Manuski means humanism in Marathi. A term used by Dr B.R.Ambedkar, a great humanist of India. This blog want stimulating debate without any prejudices of caste, religion and nationalism. It is about humanism and human rights. All freethinkers are welcome to contribute and participate in stimulating debates.
Monday, July 07, 2014
Beyond Annihilation of Castes
Vidya Bhushan Rawat
October 1956 Baba Saheb Ambedkar made a historic visit to Kathmandu to
participate in the World Buddhist Congress, as he was deeply interested in the
growth of Buddhism in the entire subcontinent. Dr Ambedkar had by that time
embraced Buddhism in Nagpur along with half a million of his followers on
October 14th, 1956. Dr
Ambedkar had finished his magnum opus ‘Buddha and His Dhamma’ and it reflected
his thoughts and vision for society. It is important that we revisit the
important point raised by Dr Ambedkar in the greater interest of freedom of
choice and human rights.
is a greater pleasure for me to speak on the historic day of April 14th
here in Kathmandu. Truly historical because Ambedkar belong to the world and he
deserve a place among the high echelons of world philosophers, thinkers and
social revolutionaries. Yes, for millions of Dalits in India, he is their
‘father’ and ‘guide’ and definitely they would not like him to be used by any
one else. There are two roles of Baba Saheb Ambedkar unambiguously. One, as an
emancipator of Dalits in India and other as a political philosopher who was a
humanist and thorough democrat all his life and believed in core values of
humanism which are quintessential for survival of the world today that Buddha
espoused over 2550 years ago.
is an international icon of human rights of the depressed and isolated yet his
vision remains inclusive of all as he never ever believed in politics of
retribution. Scholars have written a lot about whether he was against Marx or
communism but Ambedkar was unambiguous about his faith in Buddha. It is
important to understand what exactly Ambedkar wanted and why his perception and
philosophy could become the ideology of human rights of 21st
me be clear here that Ambedkar never supported the idea of ‘controlling’
political ideologies and freedom of expression. He stood for the rights of
absolute freedom of expression to the extent of even challenging the ‘Shastras’.
Those who have seen his argument over ‘caste system’ with Gandhi will vouch how
he demolished Gandhi with his argumentative skills and evidence based support.
never accepted the supremacy of the authority of Shastras while Gandhi said Shastras
are written and dictated by God and those who do not believe in them are not
Sanatan Dharmis. In his Harijan, Gandhi defend the Varnashram dharma and
unsuccessfully try to differentiate between Caste and Varna. Quoted eloquently
by Dr Ambedkar, Gandhi writes :
has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom
whose origin I do not know and do not need to know
for the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger. But I do know that it is harmful
both to spiritualand
national growth.VarnaandAshramaare institutions which have nothing to
do with castes.The law
ofVarnateaches us that we have each one of us
to earn our bread by following the ancestralcalling. it defines not our rights but our duties. It necessarily
callings that are conducive to the welfare of humanity and to no other. It also
follows that there is no calling too low and none
Ail are good, lawful and absolutely equal in status. The callings of a Brahmin—
spiritual teacher—-and a scavenger are equal, and
their due performance carries equalmerit before God and at one time seems to have carriedidentical
reward before man. Both were entitled to theirlivelihood
and no more.Indeed onetraces even now in the villages the faint lines of
this healthy operation of the law. Living inSegaonwith
its population of 600, I do not find a great disparity
between theearnings of different tradesmen including
Brahmins. I find too that real Brahmins are to be found even in these
degenerate days who areliving on alms freely given
to them and are giving freely of what they have of spiritualtreasures.
It would be wrong and improper to judge the law ofVarnaby
its caricature in thelives of men who profess to belong to aVarna,whilst
a breach of its only operative rule.Arrogationof a superior status by and of theVarnaover another is a denialof
the law. And there isnothing in the law ofVarnato warrant a belief inuntouchability.(Theessence of Hinduism is contained inits
enunciation of one and only God as Truth andits bold acceptance ofAhimsa as
the law of the human family.):
from Annihilation of Castes : Ambedkar Gandhi debate)
had mentioned that there are definitely good things in Shastras but if there
are things which are against human rights and common goods of the people and
which violate the principle of equality then we must abrogate them, delete
them. Gandhi retorted to this with his typical style that Shastras are written
by Gods and human beings have no right to amend it. In the modern day, such diktats
are heard in the Islamic world who use every Quranic injunction whenever they
want to dominate the minorities and women’s right. Caste are powerful bodies,
autonomous and Hinduism is nothing but a ‘collection’ of castes, said Dr
the Hindu religion was or was not a missionary religion has been a
controversial issue. Some hold the view that it was never a missionary
religion. Others hold that it was. That the Hindu religion was once a
missionary religion must be admitted. It could not have spread over the face of
India, if it was not a missionary religion. That today it is not a missionary
religion is also a fact which must be accepted. The question therefore is not
whether or not the Hindu religion was a missionary religion. The real question
is why did the Hindu religion cease to be a missionary religion ? My answer is
this. Hindu religion ceased to be a missionary religion when the Caste System
grew up among the Hindus. Caste is inconsistent with conversion. Inculcation of
beliefs and dogmas is not the only problem that is involved in conversion. To
find a place for the convert in the social life of the community is another and
a much more important problem that arises in connection with conversion. That
problem is where to place the convert, in what caste ? It is a problem which
must baffle every Hindu wishing to make aliens converts to his religion. Unlike
the club the membership of a caste is not open to all and sundry. The law of
caste confines its membership to person born in the caste. Castes are
autonomous and there is no authority anywhere to compel a caste to admit a
new-comer to its social life. Hindu Society being a collection of castes and
each caste being a close corporation there is no place for a convert. Thus it
is the caste which has prevented the Hindus from expanding and from absorbing
other religious communities. So long as caste remain, Hindu religion cannot be
made a missionary religion and Shudhi will be both a folly and
India there have been lots of discussion about who can speak about Ambedkar and
who owns him. Dr Ambedkar in his life time did not give these kind of
‘communitarian rights’ as he believed in individuals rights and in his
interview to BBC, he said that India is still not a society as none care about
others. We are not bothered about our neighbors. We are bothered about his
caste first and hence how can we become a society when there is no man to man
relationship, where we can not shake hands with an individual despite knowing
him just because he happen to belong to another caste. He was bitter but he
never lost reasoning and sanity. He was deeply influenced from that thoughts of
Buddha and that is why believed that we can only be a great society if people
follow human values democratically and a changing the heart happens after
votaries of Marxism feel Ambedkar was the product of ‘liberalism’ where individual matters the most
and his faith was in strengthening democracy and not through the path of
‘revolution’ while the votaries of the ‘Right’ like Arun Shourie felt that he
opposed Gandhi and hence was a British ‘plant’ to subvert our ‘freedom
movement’. I am using the terminology of
Shourie which he used in his infamous book ‘Worshipping the false God’. I have
time and again written that Shourie and his family are the biggest fraud of
Indian middle class, a fraud which need to be unearthed by those who believe
idealism is important. Shourie’s hatred towards minorities, Dalits and
aadivasis is well known to be depicted here but why that is need detailed
elaboration of a different article which I will deal at certain point of time.
Ambedkar stood for human rights of all and never believed in ‘tit for tat’
theory. He was a ‘communist’ in his action but never believed in ‘communist’
form of ‘government’, which he felt would only perpetuate violence and
injustice. His focus was social justice and not in retributive justice. It
means he believed in an equalitarian society where human being believed in concept
of equality not because of fear of law but because of principle of their faith
in equality. This is an important part where Ambedkar differ with Communism and
its whole theory of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat” as Ambedkar felt
democracy is the only way out where untouchables would be able to get justice
and politically united.
believed that State must owned all the land and nationalize it. It is here he
had been influenced by the Soviet Module or the Chinese one where he felt that
state must distribute the land according to needs of the farmers and those who
do not till the land have no right to control it. Ambedkar had appreciated the
communist thinking on land. He also promoted idea of cooperative farming for
the better results of it in India particularly in the drought prone regions of
Vidarbha and Marathwada in Maharastra.
we just keen aside the differences, Dr Ambedkar’s main thought was the
emancipation of Dalits and ensuring that they get justice in the new framework.
So, he has definitely playing a double role for the community. One a community
leader who is negotiating with the government for their rights and the other
role is of a guide of the community telling them what should they do. The role
of the guide of the community is very important as it is where Baba Saheb
Ambedkar focused a lot the cultural changes in the community as he felt that
without them there would not be a change. Hence he thought of ‘Prabuddha
Bharat’ i.e. an enlightened India or enlightened world where people share
common concerns of humanity and stand for the most oppressed together.
realizing that the Varnashram dharma is full of hypocrisies, dogmas and
rituals, Baba Saheb was unambiguous that Dalits do not need a religion for the
sake of it. We must be clear that religion is for human being and not the
Buddha and Marx he mention clearly.
Religion is important fact of life and must relate to it and not to speculation
about God, soul and heaven etc.
is wrong to make God centre of religion or universe.
purpose of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to explain the ‘origin’ of it.
we analyse the above statements carefully then it is clear that Ambedkar is a
humanist as he has not accepted the ‘supremacy’ of written texts and that he
emphasizes on that the centre of ‘religion’ should be ‘human being’. It clearly
reflect his mind how he envisaged religion. He did not want to engage with
those who wanted to speak of ‘atma’ , ‘paratma’, ‘punarjanm’, ‘avatar’ etc as
he felt these are brahmanical construct to keep their monopoly over religion
and continue to misguide poor. Hinduism
for him was minus any ‘Karuna’ or humanity as it divide people on the basis of
is essential to understand how Baba Saheb look at Buddha and his teachings.
us talk of the Eight Fold Path ( Ashtang Marg)
1.Right view (freedom from superstition)
2.Right Aims (high and worthy)
3.Right speech (Kind, open and truthful)
4.Right Conduct ( Peaceful, honest and pure)
5.Right livelihood ( causing hurt or inury to no
living human being)
6.Right Mindfulness ( with a watchful and active
7.Right perseverance in all the above
8.Right contemplation ( earnest thought)
to him all the above are meant for the creation of Kingdom of righteousness.
most important thing is how ‘means’ too are important for Buddha. He will not
‘achieve’ things by ‘any means. It means that you have to have right ‘mean’ to
achieve your path. So, ‘dictatorship of
the proletariat will neither lead to democracy and will not be without
violence. The end of the dictatorship is
to make revolution permanent but then you have only duties in communism and no
right to criticize if you disagree. It
is the biggest point of disagreement of Ambedkar of communism.
says,’ Buddha was against violence but in favor of justice’ who promoted
democracy at every level in his Shakya world. There were 13 monarchies and 4 Republics
among the Shakyans.
commune concept was nothing but communism where none of the Bhikkhus had
personal possession. According to Dr
Ambedkar, Buddha established communism with out being violent and
dictatorial. So the changes, that Buddha
wanted to bring was through mind and attitude. Whatever you do, do it
voluntarily. According to Ambedkar, ‘We need religion, as we are human being,
emotional and work to satisfy our spiritual need too’ but then his meaning of
religion was based on concept of humanism and felt that it was needed to
protect human values and should have focus on wellbeing of human being rather
than an illusory ‘God’.
The Russians are
proud of their Communism. But they forget that the
wonder of all wonders is that the Buddha established
Communism so far as the Sangh was
concerned without dictatorship. It may be
that it was a communism on a very small scale but it was communism I without
dictatorship a miracle which Lenin failed to
The Buddha's method
was different. His method was to change the mind of man: to
alter his disposition: so that whatever man
does, he does it voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion. His main
means to alter the disposition of men was his Dhamma and
the constant preaching of his Dhamma. The Buddhas way
was not to force people to do what they did not like to do although it was good for them. His way was to alter the
disposition of men so that they would do voluntarily what they would not
otherwise to do.
It has been claimed
that the Communist Dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its
credit. There can be no denial of it. That is why I say that a Russian
Dictatorship would be good for all backward countries. But this is no argument for permanent Dictatorship. Humanity does not only
want economic values, it also wants spiritual
values to be retained. Permanent Dictatorship has paid no attention to
spiritual values and does not seem to intend to. Carlyle called
Political Economy a Pig Philosophy. Carlyle was of course wrong. For man needs
material comforts" But the Communist Philosophy
seems to be equally wrong for the aim of their philosophy seems to be fatten
pigs as though men are no better than pigs. Man must grow materially as well as
spiritually. Society has been aiming to lay a new foundation was summarised by
the French Revolution in three words, Fraternity, Liberty
and Equality. The French Revolution was welcomed because of this slogan. It
failed to produce equality. We welcome the Russian Revolution because it aims
to produce equality. But it cannot be too much emphasised that in producing
equality society cannot afford to sacrifice fraternity or liberty. Equality
will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can
coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but
and his Dhamma)
Ambedkar was highly impressed with French Revolution and its ideals of Fraternity,
Liberty and Equality. He loved and
respected Voltaire and wishes if we had person like him India would have gained
immensely in terms of knowledge and democratic spirit.
explain his respect for Russian Revolution too as it brought equality but he
was not ready for the dictatorship of proletariat and felt that equality
without fraternity is not acceptable to him. Society should be equal but not at
the cost of sacrificing fraternity and equality, he emphasized. Any changes
that the law enforces will be cosmetic and compulsory aversion and India is
witnessing that humbug politically and administratively when the love for
‘Dalits’ is not in the heart but because of the constitutional promulgations,
which result in falsifications and violation of their rights. Ambedkar was absolutely clear that we need to
change the heart of the people and that is why he embraced the guiding
principles of Buddha. You cannot change people through laws but through their
mindset and change of heart. We need to understand that Ambedkar was hurt but
never bitter at the end as he found right path in the preaching’s of Buddha.
in the context of today, we need to see what he should have been doing.
was an iconoclast who demolished any myth woven around an individual. He
challenged Gandhi when for every one the later had become a ‘saint’. He felt that Shastras must be amended if there
are things written in them which violate basic principles of civility and
modernity. Gandhi for obvious reasons could not tolerate this and questioned of
their being ‘Hinduness’ if someone challenges the supremacy and authenticity of
Shastras. Obviously, his differences with Gandhi were sharp and ideological and
he did not hide in sophistry of words to protect him.
Ambedkar remain an icon beyond boundaries. He is finding his place in the
history books among the historians and politicians as well as political
philosophers who were the most influential in 21st century. He will
be scrutinized and further critiqued. There will be people who have vilified
him because he stood up against authoritarian Gandhi and for whom the ‘freedom’
of Dalits from the ‘servitude’ of caste Hindus was more important than the
‘transfer of power’ in India, as he felt British were far more justice loving
people than the caste Hindus.
There were questions raised as who can write
on Ambedkar ? For me, we cannot decide about these things as who should write
and who should not as such things cannot be and should not be decided by diktat
of a few. As I mentioned earlier, none can seize the place of Baba Saheb
Ambedkar from the heart of millions of Dalits in India. They love him, respect
him and consider him their emancipator so in that way Dr Ambedkar place remain
undisputed and unchallenged among the Dalit masses. Second thing is for the
scholars and there are hundreds of non Dalits who have contributed immensely in
the growth of Ambedkar literature and movement such as Gail Omvedt, Dr.EleanorZelliot,
Bhadant Anand Kautyalyayan, Lokmitra to name a few. None can dispute their work
and dedication to the cause of spreading Ambedkar’s work and ideals world over.
eyebrows are raised when Arundhati Roy wrote a book on Ambedkar or may be, I
should say, wrote an introduction to ‘Annihilation of Castes’. I have been
asked to clear my stand on this issue which I clearly indicated that those who
oppose it are not alone the representatives’ o Dalits nor Arundhati Roy an
Ambedkarite material for reference on Ambedkar but then her right to write on Ambedkar
cannot be questioned. It is on the publisher as who he deemed fit to write an
introduction on the famous work of Dr Ambedkar, which is called ‘Annihilation
of castes’. For me, life has moved much beyond ‘annihilation of castes’ as Dr
Ambedkar gave us a clear vision for our life and not merely ‘fighting with
Hindus to ‘change’ their heart’. Fact is, if the Brahmin change their heart
then annihilation of castes mean complete annihilation of Brahmin dharma. Will
they do anything to demolish it?
want to caution every one. People have right to question particularly when
someone decides to reproduce the book on Ambedkar and there are number of
experts already available. Hence, my advised to everyone is to do you work and
not spoil energy on why someone wrote. It is a pure business and publisher knew
it well that he need a ‘famous’ name to sale the book. The protests by a few
actually helped the publisher only.
of caste made a few things clear and we must understand that. That was Ambedkar
in 1930, fighting with Gandhi, trying to improve Hinduism but he was
disappointed with Gandhi’s approach and learnt his lesson. He moved away and
decided that people need an alternative vision, a better one to guide their
destiny. There is no time for ‘improvement’ but the best way is to walk out of
the system and develop your own system. That is where he revitalized Buddhism
in India, it is Navayana, a new way of life, much different than that of Dalai
Lama and his superstitious ways of life. Let us see what does Ambedkar learnt
from his entire altercation with Gandhi which has been produced in
‘Annihilations of Castes’.
1.That Dr Ambedkar was not ready to accept the
Supremacy of ‘God’s words’ and for that he was not just ready to take on to the
high and mighty like Gandhi but also to Pope John Paul. We cannot ignore an
important publication of Times when Ambedkar was invited for hearing in Rome by
Pope. After initial introduction and the concern of Dr Ambedkar towards the
untouchables, the Pope viewed that it will take a few centuries before the
caste system is completely ‘eradicated’. Upon hearing this, Ambedkar just
walked out of the meeting saying that he did not have time to wait for this
much of centuries to liberate his people.
2.Annihilation of caste was an attempt by
Ambedkar to radicalize the Hindu system. He felt that if the caste Hindus
change, it would be great. Till that period Ambdkar contended with claiming to
be a ‘protestant Hindu’.
3.The whole debate on the issue of ‘caste system’
with Gandhi made one thing unambiguously clear that the Hindus were not ready
to change their attitude towards Dalit a bit. Caste system, as a Ambedkar said
was a ‘graded inequality’ and divide oppressed too on the basis of
‘hierarchies’. It has made a false sense of pride among people. Hence the
entire edifice of Hinduism is nothing but caste system and if caste system is
demolished the entire system of varna will collapse like a castle of cards. No
Hindu believing in the Varna system, would like to demolish his faith. Gandhi
knew it well and hence created myth around everything so that uncomfortable
questions are not raised and if they are then the answer should be wrapped in
4.Dr Ambedkar realized that Hindus are not ready
to change. It is no point discussing with them to change when they are not
ready to accept the fundamental of the problem. Caste system and discrimination
are inherent part of Varnashram dharma and cannot be resolved by propagandist’s
statement and patronizing attitude of Gandhi, suggesting that ‘untouchables’
are ‘Harijans’, son of God. Ambedkar considered it a virtual abuse as Harijan
was a term used for the children of ‘Devdasis’ who were sexually exploited by
the temple priests. Despite objections by Ambedkarites this term continued to
be used in India portraying Gandhi as a ‘great’ emancipator of Dalits. It was
only after 1991 when BSP’s fire brand politics threatened to agitate and the
government finally ordered to remove the word from the government files.
5.For Dr Ambedkar, saving Hinduism is nothing but
saving Brahmanism and as all efforts to change it were countered by Gandhi
under the pretext of Shastras, he decided that ‘ though I was a born Hindu, I
would not die as a Hindu’.
Gandhi was always claiming that untouchability
was not part of Hinduism and a blot to it. Ambedkar on the other hand felt that
discrimination and caste segregation are inherent part of brahmanical values
defined by Manu. Hence, just speaking of untouchability yet protecting caste
system reveal the greatest double speak. How can a person ‘condemn’
untouchability and decide to work for its removal but at the same point of time
openly advocate work based on caste. Gandhi unambiguously said that caste are
based on ‘divinity’ of Shastras and cannot be changed. Those who challenge the
supremacy of the religious be text have to leave the ‘religion’ and can’t be
called Hindus, said Gandhi. Actually, Gandhi was a deeply religious person who
was ‘defining’ things according to his own concepts without challenging the
authority of religion to dictate our lives. Ambedkar on the other hand was not
ready to accept the ‘authority’ of Shastras if they violate the dignity and
human rights of the people. Ambedkar was of the belief that every religion has
good things too and bad things too but most important part of them should be to
delete those which are wrong and change according to the time and need of human
Prior to this, Ambedkar had led the temple
entry movement in famous Kalaram temple of Nasik and was heavily objected by
8.On December 25th, 1927, along with
his supporters, Dr Ambedkar burnt Manusmriti and drank water from Chavdar pond
of Mahad, in Maharastra. It need to be reminded to people that Dalits were
denied right to drink water from the village ponds and wells. Ambedkar
challenged this and led the movement against such discriminatory practice.
Ambedkar realized that Caste is a big ‘political’ power for the Brahmins and
bring many privileges hence all their talk of working against it would be just
humbug as at the end of the day we all would not like to do away with our
‘powers’ and privileges.
So for the
humanists of the world, Dr Ambedkar is perfect example who challenged the
religious supremacy and never accepted the finality of religious texts. He
suggested that they should be amended as per needs of the time. However, many
friends raised objection to his ‘embracing’ Buddhism in a traditional way
ignoring the vital factor of 22 vows that he asked his followers to obey before
joining Buddhism and in my opinion these are nothing but humanism. One must
have a look at them as most of them guide people against superstition
perpetrated by the Brahmins in the name of traditions.
I shall have no faith in Brahma,
Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them.
I shall have no faith in Rama
and Krishna who are believed to be incarnation of God nor shall I
I shall have no faith in
‘Gauri’, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I
I do not believe in the
incarnation of God.
I do not and shall not believe
that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be
sheer madness and false propaganda.
I shall not perform ‘Shraddha’
nor shall I give ‘pind-dan’.
I shall not act in a manner
violating the principles and teachings of the Buddha.
I shall not allow any ceremonies
to be performed by Brahmins.
I shall believe in the equality
I shall endeavour to establish
I shall follow the ‘noble
eightfold path’ of the Buddha.
I shall follow the ‘paramitas’
prescribed by the Buddha.
I shall have compassion and
loving kindness for all living beings and protect them.
I shall not steal.
I shall not tell lies.
I shall not commit carnal sins.
I shall not take intoxicants
like liquor, drugs etc.
I shall endeavour to follow the
noble eightfold path and practise compassion and loving kindness in
every day life.
I renounce Hinduism which is
harmful for humanity and impedes the advancement and development of
humanity because it is based on inequality, and adopt Buddhism as my
I firmly believe the Dhamma of
the Buddha is the only true religion.
I believe that I am having a
I solemnly declare and affirm
that I shall hereafter lead my life according to the principles and
teachings of the Buddha and his Dhamma.
Ambedkar’s belief in Buddha was ultimate as he knew it is because of this
vision that India and rest of the world would be an enlightened society. He was
not taking his people to the path of darkness but to a place where exist the
reasoning (tark) with humanity ( Manavta) and it is Humanism of modern day
definition where human being is the centre of universe of philosophy.
his anti-caste movement, Baba Saheb Ambedkar wanted to change the Hindu society
but he realized that it was not possible. As long as you believe in those
dogmas and beliefs, you won’t be able to do justice to other people. Baba Saheb
knew the futility of a casteless society through ‘reforming’ Hinduism or
brahman dharma and that is why he gave a clarion call to embrace the path of
Buddha. Therefore, annihilation of caste is not possible without making our way
to new path. A debate on annihilation of caste must understand that by
annihilating castes we, will be demolishing Varnashram dharma or what we call
Brahman dharma. Are we ready for that? Baba Saheb knew it well that Hindus may
say that they are against untouhability but as long as they believe in basic
foundation of the same, they cannot really fight against it. That is why he
called to his followers to leave the varnashram dharma and embrace a new way of
life where your universe will be the philosophy of life and where you are
treated equally. The Hindus must continue to fight against caste system but
those who really follow Dr Ambedkar have really moved far ahead on the path
shown by him which is the way of Buddha’s enlightened world of humanism. There
is no other way. India and rest of the world cannot progress by fighting
against an ideology but the only possible way is to give people a better
alternative. Budddha gave to the world a big humanist way of life without
engaging himself in ‘critiquing’ the follies of ‘others’. He learnt the lessons
and ensures that all the evils of brahmanical value system do not come in his
way and that is why Buddha’s way is the way of life for millions of people
world over, it is the path of happiness and equality for all. It is a positive
idea and Ambedkar knew well that negativity takes a toll and does not take us
anywhere except many of us actually start following it. Therefore, it was
important to give people a way of life, which was actually Buddha’s path of
salvation, where they become decision makers of their ‘destiny’ rather than
believing in some ‘Mahatma’ to guide them to ‘liberation’.
·This lecture was delivered at the inauguration
of World Conference against Untouchability, organized by International Humanist
and Ethical Union London, on Ambedkar jayanti day, April14th, 2014, in