Navayana Buddhism

Navayana Buddhism- Dalit Assertion 

                                     

                                                           Challapalli Swaroopa Rani

                                                          

Neo-Buddhist movement or Navayana Buddhism in India has been subjected to research from various points in different disciplines such as sociological, anthropological, cultural, economic and political.

   

Present paper will be dealing with the growth of Dalit Buddhist movement which was termed as Navayana by Ambedkar after his demise in India in general and Andhra Pradesh in particular. It also discuses the issues and challenges for the spread of Buddhism among the Dalit masses.

Dr. Ambedkar, the chief architect of Indian constitution is known for his intellectual pursuits and fight against Brahmanism. Right from his childhood Ambedkar was in favor of Buddhism. He was highly influenced by the philosophies of Buddha, Kabir and Mahatma Phule. He proudly announced that he regards the above three personalities as his own teachers. He was also influenced by the writings of Prof. Laxmi Narasu on Buddhism. He wrote several articles on Buddhism and published in the journal of Mahabodhi Society. During the time when Ambedkar was most active on the national scene, his personal interest in Buddhism increased. His college established in 1946 was named Siddharth, the personal name of Buddha, and a second college founded in 1951 was given the name of Milind, after a Greek king who converted to Buddhism. He published Laxmi Narasu’s book with his own introduction. He theorized that untouchables had been Buddhists who had been pushed aside from society when they fiercely along to their religion, while there was a resurgence of Brahmanical Hinduism. He published the book entitled Buddha and his Dhamma in 1957. This volume contains his interpretation of Buddhism- rational, moral, ethical and egalitarian with little attention to complete eradication of any mystical and magical elements.       

Dr. Ambedkar says ‘I will not die a Hindu’. His extensive readings in Indian history and Buddhist texts also played a role in his choice. Essays such as ‘Who were the Sudras? And Untouchables?’ and ‘Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India’ showed his developing evolution of Buddhism as the true alternative to the Brahmanical social order. Ambedkar’s journey towards Buddhism was completed in October 1956 with his conversion into Buddhism at Nagpur. With this unique ceremony Ambedkar not only adopted Buddhism but also gave a new shape to it.

Vithu Verma argues that the conceptional strategy that Ambedkar so brilliantly employs in order to counter discrimination and prejudice in Hinduism is a double edged sword: for even as the assertion that is a specific Buddhist approach to social ethics  and action in  dhamma provides us with a valuable analytical device for the promotion of personhood and subjectively as a political process, it undercuts the theorizing of politics within liberal theoretical frame.(Vidhu Verma 2010). Ambedkar’s theory of action has played an emancipatory role in one of the most dramatic events of our time. Ambedkar attempted to bring Buddhism to the ‘world of social action and social change’(Omvedt, 2003:3) according to Thurman (1998:19) Ambedkar’s Hermeneutics of Buddhist liberation follows Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and others who reframed and re-invented Buddha’s central teachings. Many scholars view Buddhism as a way of enlightment which further means to be compassionate, tolerant, reasonable, and moral and engaged in life. (Brazier, 2002: 1). But in order to make it relevant to modern society Ambedkar had to liberate Buddhism from distortions injected in it by Brahmanical ritualism, and to redefine it as humanistic Buddhism. For this he had to retrieve the social message which had been buried by the modern authors. The government publication of 2500 Years of Buddhism edited by P.V.Bapat, which appeared in 1956, does not mention the conversion movement in its 1959 reprint. The conversion movement’s insistence that Buddhism is separate goes against the general intellectual position found in S. Radha Krishnan’s foreword to the book. He writes “the Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up, and died a Hindu. He was restating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo- Aryan civilization”. The newly converted Buddhists from the untouchable castes cannot accept this position, for their conversion is a denial of their former position in the Indo-Aryan civilization( Zelliot, 1996:104).           

The followers of Ambedkar celebrate four great observances –Buddha Jayanthi (birth anniversary of Buddha), Dhamma diksha (conversion), Ambedkar Jayanthi (birth anniversary of Ambedkar) and his memorial day.  Ambedkar’s conversion is an important land mark in the history of Indian Buddhism. When Buddhism is totally absorbed into Hinduism and the Buddha is being considered as one of the incarnations of the Hindu god Vishnu, Dr. Ambedkar differentiated it from the popular belief and focused on the revolutionary character of Buddha. Among his two objectives, making India as a Buddhist country again is received a greater attention by his followers.  

Dr. Ambedkar named his vision of Buddhism as ‘Navayana Buddhism’ (a new vehicle). and introduced a number of innovations in traditional Buddhism and modernized it Ambedkar’s conception of Buddhism in many ways is a departure  from traditional Buddhism which can be understood in the light of his book Buddha and his Dhamma published posthumously in 1957. In this book he has defined Buddhism with his reasonable interpretation (Ahir, 2003). His interpretation of Buddhism has a rational and scientific approach to religion. In the core teachings, there is a rejection of superstitions, the rationality of insights and internalization of beliefs. The reformulations brought by Ambedkar in Buddhism gave a new look to Buddhism and Navayana or a new vehicle denotes it well. Among the basic principles, some are different from the traditional Buddhism. First of all, Ambedkar questioned Buddha’s parivraja by which traditionally it is believed that the main reason of it is Buddha’s coming across a dead person, a sick person and old person. Ambedkar declared this as an absurd idea, and argues that Buddha took parivraja at the age of twenty nine, and till this age it is not reasonable that Buddha could not have come across these sights (Ambedkar, 1957). Thus for him, these are some misconceptions about Buddha’s life. It is impossible to accept the traditional explanation that this was the first time he saw them. Instead he suggests that the renunciation was the result of Gowthama’s refusal to support a Sakya military action against the Koliya tribe in a feud over water rights. Determined not to participate in war, Siddhartha went into voluntary exile as parivrajaka.  

       

The second problem he raised on the four noble truths which is considered as original teachings of Buddha. Ambedkar’s critical assessment is that these are later on interpolations. He thinks that four Aryan truths are stumbling block in the development of Buddhism. He views that the four Aryan truths make the gospel of Buddha a gospel of pessimism.

The third problem, he has noticed in traditional Buddhism is the doctrine of soul of karma rebirth are different in sense as these are used now a days like Brahmins use it. 

The fourth crucial problem Ambedkar feel relates to the Bhikkus, who are bussy in performing religious rites and think as a perfect man, are selfish and also a stumbling block in Buddhism. Ambedkar declared that it is against the Buddha’s objective to make Sangha and suggested to work as a ‘social servant’ devoting his life to serve the people and being their friend, guide and philosopher. He criticized the behaviour of the followers and intelligentia who are lingering around the ‘samadhi and vipassana’ as Buddha’s teaching (Kamble.R 2003). He explained in his book Buddha and his Dhamma that Dhamma is social. This interpretation of Ambedkar is the core of neo-Buddhism, which focuses on social emancipation more rather than any spirituality. The Navayana or neo- Buddhism is basically a social philosophy of Ambedkar to liberate the marginalized sections of Indian society. For him, neo-Buddhism is to provide a social meaning, which must be strengthened by mixing it into political life. This means to say that political democracy in India requires a social change which neo-Buddhism may provide in a greater way(Shiv Shankar Das, 2009).    

Ambedkar’s conversion made a very significant impact on the minds of Dalit masses all over the country. When he took ordination in 1956 at Nagpur, number of his followers also embrased Buddhism on the same day. Ambedkar performed another mass religious conversion ceremony on 16^th October 1956 at Chanda. He prescribed 22 vows to his followers. These were clearly designed both to explicate the teachings of the Dhamma in simple form and to stress the distinctions from earlier Brahmanic Hinduism. The vows prescribed Ambedkar reject the ideology and practices of Hinduism and honor the Buddha’s egalitarianism. Ambedkar was acting, in this unique ceremony, not simply to adopt Buddhism but also to give it a new shape. 

According to Ambedkar India’s aboriginal stock had common ethnic roots which he identified as Naga, subjugated by the Aryans, the Nagas became Buddhists in large numbers. They were progressively extended from the mainstream society and eventually caste out as the ancestors of the untouchables. Before their extreme degradation these people became patrons and disseminators of Buddhism. Many of Ambedkar’s followers see a symbolic significance in the choice of Nagpur, city of Nagas for the mass conversion of 1956(Goyal. S.R, 1993).

Dalits welcomed the historic move of conversion by accepting Ambedkar as their cultural hero, and consequently established many Buddhist organizations for them. Untouchables of Agra (Uttar Pradesh) responded to Ambedkar’s mass conversion drive in 1956 and subsequently renounced the Hindu deities from twenty two temples and converted them into Buddhist temples. Some debates were arisen from the clause inserted in the Indian constitution as the presidential order of 1950, according to which only the Scheduled castes (SC’s) professing Hinduism were entitled for reservations in public sector employment, federal, state services and educational institutions run or abide by the state. But in response to the Sikh community the parliament amended the order to include dalit Sikhs in the SC’s and in 1990, Buddhist dalits were also added in the list to honor Ambedkar on his birth centenary. Earlier   Republican Party of India (RPI), established by Ambedkar demanded the extension of ‘reservation facilities’ to neo-Buddhists in 1960’s and its’ leadership also promoted Dalits to convert to Buddhism. RPI is the example of combination of Dalit politics and neo-Buddhism (Shiv Shankar Das, 2009). It did not touch the masses of non-Dalit caste Hindus. As Buddhist activists have noted, the small wave of high-caste conversions even dried up as Buddhism became identified as an ‘untouchable religion’. But the assertion of Dalits and other ‘low’ caste groups has taken on renewed force, beginning with the rise of the Dalit Panthers in Maharastra and similar groups through out the country in 1970’s. Today the interest in Buddhism among radical activists from Dalit-Bahujan backgrounds is greater than ever. Neo -Buddhists, a group embracing about 90% of Indian Buddhists are emerging as an important political force. Debates are going on and books are published. Mass vows of rejection of Hinduism and mass acceptance of Buddhism are being to be held.   

Right from the early decades of 20^th century, the leaders of Dalit movement in Andhra Pradesh adopted Buddhism as their philosophical background. They started rejecting Brahmanical Hinduism and celebrating Buddha Purnima (the birth anniversary of Buddha) as a symbol of their assertion. But the visit of Ambedkar in Andhra Pradesh made a greater impact on Dalits of AndhraPradesh. They started both political and religious organizations during this period. Buddhist society of India(BSI) established by Ambedkar expanded its’ branches in Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Tirupati, Kakinada, Nellore and other places. ‘Ambedkar Dharma Porata Samithi’, ‘Bouddha Dharma Prachara Sangham, ‘Bouddha Dhamrma Prerana Sangh’ and other organizations are bringing awareness among the Dalit masses towards Ambedkarite concept of Buddhism. Dalits are establishing modern viharas for themselves. Lectures and Buddhist festivals are being organized in these viharas and the viharas are acting as the Dalit community centers and places of wisdom and knowledge. For Dalit masses accepting Buddhism means rejecting Hinduism. They consider Buddhism as an alternative philosophy to Hinduism. On the eve of Ambedkar’s golden jubilee year (2006) of Buddhist conversion, Hyderabad based Dalit activists organized mass conversion. Kanshiram, the eminent leader of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) had planned to conduct a mass conversion ceremony with two crores of Dalits on the same day i.e. 14^th October 2006. Unfortunately it was not done due to the sudden demise of Kanshiram on 9^th October 2006. But Dalits in many parts of the country could organize conversions in a large number on this occasion. Mayavathi, the chief minister of U.P as a favorite of Ambedkarite Buddhism, established a grand Buddha Vihara in Luckno and appointed some monks to spread the Dhamma taught by Buddha.             

Navayana or neo- Buddhism has been encountering many challenges during the post-Ambedkar era. It is spreaded only among the educated and socially conscious Dalit sections. As the Dalits in this country have been converted into Christianity and other religions, it is not so easy to come into Buddhism. Even though discrimination exists among the Christians on caste grounds, Dalits do not prepare to leave it. Generally people consider Buddhism as part of Hinduism. So it is very difficult to make them understood that Buddhism is an alternative to Hinduism and other dominant religions. Another issue in neo-Buddhism is that the Dalits who are converted into Buddhism do not register their names in the list of Buddhist population. Presently Buddhist population in India is less than one percent. The state of Maharastra stands first in Buddhist population. About 75% of the Mahars, a number of Jatavas in U.P and pockets of the Schedule castes in Gujatat, Panjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and other states have declared themselves Buddhists.         

Hindu critics have argued that efforts to convert Hindus to Buddhism are political stunts rather than sincere commitments to social reform. They criticize Ambedkar’s  interpretation as a political strategy which involves political mobilization of dalit masses directed at creating a counter – culture with political underpinnings for the negation of Hindu dominant culture”( Vithu Verma, 2010). Others oppose this ground point to claim that Ambedkar “chose Buddhism for its moral strength and egalitarian principles for a quality of social change and not for its use as a political tool (Narain and Ahir 1994:94). Vithu Verma(2010) says that Ambedkar viewed Hinduism as a ‘religion of rules’ and as his efforts to transform it did not succeeded, he chose to convert to Buddhism – a religion based on principles of equality. Zelliot views conversion as a re- interpretation of historical past, it has given Buddhist communities ‘a new set of religious ideas, a thought provoking image, a series of occasions around which to rally and  have no history with out  caste hierarchy (Zelliot 1996). In addition to the sense of release from being untouchable there is a sense of belonging to a great past. We can argue that Buddhism was chosen over and above other religions because as a social gospel that gave weight to a theory of social action. The theory of previous Buddhist identity fits well into the untouchables (Zelliot).

It is also argued that as a founder of a monastic order, the Buddha addressed himself mainly to the goal of the moksha. Although Ambedkar stressed Buddha’s attack on caste and the dalits, historical connection with Buddhism, it should be noted that Ambedkar did not however identify the Buddha’s message and movement solely in terms of a revolt against the caste system, as evident in the story of the ‘going forth’ the social concerns were much wider and involved a large audience. Neera Burra (1997) in her work notes that traditional Hindu concepts of karma and dharma persist along with Buddhist practices and therefore the dalit Buddhist movement is ‘a symbol of identity transformation’ rather than a true religious conversion.  No one can deny that ex-dalits were subjected to atrocities and ostracism by upper castes. It is to protest their place in Hindu society that many dalit groups have converted to other religions. Buddhist movement suffered a major setback with Ambedkar’s death so shortly after the conversion. It did not receive immediate support from dalit leaders although there were attempts to elaborate the social philosophy of Buddha in a dalit perspective.    

The leaders of the BSP have said that their being branded as anti-Hindu because of the publicity associated with the conversions is largely the work of partisan and politically motivated groups within the Dalit movement and that they are only interested in peaceful dialogue with the Brahmins.   

According to Gail Omvedt, a sociologist “Ambedkar’s Buddhism seemingly differs from that of these who accepted by faith. Who ‘go for refuge’ and accept the canon. This much is clear from its basis; it does not accept in totality the scriptures of the Theravada, the Mahayana or Vajrayana. Ambedkar’s Navayana, fourth yana, is a kind of modernistic enlighten version of the Dhamma really possible within the framework of Buddhism” (Omvedt, 2003).    

Most of the Indian Dalits espouse an eclectic version of Buddhism, primarily bases on Theravada, but with additional influences from Mahayana and Vajrayana. On many subjects, they give Buddhism distinctive interpretations. They point out that the Buddha requested his monastic followers to ignore caste discriminations, and that he was critical of the social inequality that existed in his own time. Ambedkar’s followers do not believe that a person’s unfortunate conditions at birth are the result of previous karma. Buddhism aims at total annihilation of man’s suffering brought about by the total application of casteless society, perfect reason and universal love without dictatorship in a purely democratic republic spirit and adherence of correct religion called dhamma.  

Bibliography

1.     Ahir.D.C (1972), Buddhism in Modern India. Nagpur: Bhikkunivas Prakashan.

2.     _______(2003), Buddhism in India After Dr. Ambedkar 1956-2002, New Delhi: Blumoon.

3.     Alosious. G(2002), Religion of the Modern Buddhist, Grants Pass:Wordsmith.

4.     Ambedkar. B.R(1957) The Buddha and his Dhamma , Nagpur: Buddha Bhoomi.

5.     ______(1990) Annihilation of Caste: An Undelivered Speech,  London: Arnold.

6.     Brazier. David (2002), The New Budddhism, Newyork: Palgrave.

7.     Fuchs. Martim (2004), “Ambedkar’s Buddhism” in T.N. Madan(Ed) India’s Religions, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.307-325.

8.     Goyal. S.R (1993) History of Indian Buddhism, Meerat: Kusumanjali.   

9.     Kamble. R. (2003) “Contextualizing Ambedkarian Conversion” in Economic and Political Weekly, 38(41), pp. 4305- 4308.

10.                        Lakshmi Narasu. P (2002), Essence of Buddhism, Nagpur: Buddha Bhoomi.

 

11.                        Narain.A.K. and D.C. Ahir (Eds) (1994), Dr. Ambedkar, Buddhism and Social Change, Delhi: B.R.Publishers.

12.                         Neera Burra (1997), “Buddhism, Conversion and Identity: A Case Study of Village Mahar’s” in M.N. Srinivas(ed) Caste: Its 20^th Century Avatar, India: Penguin, pp.152- 173.

  

13.                         Omvedt.Gail(2003). Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste, New Delhi:  Sage.

14.                        Shiv Shankar Das,(2009), Neo-Buddhism and Dalit Politics in Uttar Pradesh: Emerging Trends, An Unpublished M.Phil thesis from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

15.                        Teltumde. Anand(2007), “Globalization and Dalits: Lessons from the Buddha” in Mungekar and Rathore(eds), Buddhism and the Contemporary World. Delhi: Bookwell.

16.                        Thurman, Robert (1978), “Buddhist Hermaneutics”, in The Journal of American Academy of Religion, vol 46(1), pp. 19-39.

17.                         Vithu Verma(2010), “Reinterpreting Buddhism: Ambedkar on Politics of Social Action” in Economic and Political Weekly 45(49) December 04-10, pp.56-65.