Vol. 17, Part III · pages 581–585

552 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES enunciated. That Government must be by the exploited classes and not by the exploiting classes, which is what is meant by dictatorship of the proletariat. These are fundamental propositions in Karl Marx, which have the basis of Communism in Russia. They have undoubtedly been expanded, it has been added too, and so on. But these are the fundamental propositions. Now let me, for a moment, go to Buddhism and see what the Buddha has to say about the points made out by Karl Marx. As I told you, Karl Marx begins with what is called exploitation of the poor. What does the Buddha say ? How does he begin ? What is the foundation on which he has raised the structure of His religion ? The Buddha, too, 2000 or at any rate 2400 years ago, said exactly the same thing. He said, “There is Dukkha in the world.” He did not use the word ‘exploitation’ but He did lay the foundation of His religion on what He called Dukkha There is Dukkha in the world. The word Dukkha no doubt has been interpreted in various ways. It has been interpreted to mean re-birth, the round of life, that is Dukkha. I do not agree with that. I think there are lots of places in the Buddhist literature where the Buddha has used the word Dukkha in the sense of poverty. Therefore, so far as the foundaion is concerned, there is really no difference at all. It is unnecessary for the Buddhist people to go to Karl Marx to get the foundation. That foundation is already there, well laid. It is where the Buddha begins his first sermon-the Dharma Chakra Pravartana Sutta. Therefore, to those who are attracted by Karl Marx, I say, study the Dharmachakra Pravartana Sutta and find out what the Buddha says. And you will find sufficient satisfaction on this question. The Buddha did not lay the foundation of his religion either on God, or on Soul, or anything Supernatural like these. He laid His finger on the fact of life-people are living in suffering. Therefore, so far as Marxism or Communism is concerned, Buddhism has enough of it. And the Buddha has said it 2000 years before Marx was born. With regard to the question of property, you will again find some very close affinity to the doctrine of the Buddha and the doctrine preached by Karl Marx. Karl Marx said that in order

553BUDDHA OR KARL MARX to prevent exploitation, the State must own the instrument of production, that is, property. Land must belong to the State, industry must belong to the State, so that no private owner might intervene and rob the worker of the profits of his labour. That is what Marxism said. Now, let us go to the Sangha, the Buddhist Sangh, and examine the rules of life that the Buddha laid down for the monks. What are the rules that the Buddha laid down ? Well, the Buddha said that no monk shall have private property. Ideally speaking, no monk can own property. And although there might be a few lapses here and there, and I have noticed that in some countries the monks own some property, yet in the large majority of the cases the monks have no property at all. In fact, the Buddhist rules for the Sangha are far more severe than any rule that the Communists have made in Russia. I take it as a mute subject, nobody has yet discussed it and come to any conclusion. What object did the Buddha have in forming the Sangha? Why did he do it ? Going back a little into the history, when the Buddha was engaged in propagating this religion, those we today call the “Parivrajakas” were existing there long before the Buddha was there. The word “Parivrajaka” means a displaced person, a person who has lost his home. Probably during the Aryan period the different tribes of the Aryans were warring against one another as all tribal people do. Some broken tribes left, lost their moorings and they were wandering about. And it is those wanderers that were called Parivrajakas. The great service that the Buddha did to these Parivrajakas was to organise them into a body, to give them rules of life - those that are contained in the ‘Vinayapitika’. In the rules, the Bhikkhu is not allowed to have property. The Bhikkhu is allowed to have only seven things - a razer, a lota for getting water, a Bhikshyapatra and three Chivaras, and the needle for sewing things. Well, I want to know if the essence of Communism is to deny the private property, can there be any greater and more severe rule so regards private property than is found in the ‘Vinayapitika’ ? I do not find one. Therefore, if any people or

554 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES any youngsters are attracted by the rule contained in the Communist system of rules that there shall be no private property, they can find it here. The only question is, to what extent can this rule of denial of private property be applied to society as a whole ? That is a matter of expediency, time, circumstances, development of human society. But, so far as theory is concerned whether there is anything wrong in abolishing private property, Buddhism will not stand in the way of anybody who wants to do it; because it has already made this concession in the organisation of the Buddhist Sangha. Now, we come to another aspect of the matter, and that aspect is - what is the ways and means which Karl Marx or the Communists wish to adopt in order to bring about Communism? This is the important question. The means that the Communists wish to adopt in order to bring about Communism, by which I mean the recognition of Dukkha, and abolition of property, is violence and killing of the opposed. There lies the fundamental difference between the Buddha and Karl Marx. The Buddha’s means of persuading people to adopt the principles is by persuasion, by moral teaching, by love. He wants to conquer the opponent by inculcating in him the doctrine that love and not power can conquer anything. That is where the fundamental difference lies - that the Buddha would not allow violence, and the Communists do. No doubt the Communists get quick results ; because when you adopt the means of anihilating men, they do not remain to oppose you. You go on with your ideology, you go on with your ways of doing things. The Buddha’s way, as I said, is a long way, perhaps some people may say, a tedious way. But I have no doubt about it that it is the surest way. There are two or three questions which I have always asked my communist friends to answer and which, I must frankly say they have not been able to answer. They establish by means of violence what they call the dictatorship of the proletariat. They deprive all people who have property, of their political rights. They cannot have representation in the legislature. They cannot have right to vote, they must remain what they call second grade subjects of the State, the ruled, not

555BUDDHA OR KARL MARX sharing authority or power. When I asked them, “Do you agree that dictatorship is a good method of governing people” ? They say, “No, we don’t, we don’t like dictatorship”. Then we say, “How do you allow it?” But they say, “This is an interim period in which dictatorship must be there.” You proceed further and ask them, “What is the duration of this interim period? How long? Twenty years ? Forty years ? Fifty years ?” No answer. They only repeat that the proletarian dictatorship will vanish, somehow automatically. Very well, let us take the thing as it is that dictatorship will vanish. Well, I ask a question, “What will happen when dictatorship disappears ? What will take its place ? Will men not need Government of some sort ?” They have no answer. Then we go back to the Buddha and ask this question in relation to his Dhamma. What does he say ? The greatest thing that the Buddha has done is to tell the world that the world cannot be reformed execpt by the reformation of the mind of the man, and the mind of the world. If the mind is changed, if the mind accepts the Communist system and loves it loyally and carries it out, it is a permanent thing, it does not require a soldier or a police officer to keep a man in order. Why ? The answer is : The Buddha has energized your conscience itself that is acting as a sentinal in order to keep you on your path. There is no trouble when the mind is converted the thing is permanent. The Communist system is based on force. Supposing tomorrow the dictatorship in Russia fails, and we see signs of its failure, what would happen ? I really like to know what would happen to the Communist system. As I see it, there would be bloody warfare among the Russian people for appropriating the property of the State. That would be the consequence of it. Why ? Because they have not accepted the Communist system voluntarily. They are obeying it because they are afraid of being hanged. Such a system can take no root, and therefore in my judgment unless the Communist are able to answer these questions, what would happen to their system ? When force disappears, there is no use pursuing it. Because, if the mind is not converted, force will always be necessary, and this is what

556 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I want to say in conclusion that one of the greatest things I find in Buddhism is that its system is a democratic system. The Buddha told the Vajjis when the Prime Minister of Ajata Satru went to tell the Buddha, that Ajata Satru wanted to conquer the Vajjis, He said, the King won’t be able to do it as long as the Vajjis follow their ways of their age-old system. The Buddha for unknown reasons did not explain in plain terms what he meant. But there is no doubt about it that what he was referring to was the democratic and the republican form of government, which the Vajjis had. He said : so long as the Vajjis were following their system, they would be unconqured. The Buddha, of course, was a great democrat. Therefore, I say, and may I say so if the President will allow me, I have been a student of politics; I have been a student of economics, I was a professor of Economics, and I have spent a great deal of time in studying Karl Marx, Communism and all that, and I have also spent good deal of time in studying the Buddha’s Dhamma. After comparing the two I came to the conclusion that Buddha’s advice with regard to the great problem of the world, namely, that there is Dukkha, that Dukkha must be removed, that the Buddha’s method was the safest and the soundest. Thus, do I advice the younger generation of the Buddhist countries to pay more attention to the actual teachings of the Buddha. If I may say so in conclusion if any peril arises to the Dhamma, in a Buddhist country the blame shall have to be cast upon the Bhikkhus, because I personally think that they are not wholly discharging the duty which devolves on them. Where is the preaching? The Bhikkhu is living in his cloister taking his meal, one meal no doubt and sitting quietly : probably he is reading, and most probably I find them sleeping, and in the evening having a little music. That is not the way of propagating religion. My friends, I want to tell you, I do not want to criticise anybody; but religion, if it is to be a moral force for the regeneration of society, you must constantly din it into the ears of the people. How many years has a child to spend in School?