Buddhism in India

Navayana Buddhism and the Modern Age 257

then first the existing social, political and other institutions will have

to be destroyed (Janata25 June 1938).

Ambedkar eventually moved away from the economics of

Marxism also, calling himself a ‘social democrat’ rather than a

‘state socialist’ at the time of presenting the Indian Constitution.

As he developed his understanding of Buddhism, he increasingly

stressed it as an all-around alternative to Marxism, capable of solving

the problems of conflict and suffering as Marxism could not. In

‘The Buddha and Karl Marx’, a final essay on the issue, he summed

up his assessment by arguing that many of Marx’s theses had been

disproved, including the economic interpretation of history, the

inevitability of revolution, and the pauperisation of the proletariat.

The ‘residue of fire’ that remained, he argued, consisted of concern

for ‘reconstructing the world’, the conflict of interest between

classes, and the necessity for the abolition of private property

which was a major cause of sorrow or suffering. But, he argued, this

could be most effectively done by non-violent means through the

Buddhist Sangha, though he did not see it necessary for the state to

renounce violence. He quoted the Cakkavati suttato argue that the

Buddhist goal was, in essence, a welfare state, with a major aim of

providing wealth to the destitute. To him, Buddhism and Marxism

were similar in valuing material prosperity as good, but differed

regarding the path to equality and social justice; with Buddhism,

this happened by changing the minds of men through the Dhamma.

And he concluded with a reference to the three basic values of the

French revolution, the basic thrust of modernity:

Society has been aiming to lay a new foundation as was summarized by

the French Revolution in three words, fraternity, liberty and equality.

The French Revolution...failed to produce equality. We welcome the

Russian Revolution because it aims to produce equality. But it cannot be

too much emphasized that in producing equality society cannot afford to

sacrifice fraternity or liberty. It seems that these three can coexist only if

one follows the way of the Buddha (Ambedkar 1987: 462).

‘On the Way’ to Buddhism

Though Ambedkar’s early impression of Buddhism was marred

by the understanding of it as a kind of purified Hinduism or

Protestant Hinduism, a view given by the majority of upper-caste

As for Marxism itself, Ambedkar was both attracted and alienated
by it. According to his weekly Janata, during the 1930s he had
announced at a rally that,

I have definitely read studiously more books on the Communist

philosophy than all the Communist leaders here. However beautiful

the Communist philosophy is in those books, still it has to be seen

how useful it can be made in practice...if work is done from that

perspective, I feel that the labour and length of time needed to win

success in Russia will not be so much in India. And so, in regard to

the toilers’ class struggle, I feel the Communist philosophy to be closer

to us (Janata15 January 1938).

The power of Marxist economic analysis, the tumult of the rising
class movements of the 1930s, the evidence of depression and
crisis in capitalist countries, and the apparent developmental
achievements of the Soviet Union all exercised a powerful attraction
for Ambedkar, as it did for all other movements of the time. This
lasted through much of the 1940s, with Ambedkar calling for
nationalisation of land and basic industries, and describing himself
as a ‘state socialist’.
Nevertheless, he had major differences, and these centered
around the priority of the economic sector. The general effect of
Marxism on social movements of Dalits and non-Brahmans was to
pull them away from supposedly ‘religious’ solutions. This was
clearly happening in south India, as Iyothee Thass’ ‘Sakya
Buddhism’ died away and the Tamil non-Brahman movement
began to centre on political solutions. Ambedkar resisted this
trend, and did so with reference to the primary thesis of Marxism,
the priority of the ‘relations of production’. In a September 27,
1929 editorial in Bahishkrut Bharatentitled ‘First the Pinnacle,
then the Base’, he wrote that ‘if Lenin had been born in India, he
would have first annihilated casteism and untouchability and with-
out that he would not have brought forward the idea of revolu-
tion’. This ‘base-superstructure’ imagery was turned upside down
in a major editorial in Janata:

The base is not the building. On the basis of the economic relations a

building is erected of religious, social and political institutions. This

building has just as much reality as the base. If we want to change the

base, then first the building that has been constructed on it has to be

knocked down...if we want to change the economic relations of society,

256 Buddhism in India