand, 1alit writers are
eager to brea' with tradition and reconstruct the truths that are offered to them in a
thoroughly modern way. Let 1alit writers conspicuously a!oid subjecting &mbed'ar to
the freedom of heresy. 0n the contrary, they !iew him as an inherently legitimate source
of inspiration and re!elation. &mbed'ar< 2GJ- reflects the obstacles inherent in any
search for truth, but noticeably a!oids 7uestioning the legitimacy of the search itself.
&mbed'ar will always be a!ailable to the 5ahar community, it is now their tas' to
disco!er the truth he embodies. &s 1hasal writes in another poem, 4rom 1r.
J2
&mbed'ar< Lou are the only one, charioteer of our chariotD 8ho comes amongst us
through fields and crowds,D &nd protest marches and struggles.D $e!er lea!es our
companyD &nd deli!ers us from eploitationD Lou are the oneD The only one ?Kelliot
>--@. By alluding to *ord #rishna in the #ha%avad !ita
F
, 1hasal shows that &mbed'ar
is the ultimate teacher and sa!ior of the 5ahars. %!en more significantly, &mbed'ar is a
figure that is inconcei!able from the human point of !iew. "ust as #rishna+s re!elation
re7uired &rjuna to transcend all pre!ious eperience, so &mbed'ar is the one entity not
altered by the life eperience of the 5ahars. 1hasal+s poem, li'e traditional bha&ti poetry
to #rishna, creates dialogue between a human and his otherworldly object of de!otion.
/ecalling Nueen+s discussion of modernity and postmodernity, one could say that 1alit
Buddhists ha!e created an alternate metadiscourse around the figure of &mbed'ar.
Ironically, they apply modern s'epticism to all things ecept the bearer of their modern
message.
This is at once a great strength and great wea'ness of 1alit Buddhism. The
predominance of &mbed'ar partially eplains why no untouchable group has shared the
5ahars+ success in using Buddhism to redefine themsel!es. 5any of the changes in the
5ahar community are due to a tradition of social resistance and upward mobility.
3owe!er, the widespread adoption of Buddhism is probably lin'ed most closely to the
5ahars+ simultaneous appropriation of 1r. &mbed'ar. It is important to realize that most
5ahars identify themsel!es first with &mbed'ar, and then only through him with
Buddhism. Thus other groups without the same cultural affinity for &mbed'ar ha!e
largely failed to adopt his message. &t the same time, howe!er, &mbed'ar+s role in the
F
#rishna pretended to be &rjuna+s chariot dri!er, until he re!ealed
himself in one of literature+s most memorable theophanies.
J,
1alit Buddhist myth is one way in which 5ahars can use the usually problematic
3induness of Indian culture to their ad!antage. &s 1hasal+s poetry shows, the rapid
augmentation of &mbed'ar+s presence in the 5ahar community is closely related to
forms of de!otion that had long been present in Indian society. &mbed'ar was easily
incorporated into a pre:eisting framewor' of de!otional poetry, songs, art, and ritual
practice. Let his message is fundamentally anti:3indu and anti:caste. Through this, e!en
the most simplistic methods of worshipping &mbed'ar can use 3indu culture as a
weapon against itself in an etremely profound way.
J>
+orks Cited
&hir, 1. C. #uddhism and 4mbed&ar. $ew 1elhi< 1alit )ahitya (ra'ashan, 2GG-.
&mbed'ar, B. /. &way from the 3indus. Dr- #abasaheb 4mbed&ar $ritin%s and
S"eeches, .ol- .- Comp. Aasant 5oon. Bombay< %ducation 1epartment of
5aharashtra, 2GJG.
:::::::. The .ntouchables< 8ho 8ere They and 8hy They Became .ntouchables6
Dr- #abasaheb 4mbed&ar $ritin%s and S"eeches, .ol- .11- Comp. Aasant 5oon.
Bombay< %ducation 1epartment of 5aharashtra, 2GG-.
:::::::. The Buddha and 3is 1hamma. Dr- #abasaheb 4mbed&ar $ritin%s and
S"eeches, .ol- >>1. Comp. Aasant 5oon. Bombay< %ducation 1epartment of
5aharashtra, 2GG,.

The )cheduled Castes and )cheduled Tribes< ?(re!ention &trocities@ /ules 2GGE.
http<DDwww.ambed'ar.org. G 5arch ,--2
Beltz, "ohannes. )piritualiser le 1hamma6 *+implantation Contestee du Trailo'ya
Bauddha 5ahasangha en Inde. 4siatische Studien 2tudes 4siati?ues B ?2GGF@<
2-EE:2-F,.
Berger, (eter. 3he Heretical 1m"erative: 5ontem"orary ossibilities of Reli%ious
4ffirmation. $ew Lor'< &nchor (ress, 2GFG.
Bhagat, #. (. 1r. B. /. &mbed'ar< the 5odern 5essiah of India. Reli%ion and
Society. Aol. B, no. ,< FE:J>.
Burra, $eera. Buddhism, Con!ersion and Identity< & Case )tudy of Aillage 5ahars.
5aste: 1ts @/
th
5entury 4vatar. %d. 5. $. )rini!as. India< (enguin:India, 2GGF.
1angle, &rjun. (ersonal Inter!iew. ,, $o!ember ,---.
1eliege, /obert. 3he 9ntouchables of 1ndia. $ew Lor'< Berg, 2GGG.
1hasal, $amdeo. &mbed'ar< 2GJ-. Trans. &sha 5undlay. 4n 4ntholo%y of Dalit
<iterature. %d. 5ul' /aj &nand and %leanor Kelliot. $ew 1elhi< ;yan
(ublishing 3ouse, 2GG,.
::::::. (o!erty as 5y 0wn Independent (iece of *and. Trans. 1ilip Chitre.
4n 4ntholo%y of Dalit <iterature. %d. 5ul' /aj &nand and %leanor Kelliot. $ew
1elhi< ;yan (ublishing 3ouse, 2GG,.
4is'e, &dele. The .nderstanding of O/eligion+ and OBuddhism+ &mong India+s $ew
Buddhists. 4mbed&ar and the )eo*#uddhist Movement. %d. T.). 8il'inson and
JB
5. 5. Thomas. 5adras< the Christian *iterature )ociety, 2GF,.
4itzgerald, Timothy. Buddhism in 5aharashtra< a Tri:(artite &nalysis=& /esearch
/eport. Dr- 4mbed&ar, #uddhism, and Social 5han%e. %d. &.#. $arain and 1.
C. &hir. $ew 1elhi< B. /. (ublishing Corporation, 2GGB.
4lood, ;a!in. 4n 1ntroduction to Hinduism. Cambridge< Cambridge .ni!ersity (ress,
2GGC.
4r. 4ran'ie. (ersonal Inter!iew. 2 1ecember ,---.
;uru, ;opal. 3induisation of &mbed'ar in 5aharashtra. 2conomic and olitical
$ee&ly. 4ebruary 2C, 2GG2< >>G:>B2.
::::::. &ppropriating &mbed'ar. 2conomic and olitical $ee&ly. "uly C:2>, 2GG2<
2CGF:2CGJ.

3allisey, Charles and &nne 3ansen. $arrati!e, )ub:%thics, and the 5oral *ife.
Journal of Reli%ious 2thics ,B., ?4all 2GGC@< >-E:>,F.
3ess, *inda. Translation Consultation. ,> &pril ,--2.
"oshi, Barbara. Democracy in Search of 2?uality: 9ntouchable olitics and 1ndian
Social 5han%e. $ew "ersey< 3umanities (ress Inc, 2GJ,.
"unghara, Indira. 1r. &mbed'ar< The 3ero of the 5ahars, %:.ntouchables of India.
4sian 8ol&lore Studies BF ?2GGJ@< G>:2,2.
#adam, #. $. 3he Meanin% of the 4mbed&arite 5onversion to #uddhism and 6ther
2ssays. Bombay< (opular (ra'ashan (!t. *td, 2GGF.
#arda', 8alman. I 1on+t ;et &ngry. Trans. "ayant #ar!e and %leanor Kelliot. 4n
4ntholo%y of Dalit <iterature. %d. 5ul' /aj &nand and %leanor Kelliot. $ew
1elhi< ;yan (ublishing 3ouse, 2GG,.

*arbeer, 5ohan. 1alit Identity=& Theological /eflection. 8rontiers of Dalit
3heolo%y. %d. A. 1e!asahayam. 5adras< ;uru'ul )ummer Institute, 2GGC.
3he <aws of Manu. Trans. ;eorg Buhler. $ew Lor'< 1o!er (ublications, Inc, 2GCG.
*each, %. /. olitical Systems of Hi%hland #urma. *ondon< The &thlone (ress, 2GCB.
*ing, Tre!or. #uddhist Revival in 1ndia. *ondon< The 5ac5illan (ress *td, 2GJ-.
*o'amitra, 1hammachari. &mbed'ar and Buddhism. 2conomic and olitical $ee&ly
5ay 2J, 2GG2< 2>->:2>-B.
JE
*o'hande, )agar. (ersonal Inter!iew. ,- $o!ember ,---.
*ynch, 0wen. 1r. B. /. &mbed'ar=5yth and Charisma. 3he 9ntouchables in
5ontem"orary 1ndia. %d. ". 5ichael 5ahar. Tucson< The .ni!ersity of &rizona
(ress, 2GF,.
5assey, "ames. 3owards Dalit Hermeneutics. 1elhi< Indian )ociety for (romoting
Christian #nowledge ?I)(C#@, 2GGB.
5endelsohn, 0li!er and 5ari'a Aicziany. 3he 9ntouchables: Subordination, "overty
and the state in modern 1ndia. $ew Lor'< Cambridge .ni!ersity (ress, 2GGJ.
5eshram, #esha!. 0ne 1ay I Cursed that 5other 4uc'er ;od. Trans. "ayant #ar!e
and %leanor Kelliot. 4n 4ntholo%y of Dalit <iterature. %d. 5ul' /aj &nand and
%leanor Kelliot. $ew 1elhi< ;yan (ublishing 3ouse, 2GG,.
)elected &rticles of the Indian Constitution. http<DDwww.ambed'ar.org. ,> 5arch
,--2.
)hamu'la, &nant. (ersonal Inter!iew. ,> $o!ember ,---.
0m!edt, ;ail. Dalits and the Democratic Revolution. Thousand 0a's< )age
(ublications India, 2GGB.
(awar, 1aya. Buddha. Trans. Aidyut Bhagwat, "ayant #ar!e, and %leanor Kelliot. 4n
4ntholo%y of Dalit <iterature. %d. 5ul' /aj &nand and %leanor Kelliot. $ew
1elhi< ;yan (ublishing 3ouse, 2GG,.
Nueen, Christopher ). 1r. &mbed'ar and the 3ermeneutics of Buddhist *iberation.
2n%a%ed #uddhism: #uddhist <iberation Movements in 4sia. %d. Christopher ).
Nueen and )allie B. #ing. &lbany, $ew Lor'< )tate .ni!ersity of $ew Lor'
(ress, 2GGC.
Tarta'o!, ;ary. &rt and Identity< The /ise of a $ew Buddhist Imagery. Dr-
4mbed&ar, #uddhism, and Social 5han%e. %d. &.#. $arain and 1.C. &hir. $ew
1elhi< B. /. (ublishing Corporation, 2GGB.
Taylor, /ichard. The &mbed'arite Buddhists. 4mbed&ar and the )eo*#uddhist
Movement. %d. T.). 8il'inson and 5. 5. Thomas. 5adras< the Christian
*iterature )ociety, 2GF,.
Aiswanathan, ;auri. 6utside the 8old: 5onversion, Modernity, and #elief. (rinceton<
(rinceton .ni!ersity (ress, 2GGJ.
8ebster, "ohn C. B. 3he Dalit 5hristians: 4 History. $ew 1elhi< Indian )ociety for
JC
(romoting Christian #nowledge, 2GG,.
Kelliot, %leanor. 8rom 9ntouchable to Dalit: 2ssays on the 4mbed&ar Movement. $ew
1elhi< 5anohar (ublishers and 1istributors, 2GGC.
JF