The gradual rise of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in India’s political landscape since its founding in 1984 significantly boosted the spread of the Ambedkarite movement across Uttar Pradesh and the surrounding North Indian states. As BSP gained traction, the socio-economic, cultural, and political dynamics in these regions evolved in unprecedented ways. This shift may correlate with an increase in the following of “Navayana Buddhism” or “Ambedkarite Buddhism” among the populace, especially during the BSP’s peak influence. However, despite this close link with Buddhism, the BSP leadership never actively pushed for mass conversions to Buddhism. This abstention may stem from a tension between social and political goals: should social reform be prioritized over political reform, or vice versa? Are the two inherently different, or can one pave the way for the other? These complex questions underscore a central dilemma in Dalit-Bahujan political discourse, where the pursuit of social change intersects with political strategy. As BSP’s presence grew, it became apparent that establishing a solid political base was a prerequisite for any substantial changes to the social order, including mass conversions. Such conditions were widely recognized in local discussions, underscoring the belief that political power is essential for social emancipation. Evaluating the BSP’s goals and their impact on society, however, is complex, requiring a close look not only at socio-economic shifts but also at the religious and cultural components of the Ambedkarite movement.

This reflection draws from my personal experience within the Ambedkarite Buddhist community, where I spent much of my childhood and adulthood attending regular gatherings at Buddha Viharas, either weekly or for significant occasions like Buddha Purnima and Ashoka Dhamma Vijaydashmi. Through these interactions, I closely observed the Ambedkarite movement’s evolution and engaged in various community events, protests, and conventions alongside both Buddhist and non-Buddhist members of the Dalit-Bahujan community.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s approach to activism and social reform evolved pragmatically over time, adapting to the shifting realities he faced (Teltumbde, 2011). Although he formally embraced Buddhism only in 1956, his radical ideas were evident from early in his career. Actions such as burning the Manusmriti and writing Annihilation of Caste reflected his commitment to dismantling entrenched caste hierarchies. His reinterpretation of Buddhism—referred to as Navayana Buddhism—diverged sharply from traditional beliefs, emphasizing rationality, ethical living, and the rejection of supernatural elements (Gokhale, 2013). For Ambedkar, Buddhism was a dynamic, morally grounded path toward a just society, one that prioritizes human welfare over rituals or notions of the afterlife.

In examining the effects of Ambedkarism on social practices and organization, it becomes evident that while many followers adopt a rational, humanistic worldview, certain traditional practices remain embedded. Those familiar with Ambedkar’s philosophy often distance themselves from irrational rituals, seeking to foster a more logical perspective compared to non-Ambedkarite Dalits. However, this rational outlook doesn’t always extend to a deeper, intrinsic transformation. Many still engage in practices like hero worship, idol veneration, and, notably, a strong attachment to caste identities. This attachment manifests in tendencies to socialize and marry within their caste, with inter-caste marriages—even among different scheduled castes—remaining rare. Socioeconomic factors and geographic placement may partially explain this reluctance to break with caste norms, but a deeper, universal worldview has yet to fully take root. The forces that may drive breakaway shifts are more likely external, like capitalism and globalization, rather than an internal social or political push.

Prominent figures like Kanshi Ram have contributed to the movement’s power by creating empowering myths around regional leaders (Narayan, 2014), yet this approach has sometimes led to what scholars describe as a “fossilization of beliefs” (Debbarma, 2016). Ambedkarites, through repeated references to historical injustices, often look to past events, such as the Manusmriti laws or Peshwa rule, to contextualize their current struggles. While such reflections serve to remind followers of their community’s enduring challenges, they can detract from addressing contemporary issues (Bhambra and Margree, 2010). This tendency is particularly evident in certain social organizations that emphasize a narrative of Indigenous identity for Dalits, with some even proposing divisive ideologies that classify caste groups along a “racial” line. Ambedkar’s work, however, took a markedly different approach: he examined caste origins through historical and anthropological perspectives rather than promoting unfounded racial theories, an approach many modern movements lack.

Within Ambedkarite social organizations, there are also challenges. A proliferation of small, often factionalized groups has arisen, likely spurred by both increased awareness and internal conflicts over leadership. These struggles for prominent roles have fragmented organizations, diluting their impact and unity.

A notable aspect of the movement is the rising involvement of women in various groups, with some even establishing their organizations. However, in practice, many Ambedkarite women remain confined to traditional roles, limited in family and societal participation. While the community may be in many ways more egalitarian than others, by Ambedkar’s standards—which placed high importance on women’s emancipation—progress has been limited, with true gender equality still largely unfulfilled.

In Annihilation of Caste (1936), Dr. B.R. Ambedkar discusses the tension between social and political reform in India’s independence movement, focusing on the political reform wing (Congress) and the social reform wing (National Social Conference). He argued that Congress’s victory over the social reformers marked a significant failure, as it prioritized political power over essential social reform. Ambedkar saw social change as a necessary precursor to meaningful political reform. Without addressing deep social inequalities, he warned, political movements would be ineffective at achieving true justice and equality.

Later Dalit political movements demonstrated the challenges that Ambedkar foresaw. Despite BSP’s electoral success, its reliance on alliances and political manoeuvring over foundational social reform weakened its impact on dismantling caste-based oppression. The shift in the party’s focus from “Bahujan” (marginalized groups) to “Sarvajan” (all groups) illustrated a shift away from Ambedkar’s radical ideals. This broadening approach may have expanded BSP’s political reach, but it diluted its initial commitment to caste emancipation, reflecting Ambedkar’s concern that politics without social reform fails to achieve transformative change.

As a child visiting Buddha Viharas in Uttar Pradesh, I observed how Ambedkarite Buddhists practised Buddha Vandana. On Sunday mornings, members would gather for the ritual, starting with the Panchsheela recitation, where the Bhante (monk) would chant in Pali, and attendees repeated after him. While these rituals are intended to foster a rational understanding of Ambedkar’s teachings, reality often diverges from this ideal. The presence of idol veneration, particularly the simultaneous display of portraits of Buddha and Babasaheb Ambedkar, can suggest a form of worship that contrasts with the original tenets of Ambedkarism. A notable practice within the community is the wearing of a white sutra on certain occasions, which resonates with Hindu customs while being adapted into the Ambedkarite context. This thread serves as a symbol of identity and belonging, yet it reflects a blending of cultural and religious practices that can challenge the community’s aim for a purely rational outlook. Many individuals may wear this sutra without fully understanding its implications, highlighting an esoteric layer to their engagement with Buddhism. This tension between the desire for a distinct Ambedkarite identity and the persistence of traditional customs underscores the ongoing struggle to reconcile rationality with deeply rooted cultural practices within the community.

The Bahujan Samaj Party’s approach was flawed, as it prioritized political power over addressing social-political dilemmas, leading to adverse long-term consequences. I argue that much more substantial social emancipation is still to be achieved from a radical Ambedkarite perspective, and a loss of radicalism in the Navayana Buddhist movement threatens the community’s unique identity at the moment.

References:

Ambedkar, B. R. (1936). Annihilation of Caste. Blumoon.

Ambedkar, B. R. (1946). Who Were the Shudras? In Kadam, K. et al. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches (Vol. 7). Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.

Ambedkar, B. R. (1957). The Buddha and his Dhamma. In Kadam, K. et al. (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches (Vol. 11). Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.

Bhambra, G. K., & Victoria M. (2010). Identity Politics and the Need for a ‘Tomorrow’. Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 45 (15). 59-66.

Bellwinkel-Schempp, M, (2007). From Bhakti to Buddhism: Ravidas and Ambedkar. Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 42(23). 2177-2183.

Debbarma, R. K. (2016). How Not to Fight Discrimination in India: Desire, Difference and the North East. Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 51(26-27). 25-29.

Gokhale, P. P. (2013). Ambedkar and Modern Buddhism: Continuity and Discontinuity. In P. P. Gokhale (Ed.), Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste (pp. 257-73).Routledge.

Kumar, P. K. (2020). Religion, Caste and Modernity: Ambedkar’s Reconstruction of Buddhism. In P. P. Gokhale (Ed.), Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste (pp. 233-56).Routledge.

Narayan, B. (2014). Kanshiram: Leader of the Dalits. Viking (Penguin Random House India Limited).

Singh, S. (2010). Three Years of the BSP Government in Uttar Pradesh. Economic & Political Weekly. Vol 45(38). 3869-3871.

Teltumbde, A. (2011): “Crisis of Ambedkarites And Future Challenges,” Countercurrents.org, 22 April, https://countercurrents.org/teltumbde220411.htm

Teltumbde, A. (2018). Strategy of Conversion to Buddhism: Intent and Aftermath. In S. Yengde, A. Teltumbde (Eds.), The Radical in Ambedkar: Critical Reflections, Allen Lane. Penguin Random House India Limited.

***

Sankalp Jayant has recently completed his double master’s in Sociology and Economics from Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi. He has been associated with the Ambedkarite movement for the last two decades.