Vol. 17, Part III · pages 436–440

407BUDDHISM...........SOCIETY divided the society into four sections (Varnas)—Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. The division of the society into four varnas (Castes) created great inequalities. They said that the Brahmins were born of the Brahma’s mouth and Shudras from his feet. Can anybody believe that the basic principle of any religion could be to divide the society ? Yet, this is what Brahminism has perpectuated. On the other hand, equality is the main feature of Buddhism. The religion of the Buddha gives freedom of thought and freedom of self-development to all. To abjure violence is another essential teaching of Buddhism. It has never taught to achieve salvation by sacrificing animals or any living being to propitiate Gods. I would say that the rise of Buddhism in India was as significant as the French Revolution. Prior to the advent of Buddhism, it was impossible to even think that a Shudra would get throne. History of India reveals that after the emergence of Buddhism, Shudras are seen getting thrones. Verily, Buddhism paved way for establishment of democracy and socialistic pattern of society in India. It is a perplexing problem how Buddhism, which had acquired a highest place, disappeared from India. There is very little material to tell us about the condition of Buddhism upto 274 B. C. It is, however, seen that Buddhism was at its climax of popularity in the reign of Asoka. How such a great and popular religion lost ground in India is a painful phenomena. Buddhism appears to have met strong opposition in 185 B. C. when the last Mauryan King was assassinated by his Chief Commander. This was one of the lawful actions of the Brahmins to save their religion. But it is a pity that the historians have not given sufficient importance to this incident. While going through the Buddhist literature, I find that 90 % followers of the Buddha were Brahmins. Brahmins used to come to the Buddha for discussion and argumentation, and when defeated, used to become faithful to the Buddha and ultimately accepted Buddhism. The Buddhist literature is full of such incidents. Therefore, how is it that Buddhism that had flourished amongst the majority of Brahmins was later on destroyed by the Brahmins themselves.

408 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES In my opinion the main reason for this was the family deity’s (kula deva) worship. In India like the village deity and national deity, there were family deities also who were worshipped through the Brahmins. The priests who used to go for worshipping these deities started influencing the affairs of the State through the queens. Asoka after embracing Buddhism discontinued this practice and removed the idols of such deities. Asoka said, “As I venerate the Buddha, the Enlightened One, there is no need to worship any other deity.” This action of Asoka disturbed the Brahmins very much as it ended their unfair means of livelihood and exploitation. They pledged to take revenge for this loss. The Brahmins were of the view that after death, kings go to hell because of their errors and omissions. Therefore, they did not agree to be rulers but preferred to be the Chief Advisers to the Kings. In order to take revenge for the loss they suffered on account of stoppage of Kulapuja (family deity’s worship). Brahmins gave up the approved motto of being advisers only and tried to grab power. With the help of their well-wisher Kshatriyas, they also organised an united Brahmin-Kshatriya axis against Buddhism. The ascendency of Brahminism again in Indian society, is one of the reasons for the downfall of Buddhism. The foreign invasions are also responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India. The Greeks did no harm to Buddhism. There are positive proofs available that the Greeks gave liberal financial assistance for Buddhist activities. The Huns invaded India, and after being defeated by the Guptas, they settled in India. Prior to this, the Huns tried to destroy Buddhism. The religion of the Buddha got the severest blow from the Muslim invasion. They destroyed the Buddhist idols and killed the Bhikkhus. They mistook the great Nalanda University as the Fort of Buddhists and killed a large number of monks thinking that they were soldiers. The few Bhikkhus who escaped an onslaught fled away to the neighbouring countries like Nepal, Tibet, and China. Some of my Hindu friends often ask why Hinduism, which has also idol-worship, survived in India and Buddhism died.

409BUDDHISM...........SOCIETY My answer is that whatsoever the religion may be, it requires the priest community to preserve it. Due to the shortage of Buddhist monks, Buddhism declined. Efforts were subsequently made by some Buddhists to raise another priest-hood in order to revive Buddhism but their efforts failed. Such is not case with Hinduism. A Brahmin’s son is priest by birth. Therefore, no separate priest community is required to protect their religion. This is why Hinduism survived Muslim onslaught. Moreover, Buddhism as a religion is difficult to practise while Hinduism is not. Besides, the political climate in India had also been inhospitable to its advancement. I do not agree with the suggestion made by many people in India that Buddhism was destroyed by the dialectics of Shankaracharya. This is contrary to the facts as Buddhism existed for many centuries after his death. In my opinion, Shankaracharya himself was a Buddhist. His Guru too was Buddhist. Of course, Buddhism declined in India because of the rise of Vaishnavism and Saivism, the two cults which adopted and absorbed many good points of Buddhism. Today, Hinduism is in a very much changed form. Hinduism which taught and practised violence earlier has started teaching non-violence. This has been copied from Buddhism. Buddhism may have disappeared, in material form but as a spiritual force it still exists in India.” 1 zz 1. Bauddha Dharam hi Manav Dharam (Hindi)—Speech in Colombo. Sri Lanka, on 6-6-1950. Reprinted : Dr. Ambedkar on Buddhism : Editor D. C. Ahir, Pp 111 — 114.

121 I SHALL DEVOTE REST OF MY LIFE TO THE REVIVAL AND SPREAD OF BUDDHISM “Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Law Minister, Government of India, has appealed to people to embrace Buddhism. “The present Hinduism was the same about a thousand years ago”, he said and added : it was nothing but Buddhism, but after the Mahomedan invasion and other causes it lost its purity and was mixed up with dross.” Dr. Ambedkar, who was speaking at Bombay’s Buddha Temple at Worli on Friday night the 29th September 1950 deprecated the idea that political indepedence would end all the ills of the country. He said, “as long as there is no purity of mind, wrong doing and utter disregard of morals would continue in every day life; and as long as man does not know how to behave with man and creates barriers between man and man, India can never be prosperous”. “To end all these troubles, India must embrace Buddhism. Buddhism is the only religion based upon ethical principles and teaches how to work for the good and well-being of the common man.” Dr. Ambedkar declared that he would devote the rest of his life to the revival and spread of Buddhism in India.” 1 zz 1. The Sunday News, dated 1st October 1950.

122 THE BILL WAS AIMED AT THE SOCIAL ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN On December 26, 1950, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar while addressing a rally of 50,000 people under the auspices of the Belgaum District branch of the Scheduled Castes Federation stated, The lack of moral courage and strength of character of the women in India had come in the way of the Bill (Hindu Code) that had been drafted by him. None of the prominent women leaders were really interested in the social progress of our women, Dr. Ambedkar declared. Dr. Ambedkar said, “I drafted the Bill in confirmity with the dictates of the Smritis which allow several rights to women. The Bill was only aimed at removing the obstruction of Law in the social advancement of women. On wealth depends independence and a woman must be very particular to retain her wealth and rights, to help retain her freedom. Dr. Ambedkar compared the Hindu Code Bill to milk which has been spoiled by mixture with a bitter acid. Referring to agitations by some orthodox people and even women for whose benefit the Bill had been introduced, he remarked, “I challenge everyone to show me whether any of the Sections in the Bill are not based on the dictates of the Smritis” zz The Times of India, December 26, 1950, “Opposition to Hindu Code”, “Dr. Ambedkar’s Criticism.” Reprinted Bharill, Pp. 101—102.