Buddhism in India

Navayana Buddhism and the Modern Age 259

your decision.’ Only then did it argue that if there must be conversion,

Buddhism would be a good alternative (Sangharakshata 1986: 62).

At one level the explanation was simple: the Mahabodhi Society,

though founded by the Sinhalese Buddhist leader Anagarika

Dharmapala, was dominated in India by Bengali Brahmans. The

Sinhalese themselves did not protest against this position.

In one sense the choice of Buddhism may have resonated with

Ambedkar’s urge to autonomy, seen throughout his social and

political career. By the 1940s, in fact, the movement and many Dalit

communities had attained a position of some strength in India; for

example, they could well hold their own in the ‘Mahar–Hindu’ riots

in Nagpur in the 1940s recorded by Vasant Moon (2001: 93–101,

113–14). Dalits were now not simply victims seeking a refuge, but

conscious, awakened human beings concerned about shaping their

future and the future of India. A large mass of Dalit Buddhist

converts would actually constitute Buddhism in India—whereas if

they chose Islam or Christianity, they might gain resources, but they

would be lost in the mass of existing members of these religions.

Ambedkar’s extensive readings in Indian history and Buddhist

texts also played a role in his choice. Essays such as Who Were the

Sudras? and The Untouchables, and the long unpublished manu-

script ‘Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India’ showed

his developing evaluation of Buddhism as the true alternative to the

Brahmanical social order. When he published in 1950 a new edition

of Laxmi Narasu’s The Essence of Buddhism, its interpretation of

karma in terms of social influence must also have influenced him.

Thus by 1950 he was describing himself as ‘on the way’ to

embracing Buddhism. An article that year in the Journal of the

Mahabodhi Societyentitled ‘The Buddha and the Future of His

Religion’ argued that Buddhism was a religion for the whole world:

‘If the new world – which be it realized is very different from the

old – must have a religion – and the new world needs a religion far

more than the old world did – then it can only be the religion of the

Buddha’ (quoted by Sangharakshata 1986: 71–72). This was, as he

was to make clear in The Buddha and His Dhamma, because moral-

ity was central to Buddhism, in contrast to other religions which

made morality secondary to beliefs in God and cosmic principles.

Ambedkar was using the term ‘religion’ in two ways. When he

declared that Buddhism was not a religion, he was referring to the

common sense (and dictionary) meaning, which included a belief in

Indians, he remained attracted to it. In 1933, after the second
Round Table conference, he wrote in a letter that he was determined
to leave Hinduism, would never accept Islam, and was inclined
towards Buddhism (Sangharakshata 1986: 60). Around this time
also he named his newly-built house ‘Rajagriha’ after the capital of
early Magadha, a center of Gotama’s teaching.
He was also attracted by the rationality of Buddhism. In May
1936, a Bombay Presidency Mahar conference was called to discuss
actually leaving Hinduism; the resolution urged Mahars to refrain
from worshipping Hindu deities, from observing Hindu festivals or
going to Hindu places of pilgrimage. The links were to be snapped
concretely and decisively. It was at this conference that Ambedkar
cited the words of the Buddha, ‘Be ye lamps onto yourself, be ye a
refuge to yourself. Hold fast to the Truth as a refuge.’
These proclamations of Ambedkar pushed forward a collective
process among the Mahars themselves of breaking away from
Hinduism and turning towards Buddhism. Its base lay in the new
groups of educated youth that was forming within the community,
and who were challenging Brahmanic domination, refusing the
‘Harijan’ identity and aiming at all-around internal and cultural
transformation as well. Vasant Moon’s autobiography Vasti, now
translated as Growing Up Untouchable in India, gives a compelling
picture of this process in one of the large and vibrant Mahar
communities of Nagpur. Youth organised to stop participation in
Hindu festivals, forcibly breaking the idols of the more traditional
members of their community; then when they encountered the
Brahman intellectuals of Nagpur who were propagating Buddhism
as members of the Mahabodhi Society, they eagerly took it up,
started a Buddhist library, and began to read about the Dhamma.
When Ambedkar came for a visit, Moon records that as a young
student he confronted him with many questions—especially about
how the idea of rebirth fitted in with the notion of ‘no soul’ to be
reborn.
Ambedkar’s choice, however, was met by the existing Buddhist
organisations of India with stark indifference. In contrast to the
enthusiasm of many grass-roots Mahars for conversion, Buddhist
spokesmen in India responded with dismay to Ambedkar’s
announcement of conversion. The telegram sent by the secretary of
the Mahabodhi Society (in Calcutta) began, ‘Shocked very much to
read your decision to renounce Hindu religion...Please reconsider

258 Buddhism in India