One of the crucial dilemmas facing the contemporary Dalit movement is that of religious conversion. There are some who consider religious conversion as wholly irrelevant for the emancipation of the Dalits and there are others who, in their rigidity, take religious conversion as a final end in itself and not as a means for facilitating the broader movement of the social economic and cultural emancipation of the Dalits.
By and large, however, the thinking sections of Ambedkarites recognize the pressing need for religious conversion as the initial step towards an all-embracing liberation. They take conversion not as a final goal in itself, but as a means to attain freedom from the shackles of hideous caste oppression. In this they rightly affirm Dr. Ambedkar’s contention that religion should serve man and not the other way round.
Confusion: Having recognized the pressing need of religious conversion for the Dalits, there is some confusion among Dalits as to which religion they ought to convert to. Some Dalits argue that since Dr. Ambedkar himself chose Buddhism, the Dalits today should follow in his footsteps. Both Dr.Ambedkar and the Buddha stressed the fact that a person should think for oneself and should not blindly follow what he or she is told by others, even by saints and prophets.
This is not to suggest that Dr.Ambedkar is not relevant today. We sincerely believe that the Ambedkarite path is the only means for Dalit liberation. But, in accordance with the essence of Ambedkarism we also advocate the need for making a distinction between the basic principles of Ambedkarism (which have to be the foundations of the Dalit movement) and those elements of Dr. Ambedkar’s thought that were relevant only to a certain juncture of Indian history.
War against brahminism: For instance, Dr.Ambedkar’s relentless war against brahminism and caste oppression is a basic principle. On the other hand, his advocacy of bourgeois parliamentary democracy and his non-opposition to the inclusion of the right to private property in the Indian Constitution may perhaps not be capable of being defended today. Parliamentary democracy has not at all helped liberate the Dalits, and the right to private property has only led to widening socio-economic inequalities. We are confident that were Dr.Ambedkar alive today he himself would have actively opposed these mechanisms of perpetuating the slavery of the Dalits, even though he could not, for various reasons, oppose them effectively in his own day.
Similarly, while we accept the religious conversion for the Dalits is a basic principle of Ambedkarism, we, in line with the essence of Ambedkarite philosophy, also stress that Buddhism need not necessarily be the only religion that the Dalits ought to embrace. Buddhism, it is true, is a noble religion in its own way, but since there is no non-Dalit Buddhist community in India today (excepting in the Himalayan regions), Dalit converts to Buddhism, being the only Buddhists, can therefore still be identified as having been Dalits.
Mahars: For instance, a “Maharashtran Buddhist” is merely another term for a Mahar. This problem is not so acute in the case of Dalit converts to Islam, Christianity or Sikhism since there are pre- existing Muslims, Christian and Sikh communities into which, theoretically, they can integrate themselves.
Some advocates of Buddhism argue that since Buddhism was born in India itself, the Dalits therefore should convert to this religion. They assert that since Islam and Christianity evolved outside India, Dalits should not accept them. This argument is rather absurd. The mere geographical origin of an ideology or religion has nothing whatsoever to do with its truth or appropriateness. Modern science was born in the west, but is desperately sought after by the orient. Buddhism was born in India but has found its saunchest adherents in the Far East and in South East Asia. Hence, simply because Islam and Christianity, unlike Buddhism, were not born in India, it should not be argued that the Dalits should reject them.
Threat of Islam: The Dalits today need to seriously consider the choice of a religion to convert to solely on the basis of its capacity to liberate them by posing the greatest challenge to the brahminical system.
The brahminical rulers are unanimous in their belief that Islam poses the gravest threat to their continued oppression and exploitation of the Dalits and Backward Castes, As M.S.Golwalkar, the supreme leader of the RSS, himself admits:
“Islam was the first religion to interfere with our social organisation of Chaturvaran … Islam in India challenged our scheme of class-caste organisation”. (MS Golwalkar, Thoughts on some current problems”, 1948, p.26).
On the other hand, the RSS – mouthpiece, Organiser (16/10/63) asserted that, “so far as Jainism and Buddhism are concerned, they have never made any contribution to social and political thought, as such we have not inherited any arthashastras (politics and economics) or dharma shastras (social law) from them”.
Note carefully what these two quotations assert. Golwalkar admits that Islam was the first religion to challenge the caste system effectively, and Islam came to India long after Buddhism. The Organiser suggests that Buddhism was unable to offer a new pattern of social organisation to replace the caste system.
US Blacks: Islam has empowered the oppressed Blacks in the US. The once-Buddhist Afghans, upon embracing Islam, became one of the greatest races of fighters the world has produced. Slaves among the Muslims have even ruled over vast empires as in the case of the Muslim slave dynasty of Delhi and the Muslim slave Mameluke rulers of Egypt. Bhagwan Das says:
“Untouchables embraced Islam and joined the forces of the Muslim invaders. Many rose and attained higher ranks in the Muslim Armies. One (ex-untouchable) adopting the name of Nasiruddin Khusro Shah ascended the throne of Delhi Sultanate and ruled over Delhi for some months”. (Preface to Untouchable Soldiers, by Ardythe Basham, 1980, p.2).
In his book, Pakistan or the Partition of India, Dr.Ambedkar had made certain critical remarks on the rigidity and ultra-orthodoxy of Muslim society. He was perfectly justified in making some of these comments.
Debate on Jamate-Islami: The Muslim feudal elite and ivory-tower “Maulvis” of this period presented Islam in such a narrow light that it was natural for Dr.Ambedkar to imagine Muslims to be reactionaries and obscurantists. Even today many Maulvis are more concerned about the petty externalities of religion and completely ignore the great liberative essence of Islam. This point was clearly brought out during the long DV debate on Jamate- Islami.
However, every religion can be interpreted in different ways according to the interests of different classes and individuals. Islam, in Dr.Ambedkar’s day, and today too, is presented by the feudal elite and ivory tower Maulvis as a closed, restricted,suffocating system. On the other hand, “lower class” Muslims throughout the world are presenting Islam in a diametrically different way as a weapon for social liberation. This radical interpretation of Islam was not articulated widely enough in Dr.Ambedkar’s own day since the Muslim “lower classes” were still under the firm control of vested interests and feudal lords.
If Dr.Ambedkar were alive today, we believe he would approve of the radical interpretation of Islam that many “lower class” Muslims are seeking to articulate. We are also confident that he would have advised the Muslim’ulema’ that the only way they could present Islam as an attractive and meaningful philosophy for the oppressed of the world was through creatively interpreting it to enable it to play a socially emancipatory role.
