ISSN 0972-1169233

April 2003, Vol. 3/ IV

AMBEDKAR’S INTERPRETATION OF
RELIGIONS: DALIT POINT OF VIEW
Dr. N.K. Singh

Ambedkar interpreted the basic tenets of religions from the dalit

viewpoint of the prevailing socio-cultural situation in India. He
saw religion not as a means to spiritual salvation of individual
souls, but as a ‘social doctrine’ for establishing the righteous
relations between man and man. His philosophy of religion does
not mean either theology or religion. Theology studies the nature,
attributes and functions of God; whereas religion deals with things
divine. Theology and religion may be linked together; but they are
not philosophies. When we talk of philosophy of religion, it is
taken as a critical estimate of the existing religions in general, and
in particular to evaluate the teachings and doctrines of each religion,
whether it be Hinduism, Islam or Christianity, in relation to man
and society, because, as I think, a religion, ignoring the empirical
needs of either man or of society, does not come upto the
expectations of an intellectual like Ambedkar.
Before I venture to come to the main subject, I would like to
bring to your notice the fundamental differences between
philosophy, religion, theology and philosophy of religion. The
elucidation of these terms, I hope, would help you to understand
Ambedkar’s philosophy of religion. You may believe it or not, the
text of this article, I wonder, would make you plunge in some sort
of amazement to the extent to which you would not have thought
of it. Let me now proceed to analyse.
Philosophy: Philosophy has been explained in various ways,
however, it is difficult to define it. At the most, it may be described

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

234 Dr. N.K. Singh

as the ‘synoptic view of things’ as Plato saw it long ago. Prof.

Pringle Pattison wrote:
“It is an attempt to see things—to keep all the main features of
the world in view, and to grasp them in their relation to one
another as parts of one whole”.1
Philosophy explains the nature of the universe and man’s
positions and prospects in it. For Karl Marx, the main object of
Philosophy is not only to explain ‘the nature of the world, but also
to change it’, and to Ambedkar, ‘Philosophy is nothing but a
standard to measure the conduct of man’.2 He also took philosophy
as ‘human experience’, which studies and explains the world-
process and the world-ground with regard to man, and thus, he
agreed with Prof. Pringle Pattison when he said that
“philosophy is an analysis and interpretation of the experience in
question in its bearing upon our view of man and the world in
which he lives”.3
In a nutshell, philosophy is an evaluation of human conduct and
experience so as to make man’s life worth-living in the spheres of
empirical nature.
Religion: Religion, too, has been explained in various ways;
and like philosophy, it is difficult to define religion. However, it
may be described as “man’s faith in a power beyond himself”, or
“a belief in an Everlasting God”, who manages the affairs in the
world, and gives reward or punishment to human beings according
to their acts (karmas). It is also said to be “a fantastic reflection in
people’s minds of external forces dominating over them in every
day life, a reflection in which earthly forces assume non-earthly
forms.4
Ambedkar took “Religion to mean the propounding of an
ideal scheme of divine governance the aim and object of which is
to make the social order in which men live a moral order”.5 Prof.
Bettany has defined “religion broadly is man’s attitude produced
on his conduct or on his relations to fellow-men”.6 In brief, religion,
as assumed to be emanated from ‘divine authority’, has become a

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 235

social force embedded in institutions of worship prayers, rituals

and ceremonies of sacred and infallible nature.
Theology: Theology is not religion as such, but a subject
which signifies “a discourse or doctrine concerning divine things”.
“It is now generally understood to mean the system of doctrines
which concern the person, attributes and works of God”.7 It is,
however, related to religion as Ambedkar saw it. Although there
are different kinds of theology such as mythical theology, civil
theology, natural theology, revealed theology; yet in Ambedkar’s
view, theology stands for three fundamental ideas, namely:
(i) “The existence of God;
(ii) God’s providential government of the universe; and
(iii) God’s moral government of mankind”8.

Philosophy of Religion
It may be asserted that philosophy of religion is neither
philosophy nor is it religion or theology. The philosophy of religion
is something different from them. It involves the language which
is related to religious discussion, religious thinking, which may
also be anti-religion. Philosophy of religion is not a religious
experience, nor is it connected with any faith, worship and ritualism.
It is an examination of what religion or theology stands for like
the belief in the existence of God, life beyond the empirical world,
rituals and ceremonies emerged in the long process of social
development, divine authority over moral standards, infallibility
of sacred book, immortality of soul and its transmigration.
Philosophy of religion is not an appendage to any religion. It is an
evaluation of religious life of a particular community in view of
the existing conditions of man and society. Philosophy of religion,
in fact, involves a ‘critical reason’ with regard to the pre-
suppositions, ideals and practices, rituals and behaviour-patterns
of the existing religions. While evaluating them, it sees human
interest at large. The main subject of philosophy of religion is an
examination of the relevance of a particular religions’ social and
moral norms.
Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV
236 Dr. N.K. Singh

Here it may be emphasised that Ambedkar took the work

‘philosophy’ in its two-fold original sense, that is—it meant
teachings as it did when people spoke of the philosophy of Socrates
or the philosophy of Plato, and in another sense it meant critical
reason used in passing judgments upon things and events. On this
basis, he said,
“philosophy of Religion is to me not merely a descriptive science.
I regard it as being both descriptive as well as normative. In so
far as it deals with the teachings of a Religion, philosophy of
Religion becomes a descriptive science. In so far as it involves
the use of critical reason for passing judgments on those teachings,
the philosophy of religion becomes a normative science”.9
According to Ambedkar, the philosophy of religion involves
the determination of three dimensions, the first being religion to
mean theology, both of which deal with the highest meta-physical
abstractions and divine revelations. The second dimension of the
philosophy of religion is to know the ideal scheme for which a
religion stands and justifies it. The third dimension of the
philosophy of religion is to adopt the criterion for judging the
value of the ideal scheme of divine governance. From time to
time, a religion must be put on its trial. “By what criterion shall it
be judged?”.
The criterion, for him, was some sort of revolution which
took place in the field of science, philosophy of religion. In fact, a
revolution could change the authority and contents of a relation.
The revolutions of scientific nature during the Middle Ages
diminished the divinity of religion and the authority of church.
There was a time when religion had covered almost the entire
field of knowledge such as Biology, Psychology, Geology and
Medicine. Religion claimed infallibility over whatever it taught.
But bit by bit, the vast empire of religion was destroyed because
of religious revolution that had taken place in the history of some
religions. For examples, the Copernicas Revolution freed
Astronomy from the domination of religions and the Darwinian
Revolution freed Biology and Geology from the trammels of
religion.
April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 237

A religious revolution at times becomes a great blessing, for

it establishes ‘freedom of thought’, and it enables society to assume
control of itself dispelling most of the fears and superstitions that
people used to face earlier. From among the revolutions of various
kinds, Ambedkar considered ‘Religious Revolution’ to be the most
significant and immense one, because
“that revolution touches to nature and content of ruling conceptions
of the relations of God to man, of society to man and of man to
man... that it has brought about a complete transformation in the
nature of religions as it is to be taken by savage society and by
civilised society although very few seem to be aware of it”.10
In other words, the religious revolution results in far-reaching
changes, because it is always a revolution in the norms of the
socio-moral life of the people as Ambedkar considered it to be.
Now let us come exactly to the main subject, namely: what
does Ambedkar’s philosophy of religion encompass in its study
and how does it examine all that through the means of ‘critical
reason’? Ambedkar’s philosophy of religion, in my opinion,
encompasses and examines the following ideas:
(i) That all religions are true and equally good;
(ii) That God is an essential element of a religion;
(iii) That religion must necessarily nourish a scheme of
divine governance, an ideal for society to follow;
(iv) That infallibility of religious books as divine authority
must be maintained;
(v) That the sole aim of an individual’s life is the salvation
of soul (Moksha);
(vi) That the relation of morality to God and religion is
necessary;
(vii) That the tests of justice and social utility to judge the
relevance of a religion must be applied; and
(viii) That whether or not a religion should be based on rules
or principles.

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

238 Dr. N.K. Singh

Now to begin with an exposition of the above points in the

light of Ambedkar’s philosophy of religion:

Are All the Religions True and Equally Good?

The idea that all religions are true and equally good and there
was an essential unity among them, was expounded by orthodox
philosophers like Dr. Bhagwan Dass, an author of the Essential
Unity of all Religions. But to Ambedkar, it was positively and
demonstratively a wrong belief. The study of comparative religions
had broken the claim and arrogance of revealed religions as being
the only true and good religions. He observed:
“While it is true that comparative religion had abrogated the
capricious distinction between true and false religions based on
purely arbitrary and a prior considerations, it has brought in its
wake some false notions about religion. The harmful one, is the
one I have mentioned, namely, that all religions are equally good
and that there is no necessity of discriminating between them.
Nothing can be a greater error than this religion is an institution
or an influence like all social influences and institutions it may
help or it may harm a society which is in its grip.”11
This view may well be supported by the results each religion
has produced in its social and national life. A religion can form or
disrupt nations, create inhuman institutions and barbarous customs,
cause wars, prosecutions, rebellions and revolutions; but it can
also bring freedom, peace and happiness to millions of people. A
religion may be foe to progress, science and art; but also a friend
to innovation and good civilisation or cultural heritage. All this
can be testified after reading the histories of world religions like
Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity as to what extent they
have done good or harm to the mankind. One may agree or not
with what Prof. Bertrand Russel had observed:
“All religions are not only untrue but also harmful”; yet there is
some iota of fact in this assertion.
According to Ambedkar, religions could produce strange
contradictory results. How can, then, they be true and equally
April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 239

good? Every religion has given its own divine scheme of social
governance and moral ideals which have produced different models
of conduct. The study of comparative religion has not given any
heed to this aspect of religions. Moreover, all religions are not
theistic; some are non-theistic; and with regard to the nature of
soul, God, worship, prayer, rituals and ceremonies, there are basic
differences between religions. Although religions are many; but to
say they are equally true and good, is the most pernicious idea,
and that is why Ambedkar did not entertain it in his philosophy of
religion.

Theistic Concept of God

It is generally held by theistic religions that God is an essential
element of a religion; but to Ambedkar, it is not. In his view, the
religion of the savage society had no idea of God, i.e., in the
savage society there was religion without God. How, then, God
became fused in religion? He observed:
“It may be that the idea of God had its origin in the worship of
the Great man in society, the Hero giving rise to theism—with its
faith in its living God. It may be that the idea of God came into
existence as result of the purely philosophical speculation upon
the problem as to who created life—giving rise to Deism—with
its God as Architect of the Universe. In any case, the idea of God
is not integral to Religion.”12
A religious revolution is of two kinds—internal and external.
The internal religious revolution brings some changes in religion
itself; but the external religious revolution is not really a religious
revolution. It is, in fact, a revolution in science against the extra-
territorial jurisdiction assumed by religion over a field which did
not belong to it. However, the revolutions like the French
Revolution and the Russian Revolution alter, amend and reconstitute
the scheme of ‘divine governance’. The internal religious revolution
from time to time brings some fundamental changes in the structural
and functional areas of religions. Ambedkar declared:
“By this Revolution God has ceased to be a member of a
community... man has ceased to be a blind worshipper of God

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

240 Dr. N.K. Singh

doing nothing but obeying his commands... By this Revolution

God has ceased to be the mere protector of Society and social
interests in gross have ceased to be the centre of the divine order.
Society and man have changed places as centres of this divine
order. It is man who has become the centre of it.”13
The religious revolutions as brought about by Mahavira and
Buddha influenced people’s minds far and wide in India and
elsewhere, and it was emphasised that the belief in Ishwara (God)
was not essentially an integral part of their religion. Ambedkar
took this view as true in the form of the Buddha’s Dhamma,
because nobody had seen God, God was unknown, a mere
metaphysical speculation. Nobody could prove that God had created
the Universe, though it was generally held to be true. The Universe
had evolved, and was not created by any God or Cosmic Being.
The belief in God had only ended in creating superstitions and
therefore, for Ambedkar, a religion, if based on God, was not
worth-having for man.14

Divine Scheme of Social Governance

A religion generally prescribes a divine scheme of social
governance as we find in Vedic religion or what it was later on
called as Hinduism. It gave us the divine social order in the form
of Varna-Vyavastha consisting of four major Castes—the Brahmins,
the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras. It was created by
Prajapati, God of the world, for the well-being of mankind. Such
a scheme became an ideal for society to follow. Although it was
non-existent, yet it was real, divinely ordained as claimed by the
so-called sacred books of Hinduism.
Ambedkar did not accept the divine social governance under
the Chaturya-Varna, because in it, there was no choice of free
avocation, no economic independence and no economic security.
It had developed a hierarchical order of different castes resulting
in inequalities of severe nature. In fact, this order devitalised men,
particularly the Shudras. It was a process of sterilisation. It denied
wealth, education and arms to its people. It did not fulfil the test

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 241

of social utility. This divine social governance dissected society in

fragments, dissociated work from interest, disconnected intelligence
from labour, expropriated the rights of man to interests vital to
life. It also prevented society from mobilising resources for common
action in the hour of danger. Can it satisfy the test of social utility?,
asked Ambedkar. No, not at all. Therefore, he rejected the divine
social order (Chaturya-Varna) on the basis of its denial of liberty,
equality and fraternity.15
The idea of infallibility of religious texts as the source of
divine authority was also rejected by Ambedkar on the ground
that it prevented people from using the method of free inquiry and
examination of the efficacy of religious beliefs and practices. When
Ambedkar saw that the Hindus under the sanctions of Varna System
hesitated in matters of inter-dining and inter-caste marriages, he
found its main reason in the infallibility of the Hindu Shastras.
For the Shastras prescribed such rules as to prevent the Hindus
from inter-dining and inter-caste marriages. The people were afraid
of divine wrath if they tried to override the divinity and sanctity of
the Shastras. The infallibility of the Shastras did not permit the
use of critical reason in social matters. Therefore, Ambedkar
emphasised,
“The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the
Shastras...... Make every man and woman free from the thralldom
of the Shastras, cleanse their minds of the pernicious notions
founded on the Shastras, and he or she will inter-dine and inter-
marry....”16
In other words, for Ambedkar, nothing was infallible, and
everything must be subject to examination or to critical reason,
even the Vedas on the point of authority and divinity were not
final to him. It was really a riddle how the Vedas or the Hindu
Shastras were considered and declared to be ‘Infallible’.

The Salvation of the Soul

It is generally accepted in theistic religions like Hinduism
that the sole aim of an individual’s life is to attain Moksha, i.e.,

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

242 Dr. N.K. Singh

the salvation of the soul. Did Ambedkar believe in this thesis? No,
he did not believe in it, because, as Buddhist, he ruled out the
existence of any ‘Eternal Soul’, the main doctrine of Hinduism.
The idea is that the eternal soul goes from life to life because of its
Karmas. The soul transmigrates from one birth to another till
attains Moksha. The triangular theory of soul, Karma and
transmigration, has become the main thesis of Hinduism. Ambedkar
did not accept this view, because he believed in the theory of ‘an-
atta’ (no Soul) of Buddhism. Everything is impermanent. How
can there be permanent soul then? Moreover, the Hindu idea of
soul is based on the retributive theory of Karma, which he rejected
as an iniquitous doctrine. The only purpose of the Retributive
Theory of Karma as propounded by the Hindu Shastras was to
enable the state or the society to escape responsibility for the bad
condition of the poor and the lowly. How could Ambedkar believe
in such an inhuman and absurd doctrine while having faith in the
test of justice for religion?
Ambedkar rejected the metaphysical entities like soul and its
transmigration.
Agreeing with the Buddhist analysis, Ambedkar believed in
human mind which is quite different from the soul. Mind functions
but soul does not function. The belief in eternal soul is unprofitable,
and it only ends in creating superstitions. The entire structure of
Brahmani religion is based on Atman, which Ambedkar rejected
as unknown and unseen. The belief in the permanent soul did not
satisfy the intellect of Ambedkar.17 Since, for him, God is not an
essential element of a religion, so is the case with the soul.
Therefore, the question did not arise that an individual’s aim of
life must be to seek the salvation of soul through the grace of God,
as some Indian philosophers like Ramanujam and others thought.

Relation of Morality to God and Religion

With regard to the relation of morality to God and religion,
Ambedkar had his own view, and he did not agree with the idea

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 243

that morality was an outcome of the belief in God or it was an

integral part of religion. According to him, though the relation
between God and morality was not quite integral, the relation
between religion and morality was as a matter of truth; morality
has no place in religion, because today religion in general has
come to connect nothing but belief in God, belief in soul, worship
of God, curing of erring soul, propitiating God by prayers,
ceremonies, sacrifices etc. In fact, morality in theistic religions is
not effective, for the main things in them are the prayers, worship,
rituals, ceremonies and sacrifies.18 From another viewpoint, as
Ambedkar observed:
“Both religion and morality are connected with the same elemental
facts of human existence—namely life, death, birth and marriage.
Religion concentrates these life process while morality furnishes
rules for their preservation. Religion in consecrating the elemental
facts and processes of life came to consecrate also the rules laid
down by society for their preservation. Looked at from this point,
it is easily explained why the bond between Religion and Morality
took place. It was more intimate and more natural than the bond
between Religion and God.”19
In Ambedkar’s view, morality comes in the only wherein
man comes in relation to man, and if a religion does not believe in
the existence of God, morality takes its place as we see in the
Buddha’s Dhamma. In Dhamma, there is no place for prayers
pilgrimages, rituals, ceremonies or sacrifices. Morality is the
essence of Dhamma. Without it, there is no Dhamma. Morality in
Dhamma arises from the direct necessity for man to love man. It
does not require the sanction of God. It is not to please God that
man has to be moral. It is for his own good that man has to love
man.20 It is evident that Ambedkar linked no-theistic religion like
Buddhism with morality as an integral part of it. In his view, every
theistic religion preaches morality; but morality is not the root of
it. It only teaches to be good to your neighbour, because you are
both children of God or the men of Allah or Ishwara.

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

244 Dr. N.K. Singh

Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Hindu Philosophy of Religion

In Ambedkar’s interpretation, Hindu philosophy served—
neither social utility nor justice for the individual. But he began
his critique of Hinduism saying that the Hindu was not prepared
to face inquiry. ‘He either argues that religion is no importance or
he takes shelter behind the view—fostered by the study of
comparative religion—that all religions are good.’ Ambedkar said,
both these views were mistaken and untenable. Firstly, religion
was a social force. Those who denied the importance of religion
failed to realise how great was the potency and sanction that lay
behind a religious ideal, as compared with a purely secular ideal.
A religious ideal had a hold on mankind which transcended
considerations of earthly gain. This could not be said of a purely
secular ideal. Therefore, to ignore religion was to ignore a live
wire. Secondly, to argue that all religions were good was, according
to Ambedkar, a false notion. Everything depended upon what social
ideal a given religion held out as a divine scheme of governance.
As far as Hinduism is concerned his whole discussion is a
diatribe against its denial of the concepts of individual dignity and
justice. Quoting extensively from the Manusmriti, Ambedkar
showed that social and religious inequality were deep-rooted in
Hinduism. Manu did not stop at a non-recognition of individual
human worth, he advocated a debasement of it. This, Ambedkar
said, was clear from Manu’s explanation of the origin of various
castes and his condemnation of even the innocent practice of a
low-caste child being given high-sounding names. Hinduism, he
said, did not recognise human liberty, since there could be no
liberty without social equality, economic security or access to
knowledge, all of which Hinduism was opposed to. Hinduism did
not even recognise fraternity—though it said that the divine spirit
dwelt in all human beings—because fraternity could only be born
of fellow-feeling and Hinduism with its unending process of
splitting social life into smaller and smaller community-based
fragments and its emphasis on a secular as well as religious
hierarchy, discouraged the emergence of fellow-feeling.

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 245

He concluded his analysis saying that on the criterion of

‘justice’ Hinduism was found wanting, in so far as it was inimical
to equality, antagonistic to liberty and opposed to fraternity. Thus,
if Hinduism were to lay a claim to ‘justice’, it could only be in the
purely legal not moral sense. For, in the legal sense, whatever was
in conformity with law was just. In the moral sense, justice involved
a recognition of human equality. So far as Hinduism was concerned:
“Inequality is the Soul of Hinduism. The morality of Hinduism is
only social. It is immoral and inhuman to say the least.”21
Ambedkar then examined whether Hinduism served the
interest of utility—if not of justice. Again, he concluded in the
negative. Caste in Hinduism dissociated work from interest by
making occupation hereditary. It disconnected intelligence from
manual labour by denying the labourer access to knowledge. It
denied him the right to cultivate vital interests and, in the modern
context, caste obstructed the mobilisation of workers. He concluded
that caste was not merely a division of labour but also of
labourers.22
Since Ambedkar’s discussion up to this point was based
primarily on the Manusmriti, it could be said that his conclusions
were based on Hindu law rather than Hindu philosophy. Ambedkar
prompted this contention, saying that in Hinduism there was no
distinction between legal and moral philosophy. Hindu morality
did not stand at the level of individual conscience, and in this
sense a Hindu was a ‘social’ but not a ‘moral’ being. He admitted
that he had not discussed the Upanishads, but argued that while
the Upanishads might contain Hindu philosophy, the latter had no
link with Hindu religion. His examination was focused primarily
on the philosophy of Hindu religion. But even in Upanishadic
philosophy, Ambedkar found nothing to recommend. Following
Thomas Huxley, he condemned it as a philosophy of withdrawal
from the struggle for existence. He also quoted Lala Hardayal in
support of his criticism of Upanishadic philosophy.23
The points of departure for almost all of Ambedkar’s writings
on religion, philosophy or society are the values of individual

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

246 Dr. N.K. Singh

freedom, social equality and fraternity. These are the values which,
with the addition of rationality, form the core of the liberal value
framework. Ambedkar subscribed to it whole-heartedly. While, as
a leader of the untouchables, he quite naturally returned again and
again to the problems surrounding the achievement of equality, his
concern for individual freedom and fraternity was equally strong.
His criticism that the Hindu had no ‘conscience’ may seem harsh,
but within the context of his discussion he was making a specific
point, viz., that the Hindu was brought up more to conform to his
caste practice than to face problems of individual conscience. In
his undelivered address to the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore
(1936), Ambedkar had said:
“To put it in plain language, what Hindus call Religion is really
Law or at best legalised class-ethics. Frankly, I refuse to call this
code of ordinances, as Religion.”24
He felt that it deprived moral life of freedom and spontaneity and
reduce it to conformity or externally imposed rules. He wanted
such a religion to be abolished.
Yet, Ambedkar said that there was a perennial need for religion.
He agreed with Edmund Burke that true religion is the foundation
of society, the basis on which all true civil government rests.
Traditionally defined practice, and conformity to it, seemed to signify
righteous conduct to a Hindu. Caste, he said, mediated
simultaneously on issues of religious-moral correctness and secular
justice. To that extent the individual who conformed to his caste
behaviour escaped questions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. The problem
however is that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ cannot be decided except with
reference to a given value framework. Ambedkar’s critique that
individual freedom and equality were not the values on which the
Hindu social order was based is valid. When, therefore, one examines
a given system of deciding ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the light of a
different, a newer system of values, the inadequacy of the premises
on which the earlier practices were based becomes obvious.
This was in fact what had become evident to all the other
social and religious reformers of the nineteenth century, beginning
April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 247

with Rammohan Roy, Dayanand Saraswati, Phule, Renade,

Bhandarkar and others. But they had limited success in their
endeavours, limited primarily to the urban middle class and among
them again limited to the level of ratiocination, and not extended
to practice. What Ambedkar wanted was clear. To his audience in
Lahore he had planned to say:
“Whether you do or do not [follow my suggestions for reform]
you must give a new doctrinal basis to your Religion—a basis
that will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity,
in short, Democracy”.25
Ambedkar felt that it was this indifference and absence of a
genuine morality that often passed of a Hindu’s capacity for
tolerance. He had, in his address, listed four points which according
to him needed earnest consideration by the Hindus:
1. Hindus must decide whether or not to adopt a new
morality which would be practised universally within
the nation, because the type of morality a nation adopted
was critically important for its survival.
2. Hindus must decide what part of their heritage was
worth preserving and what part needed to be given up.
The fact of its having survived over the ages was no
guarantee that a practice was healthy for society.
3. They must stop looking upon the past as a supplier of
ideas for the present.
4. They must accept that nothing is permanent, nothing
sanatan.
In brief Ambedkar wanted that Hindus should adopt reason-
based moral principles, applicable to all segments of society, and
consistent with the needs and dominant values of the present. In
his mind, justifiably, caste was equated with Hindu religion, and
he considered caste not only an anachronism but unjust and
therefore unethical. To Ambedkar, religion should above all be a
set of moral principles that would sustain society. Caste did not
provide these principles. In fact, it negated them in every way. In

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

248 Dr. N.K. Singh

his emphasis on the role of moral values—as different from spiritual

values—one sees what made Buddhism a natural choice for him at
a later stage.
It may be argued that the picture that Ambedkar painted of a
morally insensitive, rule-bound, stultified Hindu society was an
exaggeration, and that through the dialogues in the Upanishads,
the tales of the epics, the teachings of saints, the values attached to
truthfulness, kindliness and fair play which were considered
essential for one’s spiritual progress through successive births,
Hinduism did seek to keep alive a native and spontaneous sense of
morality. Brought up as he was on the teachings of Kabir, Ambedkar
might not have totally denied this, but his point was that even the
practice of morality was caste bound. The individual accepted the
obligation to abide by these universal moral norms only for inter-
action within his caste, but not equally between castes. In fact he
quotes chapter and verse from the scriptures to show how the
acceptance of moral, as different from legal, obligation was often
limited to caste strata which led to the fragmentation of society.
Hindu society was an amalgam of castes, which stood in a
hierarchical relationship to one another and did not really form a
unified, and cohesive society.
Ambedkar was not against the existence of groups in society,
but he was against the exclusivism of groups. A society is not to
be condemned as a body because there are groups in it. It is to be
condemned if the groups are isolated, each leading an exclusive
life of its own. Because it is this isolation which produces the anti-
social spirit which makes co-operative effort so impossible of
achievement.26
Ambedkar held Brahmanism responsible for this state of Hindu
society, and since according to him Hinduism was but Brahmanism,
he found little that was defensible or praiseworthy in it. As Rege
points out, Ambedkar was more radical than earlier reformers.
Instead of seeking to reform Hinduism, he rejected it. Rege argues

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 249

that Ambedkar rejected ‘religion’ itself and sought to replace it by

Dhamma. He explains ‘Dhamma is morality conceived as sacred
and universal’. In this sense, Ambedkar’s concept of morality was
different from morality as preached in most religions. Ambedkar
considered such a universal morality scared, in the sense of being
inviolable.
For Ambedkar, religion came to have a specific meaning. In
a speech delivered in Bombay (1955) on the foundation of
Buddhism, he said that which promises equal opportunity to all is
the true religion. The rest are all false religions.’27 Later, in the
same lecture, he quoted Buddha’s advice to his followers. After
me religion itself will be your law-giver. If you do not observe
religion what use of is it? Religion accepted in the purity of mind
will be your law.’ For Ambedkar, religion had significance only in
so far as it helped to establish a moral order characterised by
equality, freedom and fraternity. And he was categorical that
Buddhism alone could create a climate favourable to Human
equality.28
On the issue of a belief in the transcendental, it would appear
that there was possibly a certain change in Ambedkar’s thinking
between the 1930s and the 1950s. In a speech delivered on 4
March, 1933 in Bombay, he had said to his audience,
“You have no reason to worry about whether or not there is a
God in this world. On the other hand, it is certain that all events
that transpire are the result of human action.”29
When he used the word ‘spiritual’ as he did in his 1936
speech at the Mahar conference, he was not referring to any
transcendental experience or transcendental reality. He said that
just as there were material reasons for his wanting to convert out
of Hinduism, there were also ‘spiritual’ reasons. The spiritual reason
that he gave were his dissatisfaction with the kind of society that
Hindu religion sustained. It was not a religion that helped an
individual seek the growth of his potential. He also spoke of the

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

250 Dr. N.K. Singh

fact that Hinduism did not teach one compassion, equality among
human beings or respect for individual freedom.
While Ambedkar rejected Hinduism, it would not be true to
say that he rejected religion itself. In fact, in his essay on the
philosophy of Hinduism, he insisted:
“... Religion is a social force. As I have pointed out religion
stands for a scheme of divine governance. The scheme becomes
an ideal for society to follow. The ideal may be non-existent in
the sense that it is something which is constructed. But although
non-existent, it is real. For an ideal it has full operative force
which is inherent in every ideal. Those who deny the importance
of religion not only forget this, they also forget to realise how
great is the potency and sanction that lies behind a religious ideal
as compared with that of a purely secular ideal.... A religious
ideal has a hold on mankind, irrespective of an earthly gain. This
can never be said of a purely secular ideal.... A religious ideal
never fails to work so long as there is faith in that ideal....”30
This underlines simultaneously the significance that Ambedkar
attached to a religion-inspired moral order and in the context of
his rejection of Hinduism—the legitimacy of his desire to belong
to a religion that incorporated the moral values that he cherished.

Ambedkar Approach to Buddhist Philosophy of Religion

Having detailed what it was that Ambedkar rejected when he
decided to abandon Hinduism, it is necessary now to examine in
some detail what it was about Buddhism that attracted him and the
process by which he came to his final decision. It would also be
necessary to understand his particular perception of the Buddhist
message. His first contact with Buddhism was probably through
his reading of Keluskar’s biography of Gautam Buddha, which the
author presented him when he successfully completed high school
in 1908. If the book left any deep impress on Ambedkar, it lay
dormant for many a long year. Even after he announced his resolve
to abandon Hinduism in 1936, he did not opt right away in favour
of Buddhism. Even in the presidential address that he had prepared
for the Lahore conference convened by the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal,
April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 251

he only repeated his resolve to leave Hinduism but gave no

indication of the faith which he wished to embrace. There was
much commotion caused among the organisers of the conference
by Ambedkar’s announcement, and Ambedkar’s decision not to
deliver the presidential address was a result of the efforts made by
the organisers to persuade him to delete a reference to his decision
to abandon Hinduism. Following the announcement, representatives
of different faiths publicly or privately invited Ambedkar to
embrace their faith.
The obvious choices before Ambedkar were Sikhism,
Christianity and Islam. Of these, it would appear that Islam was
not considered seriously at any stage. One important reason for
this could have been that by choosing Islam in the changed
atmosphere of Hindu-Muslim communal tension, Ambedkar would
have invited even greater hostility from the Hindus towards himself
and his followers. This is only conjecture and there is no specific
comment by Ambedkar to suggest this. Actually, when Ambedkar
announced his resolve to leave Hinduism in 1936, there were
Muslim as well as Sikh observers present at the meeting. But as
regards Islam and Christianity Ambedkar seems to have had the
feeling that both these religions practised a caste system of their
own. With regard to Christianity he also had the complaint that
the Church had not been able to further the interests of its depressed
class converts in any substantial manner.
Of the three—Sikhism, Christianity and Islam—only Sikhism
was seriously considered for adoption. Ambedkar sent his son and
nephew to the Golden Temple in Amritsar. He also sent another
group of thirteen young men to study Sikhism. He had discussions
with Dr. Moonje of the Hindu Mahasabha on the choice of Sikhism.
But he seems to have given up the idea of opting for Sikhism,
sometime after his return from London. Keer mentions this in his
biography of Ambedkar but gives no date or year.31 It would
appear though that this must have been after one of his visits to
London in the mid-1930s.

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

252 Dr. N.K. Singh

The formal declaration of the decision to embrace Buddhism

came in May 1950, and in the same year he gave a talk at the
Young Buddhists Conference in Colombo on the rise and fall of
Buddhism. Obviously the decision could not have been sudden,
and one would assume that he had been reading on Buddhism for
at least a few years. The factor that would have weighed against
the choice of Buddhism must have been primarily that Buddhism
had very little following left in India, though it was the land of its
birth. Conversion to Buddhism would mean that it would get
identified as the religion of the erstwhile untouchables and, to that
extent, would reinforce their social isolation. For, there is no doubt
that Ambedkar was not thinking of conversion only for himself.
He was conceiving of it as an act in which a substantial number of
his followers would join him. The choice of Buddhism would
mean the loss of any marginal gain that might have resulted from
increasing the relative size of one of the existing minorities. At the
same time, Ambedkar was equally certain that the adopting of
Buddhism as their religion was likely to meet with the least
opposition from the Hindu majority.
A reference to these social and political factors need not
mean that Ambedkar gave them the greatest weight in his choice.
As he said in several of his speeches, it was the social, moral and
spiritual message of Buddhism that had attracted him. But, being a
leader of the people, Ambedkar was hardly in a position to make a
purely personal choice in this important matter without considering
what it would mean for his followers. It was a combination of
these considerations that must have finally made him decide in
favour of Buddhism.
Raghuvanshi in his collection of Ambedkar’s speeches has
reproduced a speech which is most definitive of Ambedkar’s
position on conversion to Buddhism.32 Unfortunately, Raghuvanshi
has mentioned neither the date nor the place where the speech was
delivered. Since it is a speech addressed to the Mahars, it must
have been delivered in Bombay. And since it contains a reference
to the law as adopted in 1950, whereby a person changing his

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 253

religion does not thereby cease to enjoy or lose his rights of

inheritance or property, it must have been delivered in or after
1950. The importance of speech lies in that it makes a stout defence
of Ambedkar’s decision to convert to another religion, gives the
reasons for his dissatisfaction with Hinduism, speaks reverentially
of the Buddha and advises his followers to surrender to their own
judgment in this important matter. But the speech does not contain
any categorical statement that he had decided upon Buddhism as
the religion of his choice.
It is amply clear that what attracted Ambedkar to Buddhism
was its message of equality and fraternity, its respect for the human
being, its universal morality and its emphasis on the quality of
compassion. Yet, Ambedkar was conscious that there were aspects
of Buddhist thought and organisation which would not be wholly
acceptable to him, and he sought to cope with this problem by
giving his own interpretation to the message of the Buddha. This
is what he attempted to do in his treatise, the Buddha and His
Dhamma. In the brief introduction to this book, he went directly
to the heart of the matter and raised four important questions.
The first problem relates to the main event in the life of the
Buddha, namely, parivaraja. Why did the Buddha take parivaraja?
Ambedkar found the traditional answer in extent accounts of the
life of Gautam unsatisfactory and provided his own explanation
in terms of a moral dilemma which could occur only in the life of
a person as high-minded and morally sensitive as Gautam was.
The second problem that Ambedkar raised was about the four
Aryan truths which were considered a part of the original teachings
of the Buddha. Ambedkar found this assumption unacceptable.
He thought that the four Aryan truths made the gospel of the
Buddha a gospel of pessimism by focusing on sorrow as the
central fact of life. He wondered whether the four truths were
really a part of the original Buddhist doctrine or a later inter-
polation.
The third problem was that if the Buddha denied the existence of
the soul, how could there be rebirth and how could there be

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

254 Dr. N.K. Singh

karma? He wondered whether the Buddha used these terms in a

sense other than the one usually given to them.
The fourth problem related to the status and functions of the
bhikku: Was the bhikku only a perfect man or did he have a social
function? If the bhikku was only a perfect man, he was of no use
for the propagation of Buddhism. ‘This question’ Ambedkar said,
‘must be decided not so much in the interest of doctrinal
consistency but in the interest of the future of Buddhism.’
We will discuss these question and Ambedkar’s answer to
them not so much to decide the correctness of Ambedkar’s position
but permissibly to see why these questions seemed so important to
Ambedkar and how their being settled one way or the other would
affect Ambedkar’s own philosophy. Ambedkar’s version of why
Gautam took parivraja is wholly different from the traditional
version in which he is said to have decided to give up his life as a
young prince in response to his realisation of the transitoriness of
life and the essential sorrow that lies at its core, which was sparked
off by his passion an old man, a sick man and a dead body on one
of his rare excursions outside the king’s palace. Ambedkar
considered this story unlikely and unacceptable. Gautam was 29
years of age when he took parivraja and it was highly unlikely
that a young man of his age could have remained ignorant of these
facts of life, however protected his life may have been. Ambedkar’s
story mentions all these incidents as also the fact that in his anxiety
to forestall the possibility of his son taking to the life of a sanyasi,
the king tried his best to keep him involved in a life of youthful
pleasure.
But Ambedkar’s Gautam was amature person, who despite
his philosophic leanings did not wish to turn his back on the
realities of life. The parivraja was a self-selected mode of
punishment for his disagreement with the council of elders on the
question of whether the Sakyas should fight a war with the
Koleyas—a neighbouring community—over a dispute regarding
the use of water from a common rivulet. He considered war
unnecessary and unwise as a way of resolving the dispute, but the
council of elders felt otherwise. Since he was unwilling to fall in
April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 255

line with the decision of the majority, since he did not wish his
family to suffer ostracism from the rest of the community and
since also the council could not sentence him to death without the
permission of the Magadh King—of whose empire the Sakya
kingdom was a small part—Gautam suggested and accepted the
only form of punishment that he could be given, viz., his banishment
as a parivrajak. By so doing, Gautam kept his conscience clear
and yet submitted to the rules of discipline laid down by the
community. His was, therefore, a moral solution to a moral
dilemma. Besides, unlike the common version of Gautam’s secret
exit from the palace, in Ambedkar’s version he shows courage
and persuasive skill in getting his parents and his wife to accept
his decision.
Ambedkar’s version shows up Gautam in a much more
positive light—not as a person who seeks to shelter himself from
life’s sorrow but as a morally responsible, mature, philosophically
inclined person, who converts a difficult situation into a creative,
spiritual adventure of finding answers to the dilemmas of life,
which include not only its transitory nature and sorrow but also its
tendency to resort to violence as a way of resolving conflicts.
Ambedkar does not say whether there is any base on Buddhist
historical tradition for his version. It is of course plausible that,
consistent with the spirit of the times, two small neighbouring
communities like those of the Sakyas and the Koleyas would be
engaged in intermittent wars over territory or share of a common
water source, but to convert it into a moral dilemma resulting in
Gautam’s voluntary choice of a punishment was apparently
Ambedkar’s creative interpretation. Ambedkar’s message got a
further and new dimension when, according to his version, Gautam
decided to continue his self-imposed isolation even after he heard
that the Sakyas and Koleyas had agreed to settle their differences
through negotiations. Ambedkar’s Gautam looked upon the Sakya-
Koleya dispute as only one instance of the basic problem of
conflicts between individuals, between kingdoms and between
classes within the same society. This perception of a conflict of

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

256 Dr. N.K. Singh

interest between classes was again a new emphasis that Ambedkar

added.
The second question that Ambedkar had raised about the
Buddha’s teaching was whether the four Aryan truths which focused
upon the centrality of sorrow in human life were really a part of
the original Buddhist teaching or a later interpolation. He did not
directly answer the question, but sought to mitigate the pessimistic
implications of the four Aryan truths saying that Gautam’s teaching
emphasised how sorrow could be overcome. Ambedkar raised the
question specifically in a separate sub-section entitled ‘Is Buddhism
Pessimistic?33 Noting that the accusation arose from the first Aryan
truth which said that there is dukkha in the world, Ambedkar
expressed surprise that this mere fact should have given rise to
accusations of pessimism. He pointed out that the Buddha’s second
Aryan truth emphasised that this dukkha must be removed. In the
same sub-section, Ambedkar pointed out that Karl Marx also
highlighted the exploitation in the world, yet no one accused Marx
of being a pessimist. He said that the Buddha’s reference to birth,
old age and death being sorrowful, in his first sermon, was a form
of rhetoric used to underline the fact that his teaching was concerned
with the removal of this suffering.
On the third question regarding how the Buddha could have
affirmed the doctrine of karma and rebirth when he denied the
existence of a soul, Ambedkar’s answer was that the Buddha’s
law of karma only meant ‘reap as you sow’ and that it applied
only to karma and its effect on present life.34 But then he went on
to accept that there was an extended doctrine of karma which was
often attributed to the Buddha and asked, ‘Did the Buddha believe
in past karma having an effect on future life?35 He answered ‘The
doctrine of past karma is a purely Brahmanic doctrine.’ He thought
that it was introduced into Buddhism by those who wanted to
make Buddhism akin to Hinduism. He further said that the doctrine
of past karma as the regulator of future life was an iniquitous
doctrine and the only purpose of introducing such a doctrine could
have been for the state or the society to escape responsibility for

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 257

the condition of the poor. ‘It is impossible to imagine that the

Buddha who was known as the Maha Karunika could have
supported such a doctrine.’
But the Buddha had also talked of rebirth. If there was no
soul, how could there be rebirth? Ambedkar’s explanation was
that in Buddhist belief, when a person died, the elements of
existence which make up the body joined the mass of similar
elements floating in akash (space). When the four elements from
this floating mass coalesced, a new birth took place. This is what
the Buddha meant by rebirth.36 Thus, what was reborn was not the
soul nor the personality, as was often imputed in Hindu thought.
Ambedkar was naturally keen that in his reason-based
interpretation of the Buddha’s message, notions like rebirth and
karma should not find a place. His objection to the idea of karma
also flowed from his objection to fatalist explanations of sorrow
and deprivation in a person’s life. Such an interpretation would
strike at the root of any effort to promote self-help and hard work
on the one hand and the responsibility of the society for the well-
being of the individual on the other. These are the very reasons
why both liberals and socialists all over the world have objected
to any imputation of spiritual or moral element in the explanation
for human suffering.
It is also possible that these notions of rebirth and karma
were post-Gautam interpolations by his Brahman-dominated
following—for, there were among the Buddhist elite many who
were born Brahmans. But even if these notions were not
interpolations, but were part of the Buddha’s message, it would
not be very surprising because these were obviously areas in which
the Buddha remained ambiguous—even if one goes by Ambedkar’s
own version of what the Buddha said on the themes of soul,
transmigration, rebirth and karma. Ambedkar reproduced the
dialogue between Raja Pasenadi and the Tathagat.37 To the Raja’s
question whether the Tathagat existed after death, the Buddha
replied, ‘Not revealed by me, maharajah in this context.’ Again, to
the question whether this meant the Tathagat did not exist after

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

258 Dr. N.K. Singh

death, the reply was the same. When pressed further, the Tathagat
only replied by way of posing questions in turn. Obviously what
the Buddha meant to suggest was that such queries were idle and
born of sterile curiosity, rather than a genuine spiritual quest. But
these quarries have been raised in all religions born in this
subcontinent. Ambedkar said that while the Buddha denied the
concept of the soul, he still affirmed rebirth. He insisted, ‘There
can be rebirth even if there is no soul—just as there is a new tree
born of a seed taken from the fruit of an earlier tree.’ There is no
soul! Yes but then, there is a seed!38
The last question raised by Ambedkar concerned the role of
the bhikku. From one point of view, a bhikku was a person who
had decided to forgo family life in order that he may seek his own
‘spiritual’ fulfilment and was therefore admitted to a special order,
which imposed certain moral and general behavioural discipline
on its members and, at the same time, provided security and an
opportunity for the uninterrupted pursuit of his goals. This ‘spiritual’
growth would, in Buddhist concept, consist of a moral and mental
refinement and of developing the qualities of prajnya and karuna—
wisdom and compassion or understanding and love. Ambedkar
seemed to find this and such other objectives relating to the
maturation of the individual members of the sangh an inadequate
justification for the creation of the special status of the bhikku. It
was not enough that a bhikku should develop into a perfect man.39
Quoting from Gautam’s dialogue with Nigrodha, Ambedkar said
that the bhikku was not a mere ascetic. An ascetic could be rigorous
in the observance of his special austerities, but he might be
covetous, hot tempered, even hypocritical. But a bhikku could not
allow himself such blemishes.
Ambedkar distinguished between a Brahman and a bhikku. A
Brahman was born so and yet he might have no mental or moral
training. Not so a bhikku. One became a bhikku by observing the
norms of a bhikku’s life and being admitted to the sangh. The
bhikku was also different from the upasaka—the lay Buddhist.
The bhikku must observe the panchsilas; for the upasaka they

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 259

were precepts but not commandments. ‘Why did the Blessed Lord
make such a distinction? asked Ambedkar. He admitted that the
reason for the distinction was nowhere explicitly stated by the
Buddha. It had to be inferred. He said that the bhikku was intended
to be the torch-bearer of the Buddha’s ideal society and the upasaka
was to follow the bhikku as closely as possible. He then asked
what the function of the bhikku was, and answered that the bhikku
must both devote himself to self-culture and also serve the people
and guide them.40 A bhikku who is indifferent to the woes of
mankind, however perfect in self culture, is not at all a bhikku.’
This, again, is inference. The Buddha probably expected that if
the bhikku did attain the discipline and the moral sensitivity
emphasised by the eight-fold path, he would automatically be
responsive to the needs of others. Ambedkar was keen that the
bhikku and his sangh should become tools of social development
and not remain preoccupied with self-refinement as an end
in itself.
Ambedkar went on to list the functions of the bhikku as
mentioned by the Buddha.41 The Buddha had said ‘Go ye now,
and wander for the gain of the many, for the welfare of the many,
out of compassion for the world; for the good, for the gain and for
the welfare of gods and man.’ The bhikku was to convert people
to the dhamma but not by miracles or force. Yet, Ambedkar
interpreted the Buddha as having said that where virtue was in
danger, the bhikkus were not to avoid fighting or be mealy-
mouthed.42 He emphasised that the bhikku and the sangh were be-
holden to the laity for support and were reciprocally bound to
serve the community and lead it to righteous conduct. The Vinaya
Pitaka, Ambedkar said, require the bhikku to redress the complaints
of the laity.
When Ambedkar’s book on the Buddha and his Dhamma
was published, it was received adoringly by followers, coolly by
most others and sardonically by orthodox Buddhists, whose attitude
was probably summed up by the reviewer who said that the book
was about Ambedkar and his dhamma. Leaving aside scholastic

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV

260 Dr. N.K. Singh

disputes, what emerged was a version of the Buddha’s teachings

which was consistent with a modern liberal philosophy, met the
criterion of a religion with a social mission and answered the
needs of India’s deprived millions. It was kept on the plane of
reason; it commended love and compassion, supported equality
and individual freedom and emphasised individual responsibility.
To sum up, for Ambedkar the function of religion was to
provide legitimacy to the set of values and rules that would help
establish a moral order among human beings. These values and
rules could be particularistic, relatively arbitrary and community
specific when the communities were small and isolated. Concepts
of local deities and of behavioural norms that were thought to
please them, were an adequate base for a semblance of social
order so long as they served the interests of the power elite in the
community. But with changes in technology, in the means of
production and the means of communication, isolated human groups
were forced into contact with one another, and the need arose for
new values and rules which were more universal. What was needed
was a more universal morality and more universal concept of
godhood. A morality which was based on the principles of truth
and love, which recognised the principles of individual freedom,
individual worth and equality was essential. Hinduism, according
to Ambedkar, did not recognise the principles of freedom and
equality and had not succeeded in evolving a universal morality.
Buddhism had—especially if it was cleansed of the Brahmanic
interpolations of the doctrines of karma and rebirth.
This last was important if the erstwhile untouchables were to
be helped to free themselves from the weight of presumed sin and
moral transgressions in a previous life, as accounting for their
present misery. The individual had to have the confidence that his
efforts could make a difference to his intellectual, material and
moral well-being. A Buddhism which propagated the ideas of
rebirth and karma could hardly help in this direction. Equally, the
notion of a soul which progressed slowly through successive births
towards self-realisation could not provide the basis for a belief in
the freedom of the will and the immediate efficacy of action.

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 261

Relevance of Religion in the Modern Age

How far is religion relevant in the modern age? It is very
difficult to judge with regard to a particular religion. But man has
to consider this question, because he is, somehow, related to this
or that religion. For this purpose, Ambedkar has applied the test of
justice and the test of social utility to judge the relevance of a
religion. It is really desirable to put relation on its trial from time
to time. It is true, as Ambedkar recognised, that religion, as a
social force, cannot be ignored.
Besides, religion stands for a scheme of divine governance,
though non-existent, yet it is real as we find in the case of Hindu
social order. What is Ambedkar’s test of justice and utility? It
consists in the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity, a trinity of
great principles. Does Hinduism recognise and practise them? No,
not at all as Ambedkar realised it. Therefore, he renounced it and
took refuge in the Dhamma of Lord Buddha, which stood for the
great principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. He examined
the basic tenets of Hindu social order and found them inimical to
social utility and individual justice. In a nutshell, ‘... Hinduism is
inimical to equality, antagonistic to liberty and opposed to
fraternity’, as was asserted by Ambedkar.43 For Ambedkar, religion
is a social force, and is essential for man and society. He agreed
with Edmund Burke who said:
“True religion is the foundation of society, the basis on which all
true civil Government rests, and both their sanction”.44
But at the same time, Ambedkar condemned a religion of
rules and preferred a religion of principles. ‘Which along could
lay claim to being a true Religion’.45 For him the distinction
between rules and principles was real and most significant. He
drew a fine distinction between both kinds of religions as follows:
“Rules are practical, they are habitual ways of doing things
according to prescription. But principles are intellectual, they are
useful methods of judging things. Rules seek to tell an agent just
what course of action to pursue. Principles do not prescribe a
Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV
262 Dr. N.K. Singh

specific course of action. Rules, like cooking recipes, do tell just

what to do and how to do it. A principle such as that of justice,
supplies a main head by reference to which he is to consider the
bearings of his desires and purposes, it guides him in his thinking
by suggesting to him the important consideration which he should
bear in mind. This difference between rules and principles makes
the acts done in pursuit of them different in quality and in content.
Doing what is said to be good by virtue of a rule and doing good
in the light of a principle are two different things. The principle
may be wrong but the act is conscious and responsible. The rule
may be right but the act is mechanical. A religious act may not be
a correct act but must at least be a responsible act. To permit of
this responsibility. Religion must be a matter of principles only. It
cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into rules,
it ceases to be Religion, as it kills responsibility which is the
essence of a truly religious act.”46
It is quite evident now that Ambedkar’s philosophy of religion
stands for the necessity of religion in society. Over a long period
of social development, man has really become a ‘religious being’.
At present, religion has a hold on mankind. Besides, its spiritual
aspects, religion gives us some secular ideals, and its power depends
upon its power to confer material benefits to mankind. Although
Ambedkar realised that ‘to ignore Religion was to ignore a live
wire’.47 At the same time, he emphasised that:
“Religion must not be multitude of commands and prohibitions,
because such religion tends to deprive the moral life of freedom
and spontaneity and tends to reduce it to a more or less anxious
and servile conformity to externally imposed rules. He also disliked
a Religion as a Law or as legalised class ethics as we find in
some of the existing religions”.48
Ambedkar’s philosophy of religion rests on the following
premises:
1. That religion is necessary for man and society to manage
the secular and moral affairs of mankind; but to hold
the view that all religions are equally true and good is
to cherish a wrong belief.
April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 263

2. That most of the existing religions are theistic and

metaphysical; but to maintain that God is an essential
element of a religion is also to nourish a mistaken faith.
3. That religions wish to develop the social systems of
their own choice to bring men together in peace for
progress; but to bestow a divine governance over them
is to prevent the growth of an open society.
4. That religions must preserve their text-books for guiding
the people in right direction; but to believe in their
infallibility and divine authority is to mar the growth of
free inquiry and critical reason.
5. That eternal soul is unknown and unseen, a mere meta-
physical speculation and to say that an individual’s aim
of life is to achieve its salvation (Moksha) is to escape
the social responsibility bestowed on him as a member
of society.
6. That all religions develop some sort of prayers and
pilgrimages, rituals and ceremonies, as religious duties
for men simply being certain appendages to a religion;
but the most integral part of a religion is the morality it
professes for the welfare of mankind.
7. That the centre of religion is man, the base is morality,
the aim is the secular welfare of mankind, and the means
is the righteous conduct embedded in social
responsibility that all human beings owe towards their
fellow-beings living in human society.
8. That the test of justice and utility must be applied to
judge the relevance of a religion, and that consists in
the trinity ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity to
effect the necessary change in its social norms of cruel
and tyrannical nature.
The scope of Ambedkar’s philosophy of religion is much
more than what I have undertaken to analyse in the foregoing
pages. It is vast and immense. It requires a full text to cover all its
aspects. I have simply given some outlines of it and have reached
Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV
264 Dr. N.K. Singh

the conclusions of thoughtful nature. I leave it to you to judge

without having prejudices and presuppositions of sentimental
nature.
REFERENCES
1. B.R. Ambedkar, “The Philosophy of Religion”, quoted in Writings
and Speeches, Vol. 3, 1987, p. 4.
2. D. Keer, Dr. Ambedkar—Life and Mission, op. cit., 455, Vol. 3,
p. 4.
3. Pringle Pattison, The Philosophy of Religion, op. cit., pp. 1–2.
4. A Dictionary of Philosophy, 1967, p. 387.
5. B.R. Ambedkar, Writings And Speeches, Vol. 3. p. 6.
6. G.T. Bettany, Encyclopedia of World Religions, p. 2.
7. Ibid., p. 20.
8. B.R. Ambedkar, Writings And Speeches, Vol. 3, p. 6.
9. Ibid., p. 5.
10. Ibid., p. 9.
11. Ibid., p. 24.
12. Ibid., p. 12.
13. Ibid., p. 21.
14. B.R. Ambedkar, The Buddha and his Dhamma, Bombay, Siddharth
Publication 1957, p. 251.
15. For details see B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, pp. 58–59.
16. Ibid., pp. 58–59.
17. B.R. Ambedkar, The Buddha and his Dhamma, p. 259.
18. Ibid., p. 322.
19. Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 12.
20. Ibid., pp. 322–23.
21. B.R. Ambedkar, Philosophy of Hinduism, 1978, pt. I, p. 87.
22. Ibid., p. 62.
23. Ibid., p. 85.
24. Moon, 1979, p. 75.
25. Ibid., p. 77.
26. Ibid., 1987, 306.

April 2003
Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Religions: Dalit Point ... 265

27. Raghuvanshi, n.d., p. 135.

28. Ibid., pp. 81–83.
29. Ibid., pp. 96–99.
30. Moon, 1987 (a), pp. 23–24.
31. Keer, Biography of Ambedkar, 1962, p. 276.
32. Raghuvanshi, n.d., pp. 37–50.
33. Ibid., pp. 94–95.
34. Ibid., pp. 143–46.
35. Ambedkar, 1957, Book V, pt. III.
36. Ibid., Book V. pt. II: p. 338.
37. Ibid., p. 342.
38. Ibid., p. 330.
39. Ibid., pp. 335–36.
40. Ibid., p. 552.
41. Ibid., Book IV, pts. 2 and 3.
42. Ibid., p. 435.
43. B.R. Ambedkar, Writings And Speeches, Vol. 3, p. 66.
44. —, Annihilation of Caste, p. 74.
45. Ibid., p. 74.
46. Ibid., p. 71.
47. B.R. Ambedkar, Writings And Speeches, Vol. 3, p. 24.
48. —, Annihilation of Caste, pp. 72–73.

Global Religious Vision, Vol. 3/ IV