Ambedkar’s Dhamma Revolution: Buddhism, Equality, and the Quest for Liberation
By Dikshant Ghelot
Dr Ambedkar wrote: “Buddhism was a revolution. It was as great a Revolution as the French Revolution.” (Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India, an incomplete manuscript published in 2017).The architect of the Indian Constitution, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, believed that Buddhism was not only a religion but a powerful force that could eliminate inequality inherent in the Indian caste system. In 1956, he converted to Buddhism in Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur on October 14, 1956, followed by a mass conversion by hundreds of thousands of followers, marking an important moment in Indian history and a radical departure from the repressive structures of Hindu orthodoxy. This essay examines Ambedkar's view that Buddhism was a revolutionary ideology capable of achieving social transformation. It also discusses his efforts to adapt Buddhism to modern circumstances, addressing the limitations in the traditional Buddhist framework, and ultimately confirming his conviction of the possibility of promoting a society founded on the principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
Conversion as a Radical Solution
India's religious conversions are often seen as a threat to Hindu society, but Dalits are increasingly seeking alternatives to spiritual paths. For Ambedkar, the purpose of conversion was not only to reject Hinduism but also liberation from religious oppression that had been sanctioned for centuries. In 1935, in a speech in Yeola, Ambedkar declared his intention to renounce Hinduism and proclaimed, “I was born a Hindu, but I will not die a Hindu.” The decision was based on his conviction that the rigid hierarchy of castes and discriminatory practices of Hinduism could not ensure the dignity and equality that Dalits deserve. He argued that as long as Dalits remain within Hindu society, they would be subjected to the dehumanising constraints of caste-based discrimination.Ambedkar's transformative vision is radical in the sense that it is aimed at breaking the cycle of oppression perpetuated by the caste system. He believed that the Dalits could not achieve true liberation within the boundaries of Hinduism by being trapped in the metaphorical circle of material, spiritual, and legal deprivation. Among many, the case of Mahad Satyagraha (1927) reveals the collusion between local administrators and caste-Hindu groups. Although the Bole resolution of 1923 had granted all castes access to public spaces, when Ambedkar and other Dalits asserted this right by drinking water from the Chavadar Tank in Mahad, violent riots broke out, with Dalits being targeted and brutally attacked. In response, the tank was symbolically "purified" by the ritual pouring of 108 earthen pots filled with cow urine. The Mahad municipality then rescinded its earlier resolution that had opened the tank to all castes, and the British authorities aligned with the caste Hindus by issuing a restraining order against Ambedkar, effectively curbing the rights of Dalits.This incident illustrates how Dalit oppression is maintained across material, spiritual, and legal dimensions, reinforcing their marginalisation. Ambedkar, recognising that superficial reforms would not address the root causes of this systemic discrimination, advocated for conversion to Buddhism, a heterodox religion, as the solution.
Ambedkar’s Navayana Buddhism
Ambedkar's adoption of Buddhism was not merely a return to ancient traditions, but a reinterpretation and reconstruction to meet the needs of modern society. His Buddhism is known as ‘Navayana’ or ‘Neo-Buddhism’, a new vehicle that repudiated traditional elements and was compatible with contemporary values of social justice. Unlike other schools of Buddhism, Navayana did not emphasise karma and rebirth, which Ambedkar saw as justifications for the social inequalities perpetuated by caste. Instead, nirvana was redefined as liberating from the cycle of birth and death and achieving a just and equitable society. For Ambedkar, nirvana was not a metaphysical state, but a social and political reality, which achieves the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.Ambedkar's reinterpretation of Buddhism was influenced by his pragmatic approach to religious and social reform. He believed that any religious practice in today's world must adapt to the needs and circumstances of its followers. This is reflected in his reinterpretation of the four noble truths and the eight paths, which he presented as an ethical guide for building a just society and not simply individualistic practices of personal salvation. He argued that traditional Buddhism's focus on individual suffering and the cessation of suffering through meditation and moral conduct was insufficient to address Dalits' systemic social injustice. Instead, he advocated for a socially committed Buddhism and actively tried to change society through collective action.Ambedkar's approach to Buddhism also involved criticism of the ideal of the monastery. He questioned the importance of the monastic life of abandonment in a world where millions of people were suffering from social and economic exploitation. Ambedkar referenced Christian missionaries as a model when discussing Buddhist monks' role, suggesting that monks and Buddhists should be actively involved in social work and activism, similar to how missionaries were engaged in education, healthcare, and community development. This redefinition of monastic duties aligns with Ambedkar's broader vision of establishing a Buddhist community that is not only spiritually enlightened but also socially responsible and politically engaged.
The Limitations of Traditional Buddhism
Despite his admiration for Buddhism, Ambedkar did not shy away from critiquing its traditional forms. In his last book, Buddha and his Dhamma, he identified some of the limitations of the accepted Buddhist tradition as incompatible with modern sensibilities. Firstly, he questioned a legend about Buddha's life, particularly the sudden realisation of suffering by Siddhartha Gautama at the age of 29. For Ambedkar, it seemed unlikely that someone would be so sheltered from the realities of life and then leave his family in search of enlightenment. He argued that this narrative should be reinterpreted to reflect contemporary values and encourage early confrontation with the challenges and responsibilities of life.Secondly, Ambedkar criticised Buddhism's explanation of suffering, which was seen as emerging from desire and ignorance. He acknowledged the psychological perspectives of this teaching but pointed out that it ignored structural and systemic causes of suffering, such as social and economic inequality. He argued that the focus of traditional Buddhism, by changing one’s mentality through meditation and moral behaviour, was not sufficient to address the suffering of the communities oppressed by forces outside of their control. For Ambedkar, Buddhism must include a commitment to social justice and political activism to be relevant to the modern world.Thirdly, Ambedkar rejected the traditional belief that karma and resurrection were the only factors determining the present life. He argued that such beliefs led to fatalism and justified social inequalities as resulting from previous actions. This is particularly problematic for Dalits, who are often told that their low status is the result of their previous karma. Ambedkar's reinterpretation of Buddhism eliminated these metaphysical aspects, focusing instead on the present moment and the ability of humans to reason and act ethically to create a just society.Finally, Ambedkar questioned the traditional role of the monks, whom he considered to be unconcerned with the struggles of the ordinary people. He argued that ideal Buddhists should not withdraw from the world, but engage actively in it to alleviate suffering and promote social justice. This was a fundamental change from the traditional image of the monk as a priest who is cut off from the world. Ambedkar's vision of Buddhism sought the cooperation of monks and non-believers to create a society based on compassion, justice, and equality.
Buddhism as a Social Revolution
For Ambedkar, Buddhism was not only a spiritual path but also a social revolution. He believed that this was the continuation of the struggle for freedom, equality and brotherhood that began when Buddha rejected the Brahmin orthodoxy of his time. Ambedkar believed that Buddha's teachings could question the legitimacy of the social hierarchy and the oppressive structure of the Hindu caste system. He also believed that Buddhism reflected the revolutionary ideals of the French Revolution, and tried to adapt it to meet the specific challenges facing the Dalits in India.Ambedkar believed that religion should meet the needs of the people. He argued that a religion that promotes passively accepting resignation and suffering is not useful for oppressed people. Instead, he preferred a religion that encouraged its followers to fight for justice and equality. In this sense, Ambedkar's Buddhism is considered a form of “engaged Buddhism” and is deeply involved in its social and political struggles. This fundamental reinterpretation of Buddhism was both celebrated and criticised. Some traditional Buddhists rejected the Navayana as a distortion of Buddha's teaching, while others accepted it as a necessary adaptation for the modern world.In an article published in 1950 in the Journal of the Mahabodhi Society titled "The Buddha and the Future of His Religion," Buddhism was described as a universal religion, suited for the modern world. The article argued that the new world, distinct from the old, required a religion more than ever before and that only Buddhism could meet this need. As Ambedkar elaborated in The Buddha and His Dhamma, this was because Buddhism placed morality at its core, unlike other religions that prioritised belief in God or cosmic forces.Ambedkar used the term "religion" in two distinct ways. When he stated that Buddhism was not a religion, he was referring to the conventional definition of religion, which centres on belief in God or divine forces—a definition employed by thinkers such as Marx. In this sense, Buddhism did not qualify as a religion, as it did not encourage faith or fear of the holy. However, from a sociological perspective, Ambedkar invoked Emile Durkheim's broader definition of religion, which emphasised the role of the sacred in providing a unifying force for social relationships. In this framework, Buddhism was indeed a religion—a "sacred morality" that played a binding role in society.He then concludes that in a society not bound by a common morality protecting individual rights, exploitation will remain:This means there can be liberty for some but not for all. This means that there can be equality for a few but none for the majority. What is the remedy? The only remedy lies in making fraternity universally effective. What is fraternity? It is nothing but another name for brotherhood of men which is another name for morality. This is why the Buddha preached that Dhamma is morality and as Dhamma is sacred so is morality (Ambedkar 1992: 325).Ambedkar’s turn to Buddhism was not a narrow response to casteism alone but rather a broader vision of challenging entrenched social hierarchies and rigid religious structures. For Ambedkar, Buddhism offered a moral framework that could transcend existing inequalities, providing a path toward social justice, equality, and fraternity. His embrace of Buddhism, completed in 1956, came in response to a world facing not only economic and social upheaval but also moral crises, marked by wars, fascism, and the dehumanising effects of modernity. In such a context, Buddhism represented a religion of liberation and equality, offering a remedy for both individual and societal transformation.Buddhism represents the historical legacy and cultural heritage of India's marginalised castes. Its significance, however, extends beyond any particular group, as its core values embody universal principles that resonate with all of humanity. By embracing these universal teachings, marginalised castes have the potential to transcend their current social position and assume a transformative role as ethical leaders and value-setters for society at large. This process not only empowers these communities but also enriches the broader social fabric by fostering a more inclusive and egalitarian worldview.
