ambedkar's interpretation of religions

33 Pages·2014·0.11 MB·English

ISSN 0972-1213639
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