11 Navoyana Buddhism

Ms Priyanka Gupta

Introduction

The word ‘yana’ means method of practicing spirituality. Navayana or ‘new vehicle’ is referred to the religion of Dalit Buddhists in India. Dr B R Ambedkar, fondly known as ‘bhim’ and ‘Babasaheb’ reinterpreted traditional Buddhist texts to fight against Untouchability in India. As a result Navayana Buddhism was born and it marked a distinction from the three accepted ‘ways’ of Buddhism: the Hinayana (or Theravada), the Mahayana and the Vajrayana. The term Navayana derives from a press interview given by Babasaheb on 13th October 1956 in which he said, ‘I will accept and follow the teachings of Buddha. I will keep my people away from the different opinions of Hinayan and Mahayana. Our Bouddha Dharma is a new Bouddha Dharma Navayan.

The history of Navayana Buddhism is interlaced closely with the life of one of the most remarkable economist, a committed political leader, eminent jurist, Buddhist activist, philosopher, anthropologist, historian, orator, and writer – Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891–1956). As a Mahar, Ambedkar was subjected to many caste based discrimination and humiliation that left horrendous impressions on him as a young boy. So much so that even as a student at the Army school, run by the British government, fearing social outcry the teachers would segregate the students of the lower caste from the Brahmins and other upper castes by asking the untouchable students to sit outside the classroom. Such social discrimination followed young Bhimrao wherever he went which left him with sour memories.(Keer, 1954).

In this module we will first very briefly look at Ambedkar’s biographical sketch followed by a detailed focus on his understanding of religion along with his critique to Hinduism. Then we will analyse the social context in which he was subjected personally to many caste based discrimination and acts of Untouchability because he was a Mahar. Further, how this discrimination led to the genesis of the Mahar movement and the Non Brahman movement in order to challenge the Hindu Brahmanic religion. We will glance through the various mass based interventions to detest Hindu religion like the rights to public water tank, temple entry etc. We will look at how Ambedkar and Gandhi deferred in their understanding of the Hindu caste system. Finally we will discuss Ambedkar’s critique to Buddhism and his reinterpretation of Buddhist texts in order to confront the Hindu caste system. Finally how this led to the birth of Navayana Buddhism in India as an alternative society for modern India to which Ambedkar and thousands of other untouchables’ participated in mass based conversion to Buddhism in Nagpur in 1956.

The Mahar and the Non Brahman Movement in India

Zelliot (1996) illustrates that the Mahars of Maharashtra have prominently used political means most consistently in order to better their conditions in society as Untouchables. They are particularly important because it was with this group that the Untouchable Movement under the leadership of Ambedkar in India began in the early twentieth century. This movement won political and social rights for the Untouchables. Traditionally, the Mahars had no special skill or craft. Some worked as general village servants, performing the duties of watchman, street sweepers, wall-menders, caretakers of the cremation ground, and re- movers of dead cattle from the village. With the coming of the British and industrialization, many Mahars left the village and found work in the towns and cities, factories, shipping docks, railways and the army. Those Mahars remaining in villages were forced to abandon many of their traditional occupations due to economic and technological changes. Although the Mahar movement was primarily an urban movement, it created a strong political consciousness among village Mahars.(Jhungare, 1988 pp 93-94).

In response to the declining status of the Mahars, the Mahars themselves founded schools and college hostels for them to shape a new identity in Colonial India. In 1906, Vithal Ramji Shinde, a Maratha and a very influential caste reformer began his Depressed Classes Mission in Pune in order to educate thousand of untouchables, majority of them being the Mahars. By this time, the government schools were open to untouchables for education however by being made to sit in verandas or in separate sitting arrangements. These developments lead to a remarkable increase in the number of educated Mahar men and thus there came an awakening amongst them to uplift their social and economic status in the country. Of these 288 were literate in English and only one, B R Ambedkar was a college graduate. (Zelliot 1996, pp 63-64). Despite his foreign education he continued to endure insults while at work due to his low caste origin. He suffered the dishonour of having document files hurled by peons at his face or not being served drinking water during official functions. At the officer’s club, he had to sit in a corner and keep his distance from the other members belonging to higher castes. These repeated experiences of humiliation compelled him to trace the cause of all these wretchedness to the existing social order more specifically the caste system and its cultural and political significance in Indian society.As an educated Mahar Ambedkar was committed to the liberation of the untouchables and backward Classes to whom he refereed as the Depressed Classes of Indian society. As a part of his leadership, he repeatedly appealed to the fellow Mahars to join religious festivals of the upper caste groups and gain an entry to the temple as well as perform Vedic rituals for marriage ceremonies.

Around the same time for the same purpose, two large and by far the most effective protest movements flourished in Maharashtra – the Non Brahman movement and the Mahar movement. Both of these movements greatly helped in bringing consciousness amongst the untouchables about caste based discrimination exercised on them by the upper caste Brahmans. Besides the leadership skills of Ambedkar, these movements were also possible due to the grievances understood as well as felt by the elite members of the lower caste and class groups. These movements also gained popularity because they were dominated by Western views of democracy and principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Ambedkar received a thundering response from his fellow caste men which further enabled him to effectively work on a larger scale on the social issue of Untouchability. He liberally used the public platform of Government Commission to demand rights for the Depressed Classes which also included other lower caste groups along with the Mahars. He demanded that the Depressed Classes were entitled to their representation in the legislative assembly as the touchables could not understand the plight of the Untouchables. (Zelliot, 1996: 64).

A very significant movement ignited in Mahad by the Mahars and other members of the Depressed Classes to assert their rights to take water from public watering places. Ambedkar organized the rally led by Untouchables to assert their legal right to take water from the Chowdar tank. The Chowdar tank of Mahad was made a public tank in 1869. In 1923, the Bombay Legislative Council passed a resolution to the effect that the untouchables be allowed to use all public watering places. The Mahad Municipality passed a resolution on 5 January 1927 to the effect that the Municipality had no objection to allowing the Dalit to use the tank. But the higher castes were hesitant in allowing the Dalit to use the tank. Soon after this resolution was passed a conference of the Dalit of the Colaba district was held for two days. Ambedkar also convened a conference on 18-20th March 1927 on this issue. On 20 March 1927, the conference exhorted the Untouchablesto go to the Chowdar Tank and exercise their right to take water from it. The electrified untouchables and other Depressed Classes led by Ambedkar marched in a procession through the main streets and for the first time drank the water from Chowdar tank. It was here that he also burnt copies of the Hindu law book –Manusmriti.With this, a struggle for the human physical need of water and a citizen’s right of access to public space was transformed into a challenge to Brahmanic tradition. The day was December 26, 1927; and the struggle became celebrated as the ‘Untouchable Liberation Day’ from that time on. Similarly the temple entry Satyagraha took place at the Kalaram temple at Nasik in Maharashtra. The temples of Hindus carried boards that practically said: “All Hindus and all animals including gods are admitted; only Untouchables are not admitted”. On this Ambedkar said-“To open or not to open your temples is a question for you to consider and not for me to agitate. If you think, it is bad manners not to respect the sacredness of human personality, open your temple and be a gentleman. If you rather be a Hindu than a gentleman, then shut the doors and damn yourself for I don’t care to come.”

In 1930, Ambedkar launched Kalaram Temple movement. This was a non-violent movement for which he was preparing for three months. About 15000 volunteers assembled at Kalaram Temple satygraha making one of the greatest processions of Nasik. The procession was headed by a military band, a batch of scouts, women and men walked in discipline, order and determination to see the god for the first time. When they reached to gate, the gates were closed by Brahmin authorities. These agitations between the orthodox Hindus and the Depressed Classes continued for over a year and finally Ambedkar decided to call the movement off as it wasn’t yielding any progress. However, the movement did leave an impactful impression about the collective conscience of the Untouchables under Ambedkar’s leadership.

As Dhananjay Keer (1971) writes, on 13th October 1935, at a conference convened on the issue, famously known as the Yeola Conference Ambedkar recounted these experiences of the Depressed Classes which he called as the Nasik Satyagraha. He was deeply unhappy that the decade long struggle for social reformation within the Hindu religion was yielding no political progress for his people . He expressed that the Hindu society is unredeemable and the social equality of the Depressed Classes cannot be achieved as long as they are inside the Hindu society. Thus he opened up his mind before his followers and asked them to give up the hope of achieving the social rights of the Depressed Classes by reforming the Hindu Society. He said the following in his speech-

“Even this movement to obtain our ordinary rights as human beings and achieve equality in Hindu society has failed. The time, the money and the energy on this movement have proved wasteful. This is a tragic situation. Thus the time has arrived for us to take a final decision. This weak and lowly status that we occupy is because we are part of the Hindu Society”

He appealed to his followers to cut their connections with Hinduism and seek solace and self-respect in another religion. However, he also warned them to ensure that the religion they choose should guarantee them equality of treatment, status and opportunities unreservedly. He further said that it’s his misfortune to be born as a Hindu Untouchable which was beyond his power to control however what is in his control is to refuse to live under the ignoble and humiliating conditions that Hindu religion perpetuates. He openly declared at this conference that ‘I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu’ (Keer, 1971,pp 253)

Ambedkar’s appeal for conversion to the Depressed Classes

To gather support from the Depressed Classes for his conversion movement, he organised a conference for the Mahar community on 31st May 1936 at Dadar, Bombay. In his speech titles Why go for Conversion?he said the following ‘You have nothing to lose, except your chains and everything to gain by changing your religion’ He further said ‘Because of Untouchability your merits go unrewarded, there is no appreciation of your mental and physical qualities. Because of it you are debarred from entering into the army, police department and navy. Untouchability is a curse that has ruined your worldly existence, honour and name.’ He further outspokenly declared that he has no faith in the honesty of the Hindu social reformers who lived in their own caste, married in it and dies in it! He also declared that even Gandhi had not the courage to take up the cudgels against the caste Hindus on behalf of the Depressed Classes. He argued that ‘just as Swaraj in necessary for India, so also a change of religion is necessary for the untouchables’. The underlying motive in both these movements is the desire for freedom’ He assured his people that they will not suffer any political consequences on changing their religion and that they would get the support of the community which they choose. The Conference declared by a resolution that the Mahar community was prepared for a change of religion and Ambedkar then urged then from henceforth worshiping Hindu deities, stop the observance of Hindu festivals and stop going to Hindu places of worship. (Keer, 1971 pp 274-275)

Ambedkar’s critique to Hindu religion and the caste system

Fitzgerald (1999) points that Ambedkar was committed to find a religion that guaranteed egalitarianism and democracy than simple acceptance of the status quo. He fought relentlessly to find a stable and satisfactory ideological expression other than Hinduism for the Depressed Classes. Such, which gave them a dignified human existence and would free them from the clutches of the exploitative Hindu caste system. Also, Ambedkar believed that in modern India the priority must be institutional liberation through religion which Hinduism and the caste system failed to do. For him, the struggle for liberation meant freedom from institutional bondage and freedom from the bondage of untouchabilty that the Hindu caste system encouraged, Ambedkar sought a political solution.Taking a vow of ridding outUntouchability and inhuman injustice, he rebelled against Manu, and his Manusmriti that encouraged the existence of caste based discrimination right from Ancient Indian culture. (Jhungare, 1988). He wasmotivated to work for the down-trodden section of the society by availing to them social and political freedom which according to Hinduism failed to deliver. He strived to reform Hindu religion for social, cultural and political progress of the backward Classes of Indian society.

Ambedkar vehemently critiqued Hindu religious practices from a rationalist and humanist point of view. He questioned the sinless nature of Hindu religious books which he held responsible for the creation of the caste system. In strongly felt that caste would only be annihilated if Hindus lost faith in the religious books which sanctify the Varnashrama-dharma and caste system. ( Omvedt , 2003).What is significant here is to understand that by doing this Ambedkar was trying his best to convince and stop the Untouchables from begging in front of the Hindus for freedom of praying in their temples or being a part of the Hindu society. He wanted the Depressed Classes to learn that the road to dignity and self-respect was not to beg the oppressors for it, but instead challenge them and all that they considered holy. In 1936 he published, The Annihilation of Castewhich was a speech he had prepared to deliver at the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal of Lahore. They rejected the draft of his speech on grounds of some contents in the speech being too ‘unbearable’ and dangerous. (Fitzgerald, 1999)

Ambedkar was asked to make changes in the following part of his speech which he refused to make and as a result his speech remained undelivered.

The real method of breaking up the caste system was not to bring about inter-caste dinners and inter caste marriages but to destroy the religious notions on which caste is founded (Ambedkar, 1936 pp 49)

In Annihilationof Caste he argued Hinduism as a religion of rules, a compendium of ritual; regulations based on caste ideology of hierarchy and Untouchability.He acknowledgedthat while he condemns the Hinduism as a religion of rules, he must not me misunderstood as holding an opinion of having no necessity of religion. He said the following “Consequently, when I urge that these ancient rules of life be annulled, I am anxious that its place shall be taken by a Religion of Principles, which alone can lay claim to being a true Religion. Indeed, I am so convinced of the necessity of Religion that I feel I ought to tell you in outline what I regard as necessary items in this religious reform. The following in my opinion should be the cardinal items in this reform-

(1)There should be one and only one standard book of Hindu Religion, acceptable to all Hindus and recognized by all Hindus. This of course means that all other books of Hindu religion such as Vedas, Shastras and Puranas, which are treated as sacred and authoritative, must by law cease to be so and the preaching of any doctrine, religious or social contained in these books should be penalized.

(2)It should be better if priesthood among Hindus was abolished. But as this seems to be impossible, the priesthood must at least cease to be hereditary. Every person who professes to be a Hindu must be eligible for being a priest. It should be provided by law that no Hindu shall be entitled to be a priest unless he has passed an examination prescribed by the State and holds a sanad from the State permitting him to practise.

(3)No ceremony performed by a priest who does not hold a sanad shall be deemed to be valid in law and it should be made penal for a person who has no sanad to officiate as a priest.

(4)A priest should be the servant of the State and should be subject to the disciplinary action by the State in the matter of his morals, beliefs and worship, in addition to his being subject along with other citizens to the ordinary law of the land.

(5)The number of priests should be limited by law according to the requirements of the State as is done in the case of the Indian Civil Service.” (Ambedkar, 1936)

As Fitzgerald points out, the religious notions that Ambedkar was referring to were specifically the traditional Hindu ideological rank which were based on ideas of purity and pollution which in turn manifests the phenomenon of Untouchability. Further, it is manifested in caste, in ritualism and in the suppression of autonomous individuality. He also pointed out in many of his writings that the Upanishads contain ideas of equality and freedom which were reinterpreted by the all pervasive hierarchal ritualism that was given in the Manusmriti. Fitzgerald further summarises Ambedkar’s critique on Hinduism by saying that political and constitutional reform cannot succeed unless it’s proceeded by social reform which aimed at the eradication of Untouchability. Social reform means abolition of the caste system because Untouchability is the defining feature of caste. For this purpose caste needs to be annihilated and not reformed which means abolishing of the Hindu ideology particularly as formulated in the Shastras and Smritis. (Fitzgerald, 1999 pp 124)

In this regard Ambedkar writes-

Caste is a notion; it is a state of the mind. The destruction of Caste does not therefore mean the destruction of a physical barrier. It means a notional change. Caste may be bad. Caste may lead to conduct so gross as to be called man’s inhumanity to man. All the same, it must be recognized that the Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman or wrongheaded. They observe Caste because they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing Caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of Caste. (Ambedkar, 1936 pp 110-111)

Ambedkar’s concept of religion and his search for new religion

In his work Ambedkar, Buddhism and the Concept of Religion (2007) Fitzgeraldpointsout thatAmbedkar had differing and even conflicting understanding of religion at different points of time. Through his writings like the Annihilation of Caste, Buddha and His Dhamma, the Buddha and the Future of His Religion he tried to develop a coherent account of the nature of religion and its relation to politics and power. He wished to replace region of rules with religion of principles. He understood religion dichotomously and referred to it as 1) ‘the Religion of Rules’ (by which he meant essentially caste hierarchy) 2) ‘the Religion of Principles’ (by which he meant essentially democratic egalitarianism, though not the extreme individualism of the West). Ambedkar had the insight here that principles or values which are normally referred to as ‘secular’ are as sacred as those conventionally referred to as ‘religious’, for example, those found in Hindu texts like the Manusmriti. (Fitzgerald, 2007, pp 133). For Ambedkar, religion was the driving force to all human activities. He often remarked, “Man cannot live by bread alone. He has a mind which needs food for thoughts” (Keer,1971). According to him religion must be judged by social standards based on social ethics. He linked religion with social wellbeing of the people. To him religion, social status and property were all sources of power and authority. He wanted to have religion in the sense of spiritual principles which truly served humanity.

After the conference at Bombay in May 1936, Ambedkar channelized all his energies in searching for anew religion. He considered Christianity, Islam and Sikhism as his options.He said the Islam and Christianity will give the Depressed Classes what they needed politically, socially and economically. However when he showed interest in converting to Christianity, his interest was resisted by the ‘Old Christians’ commonly known as Syrians who considered themselves as elite in the Christian faith. They feared that such an inflow of lower orders would complicate their monolithic faith. This gave Ambedkar glimpses of the existing social tensions of caste and sect within Christianity.Meanwhile, Muslim leaders were positively giving assurances to Ambedkar about the egalitarian nature of Islam and that conversion would allow him to become a leader of India’s largest majority.On the other hand, the Hindu Mahasabha feared that if the Untouchables converted in such large numbers it would weaken the majority community demographically and therefore electorally.(Jaffrelot, 2005).

In August 1936, Ambedkar then wrote a letter to Dr Moonje, the head of the Hindu Mahasabha saying that he has decided to choose Sikhism as it favoured the interests of Hindus and also that it was the duty of Hindus to help the Sikhs in removing the political and economic difficulties that lie in the way of Neo-Sikhs. He declared that Islam and Christianity were outside the Hindu fold which would make the Depressed Classes go outside the Hindu culture and also that conversion to Islam and Christianity will denationalise the Depressed Classes. He believed that if they embraced Sikhism they will remain within the Hindu culture and will have ‘some repsonsibility as for the future of Hindu culture and civilization’ and he wasn’t keen on breaking away from the majority community. With Sikhism they will help in the political advancement of the country. (Keer 1971, pp 279). In September 1936, he sent a delegation of 13 of his supporters to Amritsar to study the Sikh religion. In November, he went to England to sound out the British leaders about the guarantees which they would be ready to grant in the new Constitution to the Untouchables who would have converted to Sikhism. The British authorities replied that these provisions would apply only to the Sikhs of Punjab, which, in his views, was an irrelevant proposition. At the beginning of 1937, negotiations continued between Dr. Ambedkar and the Sikh leaders but meetings became less frequent and by the end of the year Dr. Ambedkar ceased to mention the idea of conversion. (Jaffrelot, 2005). After a while he dropped this idea too as it became clear that after conversion to Sikhism, the Depressed Classes would not carry their new political privileges into a new religion like this. In Christophe Jafflrelot’s work Dr Ambedkar’s Strategies Against Untouchability and the Caste System, he mentions that among the other factors accounting for his decision were first the fact that Sikh Dalits had conveyed to Dr. Ambedkar the atrocities they suffered at the hands of the Jats – which undermine all hope of emancipation and, second, the opposition to such massive conversion among the Sikh political class: the Akalis – including Master Tara Singh – feared that the leadership of the community would be taken over or, at least, that their authority would be diluted. The challenge that a mass conversion would have represented for the upper caste Hindus also made Dr. Ambedkar afraid of the retaliatory measures, some of which, as testified by the threats of social boycott, had already materialised in 1935-36. (Jaffrelot :2009. Pp 12)

Ambedkar’s Conversion to Buddhism and the genesis of Navayana Buddhism

Twenty years later, after the Mahad and Bombay conferences Ambedkar began to show immense interest in Buddhism. He pledged to revive and bring back the tradition of Buddhism which India lost twelve hundred years ago to Brahmanism. His quest for new religion for conversion was still very much intact. He passionately read ancient Pali texts in order to understand Buddhism and its system of belief. He gradually set forth the task of not just reviving but also modernising Buddhism in India. For him, modernization of Buddhism was an effort aimed at bringing social transformation in the Indian society. As pointed out by Ramendra (2001), Ambedkar in his article “Buddha and the Future of his Religion” published in 1950 in the Mahabodhi Society Journal, has summarized his views on religion and on Buddhism in the following manner:

1. The society must have either the sanction of law or the sanction of morality to hold it together. Without either, the society is sure to go to pieces.
2. Religion, if it is to survive, it must be in consonance with reason, which is another name for science.
3. It is not enough for religion to consist of moral code, but its moral code must recognize the fundamental tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity.
4. Religion must not sanctify or make a virtue out of poverty.

According to Ambedkar, Buddhism fulfilled these requirements and so among the existing religions it was the only suitable religion for the world. In the same article, Ambedkar has enumerated the evils of Hinduism in the following manner:

1.  It has deprived moral life of freedom.

2.  It has only emphasized conformity to commands.

3. The laws are unjust because they are not the same for one Classeses as of another. Besides, the code is treated as final.

Ambedkar argued that, “what is called religion by Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions.” In the same year, Ambedkar delivered a speech on Buddha Jayanti day in Delhi, in which he attacked Hindu gods and goddess and praised Buddhism because it was a religion based on moral principles. Besides, he pointed out, unlike the founders of other religions who considered themselves emissaries of god; the Buddha regarded himself only as a guide and gave a revolutionary meaning to the concept of religion. He said that Hinduism stood for inequality, whereas Buddhism stood for equality.

Karunyakara (2002) points out Ambedkar felt three steps were necessary for modernization to take place, 1) To produce a Buddhist bible, 2) to make changes in the aims and objects of the ‘Bhikku Sangh’ 3)to set up a world of Buddhist Mission. Ambedkar strongly felt that Buddhism lacked a book

– a handy gospel which one could carry in person and read. He argued that the Indian Dhammapada has failed to perform the function which such a gospel is expected to perform. In his path breaking reinterpretation of Buddhism -The Buddha and His Dhamma he explains that Buddhism did not encourage faith but ‘sacred morality.’ He wrote this text with the intent of creating a single text for new Buddhists to read and follow. Further, Ambedkar declared that there is the world of difference between a Hindu Sannyasi and a Buddhist Bhikshu. ‘A Hindu Sannyasi has nothing to do with the world. He is dead to the world. A Bhikshu has everything to do with the world.’ The Bhikshu performed no such obsequies for himself – though this certainly did not mean that in having

‘everything to do with the world’ he was involved with it in the same way, or for the same reasons, as the ordinary ‘worldly’ person. The Bhikshu had everything to do with the world in the sense that he was concerned with people’s material and spiritual welfare, and it was out of compassion – a compassion that was the fruit of wisdom or insight. (Sangharakshita, 2006)

In his last speech delivered in Bombay in May 24 1956, in which he declared his resolve to embrace Buddhism, Ambedkar observed that Hinduism believes in God and Buddhism has no God. Hinduism believes in soul. According to Buddhism, there is no soul. Hinduism believes in Chaturvarnya and the caste system. Buddhism has no place for the caste system and Chaturvarnya. It is obvious that Ambedkar regarded Buddhism as a much more rational religion compared to Hinduism, rather the most rational religion. His main objection to Hinduism was that it sanctified inequality and Untouchability through its doctrine of Chaturvarnya. Buddhism, on the other hand, rejected Chaturvarnya and supported equality. He commends Buddhism for rejecting god and soul and for emphasizing morality. According to him, prajna (understanding as against superstition and supernaturalism), karuna (love), and samata (equality), which Buddhism alone teaches, is all that human beings need for a “good and happy life” (Ramendra, 2001).

Finally, on 14 October 1956, less than two months before he died, Ambedkar was ready to announce his new religion. He took diksha (conversion) from the oldest Burmese Buddhist monk in India along with 362,000 of his followers and converted to Buddhism in Nagpur after a traditional ceremony. At the time of conversion, he took the following 22 vows which were clearly designed both to explicate the teachings of the Dharma in simple form and to stress the distinctions from earlier Brahmanic Hinduism. Ambedkar was acting, in this unique ceremony, not simply to adopt Buddhism but also to give it a new shape. Thus there ushered the dawn of Navayana Buddhism or Neo- Buddhism in India for the ex-untouchable community. (Omvedt 2003, 264)

1.      I will not regard Brahma, Vishnu or Mahadev as gods and I will not worship them.

2.      I will not regard Ram or Krishna as gods and I will not worship them.

3.      I will not honour Gauri, Ganpati or any god of Hinduism and I will not worship them.

4.      I do not believe that god has taken any avatar.

5.      I agree that the propaganda that the Buddha was the avatar of Vishnu is false and mischievous.

6.      I will not do the ceremony of shraddhapaksh (for the departed) or pindadan (gifts in honour of the

deceased).

7.      I will do no action that is inconsistent with the Dharma of Buddhism.

8.      I will have no rituals done by Brahmans.

9.        I regard all human beings as equal.

10.  I will strive for the establishment of equality.

11.  I will depend on the Eightfold Path declared by the Buddha.

12.  I will follow the 10 vows declared by the Buddha.

13.  I will have compassion for all creatures and will care for them.

14.  I will not steal.

15.  I will not lie.

16.  I will not follow any addiction.

17.  I will not drink alcohol.

18.  I will carry on my life based on the three principles in the Buddhist Dharma of dhyana, shila and karuna.

19.  I renounce the Hindu religion which has obstructed the evolution of my former humanity and considered humans unequal and inferior.

20.  I have understood that this is the true Dharma.

21.  I consider that I have taken a new birth.

22.  From this time forward I vow that I will behave according to the Buddha’s teachings.

Conclusion

Contemporary practices of Navayana Buddhism

As Ambedkar received his initiation of diksa into Buddhism in Nagpur, Buddha Jayanti (Buddha’s Birth celebration) and Bhima Jayanti (Ambedkar’s Birth celebration) are observed there with great festivity. The Mahars have deified Ambedkar giving him the highest place in their lives, second only to the Buddha. In their homes and also on the covers of the pamphlets of songs, Ambedkar’s portrait is found right next to one of the Buddha. Ambedkar and Buddha are not considered to be identical. Ambedkar is considered to be an avatar of Bhima (Ambedkar’s first name), and not of the Buddha. Since Bhimrao Ambedkar had become a Neo-Buddhist, the celebrations of Buddha’s birth as well as Ambedkar’s birth are observed with similar rituals and on the same diksha ground.(Junghare 1988, pp 100-101)

As Gail Omvedt (2003) points out that in contemporary India, much of Ambedkarite philosophy as promoted through Navayana Buddhism is flourishing amongst the modern Dalit through vibrant dalit art and literature. Many dalit men and women have come forward to record their struggles as Dalit in the form of autobiographies, short stories and poems. Literature has an important role to play in the ongoing struggle by Dalit to end discrimination. The idea of such mass based circulation is that while abuse of low-caste people still happens they can now write about it. Also the need that Dalit have been mistreated in the past and that there is a need to bring Dalit literature to other people is well accepted Dalit writers say the emergence of low-caste literature has taken place alongside a broader growth of consciousness and activism, particularly in urban India. Infact named after Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s socially and morally concerned interpretation of Buddhism, Navayana is India’s first and only publishing house to focus on the issue of caste from an anti-caste perspective.

The lost path

Virginia Hancock (2001) in her article “New Buddhism for New Aspirations: Navayana Buddhism of Ambedkar and His Followers,” points out that that the Buddhism one finds in daily life and practice can differ significantly from the principles described in Ambedkar’sThe Buddha and his Dhamma. These differences vary according to location and socioeconomic situation and range from minute reinterpretations to fundamental contradictions. Polarizing concepts include karma, rebirth, dharma, meditation, spirituality, materialism, politics, individuality and social action. Varying social categories include the urban, rural, educated, uneducated, and in many cases, old and young. Thus, on the one hand forms of Navayana Buddhist practice can differ from each other quite significantly in terms of both form and content. This will be illustrated through a simple comparison between certain studies of rural Buddhists and members of the Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha Sahayaka Gana(TBMSG) which is the Indian wing of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, . On the other hand, the figure of Ambedkar provides a clear and unifying link between different Buddhist practitioners. For example, she looks at the work of Timothy Fitzgerald who concludes that although rural Mahars have begun to refuse to perform traditional duties such as scavenging and have given up the practice of eating beef, their recognition and practice of sub-caste hierarchy and Untouchability, lack of inter-caste marriage, and worship of Hindu gods and goddesses is evidence that they practice he kind of Buddhism which has not really changed anybody or anything very radically.

Reference Bibliography

Books
1.	Ambedkar, B. R., Aakash Singh. Rathore and Ajay Verma. The Buddha and His Dharma: A Critical Edition. New Delhi: Oxford UP, 2011.
2.	—  Writings  and  Speeches,  vols.11  Bombay:  The  Education  Department,Government of Maharashtra, 1989-1991.
3.	—-  Writings  and  Speeches,  Vol  3  Bombay:  The  Education  Department Government Of Maharashtra  1989-1991
4.	— Who were Sudras? Bombay: Thacker, 1946
5.	. — Annihilation of Caste. Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadmi, 1987
6.	. — Why go for Conversion. Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadmi, 1987.
7.	Beltz, Johannes. Mahar, Buddhist, and Dalit: Religious Conversion and Socio-political Emancipation. New Delhi: Manohar & Distributors, 2005.
8.	Fitzgerald.  T.  Buddhism  in  India-  Rituals,  Politics  and  Soteriologyin  the Ideology of Religious Studies. OUP, USA, 1999.
9.	Fitzgerald.  T.  Ambedkar,  Buddhism  and  the  Concept  of  Religion,  in  S.  M Micheal’s (Ed) Dalit in Modern India.  Visions and Values. Sage Publications ,2007

•  ondhale,  Surendra,  and  Johannes  Beltz.  Reconstructing  the  World:  B.R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India. New Delhi: Oxford UP, 2004.
• Junghare. I. Dr. Ambedkar: The Hero of the Mahars, Ex-Untouchables of India. Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 47, No. 1 (1988), pp. 93-121 Published by: Nanzan University
• Karunyakara. L. Modernisation of Buddhism: Contributions of Ambedkar and Dalai Lama XIV. Delhi. Gyan Books, 2002.
•  Keer, Dhanajay. Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission. 3rd ed. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1971.
• Naik, C. D. Buddhism and Dalit: Social Philosophy and Traditions. Delhi: alpaz Publications, 2010.
• Omvedt, Gail. Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003.
• Queen,  Christopher  S.,  and  Sallie  B.  King.  Engaged  Buddhism:  Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia. Albany: State University of New York, 1996.
• Rege,  Sharmila.  Writing  Caste,  Writing  Gender:  Reading  Dalit  Women’s Testimonios. New Delhi: Zubaan, 2006.
• Rodrigues, Valerian. Dalit-bahujan Discourse in Modern India. Critical Quest, New Delhi. 2008.
• Shahare M. L. Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar- His Life and Work. NCERT, New Delhi. 1988
• Sadangi, Himansu Charan. Emancipation of Dalit and Freedom Struggle. Delhi: Isha, 2008.
•  Sangharakshita. Ambedkar and Buddhism. Motilal Banarsidass Publisher. Delhi, 2006
• Zelliot,  Eleanor.  From  Untouchable  to  Dalit:  Essays  on  the  Ambedkar Movement. New Delhi: Manohar, 1996.
• Zelliot, Eleanor. Dr. Ambedkar and the Mahar movement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 1969
• Zelliot, Eleanor. Ambedkar’s World: The Making of Babasaheb and the Dalit Movement. Navayana Publications, 2013
• Zelliot, Eleanor. Ambedkar’s Conversion. New Delhi: Critical Quest, 2007. Journals

1. Blackburn, Anne M. “Religion, Kinship and Buddhism: Ambedkar’s Vision of a Moral Community” The Journal of International Association of Buddhist Studies. Vol. 16.  No 1. (1993),  pp. 1-23 Accessed on: 21st September 2014.
2. Wankhede, Harish S. “The Political and the Social in the Dalit Movement Today” Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 43, No. 6. (2008), pp. 50-57. Accessed on: 23rd September 2014.

Web links

1. Hancock,  Virginia,  “New  Buddhism  for  New  Aspirations:  Navayana  Buddhism  of Ambedkar and His Followers,” Manushi 145 (Nov.-Dec. 2004): Accessed on 20th September 2014. http://www.manushi-india.org/pdfs_issues/PDF%20145/Buddhism%2017-25.pdf
2. Dr Ramendra, Why Ambedkar Renounced Hinduism? (2001). Accessed on 4th October 2014 http://www.ambedkar.org/Babasaheb/Why.htm
3. Jaffrelot, C “Dr Ambedkar’s Stratergies Agianst Untouchability and the Caste System” (2009) Working Papers Series, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, New Delhi. Accessed on 3rd April 2015. http://www.dalitstudies.org.in/wp/0904.pdf