Harish S. Wankhede

Until October 14, 1956, Buddhism in India was a marginalised religion with a dwindling number of followers. On this day, B.R. Ambedkar, a prominent Indian social reformer and national leader, embraced Buddhism in a grand ceremony at Nagpur, inviting millions of his followers to adopt Buddha’s teachings. Significant sections of the erstwhile Untouchable castes, now known as Dalits, renounced their degraded Hindu caste identities in favor of the teachings of Lord Buddha. Every year, on Dusshera, lakhs of neo-Buddhists gather at Nagpur’s Deekshabhoomi to commemorate this historic event and celebrate their newfound identity.

Although Ambedkar envisioned that Dalit-Bahujan communities would utilise ancient religious resources to counter Brahmanical cultural hegemony, it has been the dominant social elites who have more effectively instrumentalised Hindu religious and cultural symbols, including the appropriation of neo-Buddhism, under the Hindutva rubric to retain their domination in cultural and political spheres. The current national regime under Prime Minister Narendra Modi often heralds Buddhism, Buddhist relics, and Buddha’s teachings as markers of India’s ancient civilizational heritage. However, right-wing politics rarely acknowledges Ambedkar’s contributions to revitalizing the Buddhist faith and fostering a close bond between India’s Dalit population and Buddhism. The role of Buddhist conversion in the Dalit emancipatory movement is frequently overlooked, while its ornamental spiritual side is emphasised.

In social studies, Ambedkar’s decision to adopt Buddhism is often dismissed as a desperate “modernist” act aimed at creating a new minority religion for a marginalised social group, diverting them from potential “working-class unity” proposed by Marxist political outfits. This perspective is superficial; Ambedkar’s religious conversion bridged modernity and tradition, suggesting that substantive ethical foundations are essential for building a new society. The Buddhist Conversion movement thus faced crucial criticisms from both left and right-wing counterparts, downplaying its role in constructing a modern society. It is essential to revisit Ambedkar’s ideological and ethical values and re-establish its relevance.

Ambedkar, Dalits, and Buddhism

According to the last national population census, Buddhists constitute one of the smallest minorities (0.7 percent of the total population) in India, with the majority being converted Dalits from Maharashtra. Within the conventional Hindu social order, the Untouchables were reduced to a sub-human category, treated with hatred and prejudice. Despite impactful social reforms aimed at correcting these historic wrongs, the dominant caste Hindus’ general attitude towards the lowest rung remains pervasive. With Ambedkar’s emergence on the national political stage, Dalits began to realise their self-potential and launched impressive struggles for equitable shares in modern institutions of power. Embracing Buddhism is seen as the Dalits’ intellectual choice, connecting them to a robust historical past while enabling them to enjoy constitutional rights as secular citizens.

Ambedkar is often characterized as a modern liberal thinker who endorsed Western ideals for visualizing India’s future. His drafting of the newly independent nation’s Constitution is frequently understood as validation of modern progressive values and their normative goals. India’s federal structure, parliamentary democracy, and judiciary support the notion that India is an integral part of the Western model of development. While Ambedkar admired the emancipatory values of the modern liberal project, he doubted its capacity to radically transform the Indian social order. Interestingly, this critical realisation did not lead him to adopt a Marxist militant alternative for social and political change. Instead, he turned to India’s ancient philosophical traditions, suggesting that the revival of Buddhism would humanise the social order and align it with modernist changes.

Ambedkar understood that Indian nationalism was not based on secular values but constructed around ancient Hindu civilisational ethos. Gandhi’s arrival as a maverick leader in the national independence movement paved the way for mobilising common masses around Hindu religious ideas, rituals, and symbols. Under his leadership, Western modernity was questioned in favour of indigenous resistance rooted in Hindu values. Right-wing cultural nationalism operates similarly, with an added layer of patriarchal force and xenophobic tendencies. Although there is a visible difference between Gandhi’s communal harmony-based nationalism and Savarkar’s majoritarian Hindutva, both believed that India’s national identity must be rooted in certain Hindu cultural idioms.

Ambedkar recognised that Hindu identity, its political ideology, and ancient cultural motifs were integral to Indian nationalism. However, he noted that socially marginalised communities, especially Dalits, felt alienated in such a “Brahmanical” cultural milieu. Within the Hindu caste matrix, Dalits were not seen as equals but condemned as impure, forced to endure poverty, exclusion, and violence. He argued that Hindus were contaminated by the illness of caste, preventing them from organizing around fraternity and equality. While nationalism based on Hindu symbols created a powerful political rhetoric of unity, its ability to challenge Brahmanical hegemony and transform oppressive social relationships was often doubted by Ambedkar.

Distinct from cultural nationalism, which forcibly includes Dalits in Hindu unity without altering social hierarchies, the modern state promises equal treatment and exclusive protections for marginalised groups. Ambedkar diagnosed the Hindu untouchable identity as debilitating, discouraging Dalits from participating in modern secular spaces with a sense of individuality. Despite state promises of protection, the Dalits faced brutal Brahmanical scrutiny that undermined their rights as equal citizens. Ambedkar pondered for decades to find a solution to this perpetual embargo, which finally led him to mass conversion to Buddhism as a revolutionary answer.

Ambedkar embraced Buddhism to empower Dalits to enjoy the benefits of modern development with confidence and equality. Rejecting Hinduism meant rejecting the oppressive social psychology imposed on Dalit bodies. Instead, Ambedkar offered a historic narrative that portrayed Dalits as ancient ruling elites, forced into servility and marked as Untouchables by a cunning Brahmanical conspiracy. Thus, adopting a neo-Buddhist identity was not merely a conversion tactic but a reclamation of Dalits’ glorious past, intellectual legacies, and ethical vision.

The Neo-Buddhist Autonomous Politics

In post-Ambedkar Maharashtra, Buddhism has become a crucial marker for defining a robust Ambedkarite identity, mobilising Dalits—particularly newly converted Mahars—as torchbearers of social reform and political ascendency. In the mid-1970s, a serious debate arose between neo-Buddhists and Marxist-Socialists during the heightened activism of the Dalit Panthers in Bombay. Namdeo Dhasal, a revolutionary poet, proposed a militant political alternative, suggesting that the “Dalit” represented a revolutionary collective of all oppressed communities who should contest caste atrocities and state violence through radical means. Influenced by Maoist-Naxalbari movements, Dhasal sought to build solidarities with the Communist working-class movement.

Raja Dhale, another founding member of the Dalit Panthers, criticized this “Leftist turn.” He proposed that the social justice movement should be grounded in Ambedkarite liberal principles, steering clear of violent class struggle. Conversion to Buddhism helped the community appreciate constitutional values of secularism and social justice while developing critical distance from ideologies that justify violence. Dhale envisioned the neo-Buddhist movement not as a sectarian project for Untouchables but as a revolutionary endeavor enlightening the wider Bahujan mass.

While Dhale’s vision for the Buddhist revolution did not fully materialise, the neo-Buddhist community has emerged as a powerful political and intellectual group in Maharashtra. Its presence in civil society—as leaders, intellectuals, and influencers—offers a glimpse of Dhale’s aspirations. Cities like Mumbai, Aurangabad, and Nagpur have seen the rise of significant Dalit movements, social events, and modern monuments. Deekshabhoomi in Nagpur, where Ambedkar embraced Buddhism, has become a monumental heritage site, attracting millions annually. Here, Buddhism has revived not just as part of India’s cultural heritage but as a means of escaping Brahmanical hegemony and social hostility. In the post-Ambedkar period, urban Buddhists, due to their educational achievements and newfound middle-class status, have played a crucial role in Dalit politics, organising various social and cultural struggles. The creative application of neo-Buddhist identity and ideology has structured the Dalit movement as an autonomous political force in Maharashtra.

Despite their significant presence in socio-cultural spaces, the neo-Buddhists have not effectively challenged the dominant caste and class elites as a political force. While the neo-Buddhist leadership of various Dalit parties (like the Republican Party of India or Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi) have struggled to mobilise other marginalised communities under their political programmes. Instead, right-wing Hindutva politics has managed to attract a sizable Dalit following by adopting innovative cultural and political strategies. 

Contemporary Hindutva and the Neo-Buddhists

Right-wing forces have understood the cultural claims of marginalized groups better than liberal-left political outfits. Through cultural strategies and innovative programmes, they have addressed Dalits’ religious anxieties, attempting to build a bond between Hindu cultural past and traditional Dalit identities. Buddha is often appropriated as an incarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu, and his philosophy is categorised as a sub-branch of Hinduism.

The BJP-led state government announced a grand memorial for Ambedkar in Mumbai to commemorate his 125th birth anniversary. The BJP systematically utilises Ambedkar’s name in political campaigns, promising to uphold reservation policies and provide affirmative action for economic empowerment. The government appears proactive on Dalit issues, consciously supplementing social and cultural assertions associated with them. For example, Prime Minister Modi often highlights Buddhist symbols as markers of India’s ancient heritage during foreign visits. On April 14, 2017, he visited Deekshabhoomi in Nagpur and announced various welfare measures for Dalits. Across the country, BJP-ruled states have constructed new monuments, cultural programmes, statues, and memorials to showcase their commitment to Ambedkar and his Buddhist vision. This associational endeavour has helped the BJP attract a significant Dalit mass.

In contrast to the BJP’s strategic interventions to mobilise Dalits (including neo-Buddhists), the political programmes of Dalit parties have often been restricted to specific regions and castes (mainly the Mahars), failing to emerge as a formidable force against Hindutva hegemony. Right-wing ideological assertions and cultural strategies have influenced socially deprived masses, integrating them into the communal rhetoric, including sections of the neo-Buddhist community. Although Ambedkar envisioned that Dalit-Bahujan groups would utilise ancient religious resources to counter Brahmanical hegemony and establish themselves as an autonomous cultural group promoting secularism and social justice, it is evident that conventional social elites have more effectively instrumentalisedHindu religious and cultural symbols, attracting Dalit-Bahujan sections under their influence.

The current BJP regime seems more accommodating to Dalit cultural and religious symbols, avoiding major skirmishes on this front. However, it is challenging for the right-wing to hegemonic neo-Buddhists within the Hindutva project. As an ideological force, neo-Buddhists provide an alternative historical narrative, positioning Buddhists as primary challengers to Brahmanical traditions, caste order, and orthodox ritualism. Thus, neo-Buddhists maintain their autonomy in socio-cultural spaces.

Conclusion

The neo-Buddhists’ social assertiveness and opposition to Hindutva politics have created a niche ideological space for Dalits in Maharashtra. Protecting the autonomous cultural space that the neo-Buddhist movement and intellectual class have developed is vital, but it is equally important to leverage cultural icons to build a unified Bahujan movement against social elite domination over democratic institutions. However, the current advancement of Hindutva is hegemonic, offering limited space to Buddhist symbols while downplaying its revolutionary potential. The left-liberal distancing from the Dalits’ cultural assertiveness have further contributed in strengthening the right-wing’s cultural project as they often deride such assertions as sectarian and petty-bourgeois social claims.

Re-examining Ambedkar’s ideological and ethical values is crucial for transforming the current depressed and marginalised location of Dalit politics today. The foundational values of liberty, equality, and fraternity, inherent in Ambedkar’s Buddhist philosophy, needs a new mantle in democratic discourses. By initiating democratic dialogue with other marginalised communities to build an impressive cultural unity against the Brahmanical hegemony, the neo-Buddhists can revitalise Ambedkar’s transformative ‘Bahujan’ project.