Opinion What controversy over AAP’s Rajendra Gautam attending Buddhism conversion ceremony says about the political use of Ambedkar

In all these years, there has been no objection to the oaths and those following them. On the other hand, conversion to Buddhism has continued intermittently on a smaller scale in several states, involving SCs, STs and a section of the erstwhile Shudras (modern day OBCs). Especially after the OBCs were granted reservation in 1990 as per the Mandal Commission, more and more OBCs started discovering Ambedkar, some of them getting attracted to Buddhism.

In his Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India, Ambedkar wrote that ancient Indian history was nothing but “a history of a mortal conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism”. According to him, godless Buddhism was a revolution in ancient India, ushering in an era of equality, compassion, non-violence and rationality. He termed the assassination of emperor Ashoka’s descendent Brihadhrath by Pushyamitra Sunga, as a “counter-revolution” to revive Brahmanism. This was long before religions like Islam and Christianity arrived in the subcontinent.

Hostility to Buddhism was aggravated with the arrival of invaders, leading to its decline. However, it survived in other countries where Ashoka had spread it. In the country of its origin, devastated Buddhist structures were discovered and excavated during British rule. It included the discovery of the Ajanta caves in 1824 and the Ashoka Pillar (which is the national emblem) in 1904.

For independent India, the nation builders, including Ambedkar, devised an egalitarian constitution that ended caste and gender discrimination. He went a step further and converted to Buddhism, triggering its revival. Since then, Buddhism has become a haven for SCs, STs and for some OBCs — the beneficiaries of reservation in search of a new identity – as the rapid socio-economic transformation of Ambedkarite Buddhists within a couple of generations has become their aspiration.

Those objecting to the event attended by Gautam claimed that the religious sentiments of Hindus were hurt and that he should resign. Gautam eventually did so, but there is more to the episode than just politics: The pan-India plans of AAP versus the BJP.

Ever since the OBC quota came into being, there have been attempts by various “secular” parties to create a massive Bahujan votebank (SCs, STs and OBCs), which together is larger than the combined strength of upper caste voters. The OBCs, incidentally, happen to be the largest chunk of the votebank (52 per cent as per the 1931 census).

The claims of religious sentiments being hurt because of the 22 oaths display the majoritarian hubris of subjugating historically wronged communities. The peaceful congregation was of people leaving the Hindu fold to embrace Buddhism; they were reciting the 22 oaths devised by Ambedkar in 1956 for converts; and religious freedom is a constitutional right. If people deserting Hinduism hurts the sentiments of Hindus, what about the sentiments of communities who were exploited, subjugated and forced to live a servile life simply because, by birth, they did not belong to an upper caste?

Ironically, Mohan Bhagwat — sarsanghchalak of the RSS, which is the parent body of the BJP — has stated that concepts like varna and caste are outdated and should be forgotten. He advocated remorse for ill-treatment of brethren as inferior simply based on their birth in a particular community.

If Bhagwat and the Sangh Parivar are genuinely interested in ending the caste system, the remedy has been suggested by Ambedkar in his Annihilation of Caste. Ambedkar went beyond suggesting inter-caste marriages and dining together to bridge the caste divide. Pointing out that the origin of caste is in the holy texts of Hinduism, Ambedkar wanted the divine sanction snapped. The crucial issue is whether those who believe that such texts are apaurusheya — not (written) by humans — will be willing to do it.

Bhagwat is right in saying that things like the varna and caste systems are outdated, but is he willing to tweak the ancient beliefs (on caste, varna and gender) by amending or disowning the contentious holy diktats that determine the attitude of orthodox Hindus?

This is difficult but not impossible. Religious heads can amend beliefs. In 1992, the then Pope John Paul II tendered an apology for the persecution of Galileo by the Church and said that the latter was wrongfully condemned in 1633. Galileo was forced to recant his support for heliocentrism, which was against the religious beliefs of his time.

Ambedkar has been used as political currency by parties of all hues, who carefully select his views as per convenience. The Congress shunned him for decades after Independence for his anti-Congress stand and spats with Mahatma Gandhi, but now hails him as a liberal thinker. The communists (who seek to combine “Lal Salam” with “Jai Bhim”) forget that he rejected communism on the grounds that it favoured violence and dictatorship. The RSS and BJP revere him, totally ignoring his bitter criticism of Hinduism and the remedies he suggested to rectify wrongs.

The author is a senior journalist based in Mumbai