Philosophy of Hinduism

by B.R. Ambedkar

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was the chief architect of the Indian Constitution. A great statesman and politician, he fought for the rights of the backward classes in India. In this unpublished work, of the early 20th century, he expounds on the Philosophy of Hinduism...

Genres: India, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Society, History

148 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 12, 2014

About the author

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born in 1891 into an “Untouchable” family of modest means. One of India’s most radical thinkers, he transformed the social and political landscape in the struggle against British colonialism. He was a prolific writer who oversaw the drafting of the Indian Constitution and served as India’s first Law Minister. In 1935, he publicly declared that though he was born a Hindu, he would not die as one. Ambedkar eventually embraced Buddhism, a few months before his death in 1956.

Reviews

[Rajiv Chopra]

This book, by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, is a short one. Some people may not be familiar with him. He was born a Dalit, an Untouchable; and rose to a very senior and influential position. He was one of the lead authors and designers of India’s Constitution.
Towards the end of his life, he converted to Buddhism. Today, nationalist politicians seek to arrogate his legacy for electoral gains.
B.R. Ambedkar rejected Hinduism, and in this short book, he explains the reasons why. Hindus derive a large part of their philosophy and societal rules from a book called “The Laws of Manu”, or the “Manu Smriti”.
A very large section of the Manu Smriti has been devoted to caste, and how to deal with people belonging to different castes. Not surprisingly, the uppermost caste – the Brahmins – have arrogated most privileges for themselves. The Shudras have become the servants, and below the Shudras are the Untouchables.
Hindu society. States Dr Ambedkar, is unequal, and he further states that Hindu philosophy promotes inequality. It promotes and creates divisions within itself. This is further reflected in issues like education, employment, national security etc.
It is easy to dismiss the book as mere diatribe. At one level, it is indeed diatribe, as there is much in Hindu philosophy that is admirable.
But, he has chosen to portray the dark side of Hinduism. He has quoted at length from the Manu Smriti, and the texts he has quoted are blood curdling.
Friedrich Nietzsche was influenced by the Manu Smriti, and his philosophy contributed to the rise of Nazi philosophy. Germany turned away from the idea of a mythic, Aryan superman. Indians have not.
B.R. Ambedkar’s prose is powerful, direct and passionate. He does not mince words. He is lucid and his arguments are well reasoned. At no point in the book does he descend into a blind attack on Hindu philosophy and society.
He has illustrated his arguments with quotations and logic.
It is a short, and explosive book.

[Chinar Mehta]

All right, so at the outset, I have to say that this is a fairly complicated text that delves into some amount of philosophy so it might not be the ideal text for someone looking for a cursory look at the philosophy of Hinduism. Ambedkar borrows concepts and philosophies from a variety of different sources, not all of which are easy to understand, although he does try to make it simple by providing concrete examples and explanations and many many quotes from the scriptures he discusses. That said, while this is a short-ish book, it is actually very rich in the concepts that are used, the connections that are made, and the overall argument that Ambedkar is making. I came across this reading at the Begumpura Collective reading sessions which are thoroughly engaging and can help someone who is struggling to read these texts, as they helped me. The pace on these reading sessions is comfortable, and there are always people to explain the more complicated parts of the text while also connecting them to larger contemporary politics and to other works and thoughts of Ambedkar (which is essential for really any reading exercise). I have to also mention that the following are my own personal thoughts about the text, and the highlights are those that seemed of the most interest to me (and not representative of the text itself per se).

A more detailed discussion about the book can be found here at the Begumpura Collective blog:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Ambedkar starts right at the beginning and starts by asking how we can even evaluate what can be understood to be the philosophy of religion and asks how we can do this. In only a few paragraphs, he cites some really dense work that requires some thinking. His question of the conflict between a theologian and a philosopher is actually very interesting, and really lays the groundwork for what he clarifies next.

Then, he moves on to discussing the differences between the religions of the savage and the civilised. These are his categorisations, which may seem somewhat dated, but his definitions are not really value-ladden as far as I could tell, but more analytical in nature. He describes both these kinds of religion without really getting into whether one is better or worse or anything of that sort, which I actually appreciate, because those differences are definitely important to the analysis. Key differences:
In civilised society, God comes into the scheme of religion. This conception does not quite exist in a savage religion.
There is a connection between morality and religion in the civilised society.

Next, he also differentiates in a similar manner between ancient and modern religions. A major difference that Ambedkar mentions (and which stayed with me) was the connection between nationality and religion. For an ancient religion, God had a connection with the community, but for a modern religion, the connection was between MEN of a community, and God was less important in this sense. Actually, Ambedkar outlines 8 differences - this is only one of those. Each difference is crucial in understanding how religion becomes a part of society.

Next, Ambedkar writes about what a revolution is, and how religion guides the norms and what they ought to be doing.

“The best of men cannot be moral if the basis of relationship between them and their fellows is fundamentally a wrong relationship. To a slave, his master may be better or worse. But there cannot be a good master. A good man cannot be a master, and a master cannot be a good man.”

–Dr. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste

There are various tests that Ambedkar puts the philosophy of Hinduism through, laying out the philosophical underpinnings of all these assumptions. These principles are based in justice, equality, liberty, fraternity, and utility. He also outlines a historical method that is, interestingly, based in scientific objectivity. In fact, his critique of Brahmin subjectivity was about how it could never engage critically with Sanskrit scriptures. This is a method that he himself employs while looking at Manusmriti. He takes on the examples of marriage, slavery, to show the FUNDAMENTAL inequality in the philosophy of Hinduism. Towards the end, Ambedkar argues that there is a parallel between the philosophy of Hinduism and Nietzche (this was actually a part that I would love to read more about, but I don’t know where to start exactly). In any case, the book is tied with a conclusion that Hinduism is not concerned with the society, but with a particular class in society (the Brahmin class) and the rights of that class.

[Saurabh Nanda]

Too much repetition and quoting large verses of Manusmriti. I had to skip a lot of pages to get to his actual analysis.

Also, too much dependence on quoting Western authors, philosophers and professors on what a religion _should_ be (i.e. what yardstick to use when evaluating a religion).

Have some more thoughts, and this has led me into the rabbit-hole of Manusmriti vs Vedas vs Upanishads. If I ever finish that, I might come back and update this review.

[Trunil]

Dr. Ambedkar explains how inequality is the basis of Hinduism by giving excerpts from its religious texts and examples from the Hindu society.

[Revanth Ukkalam]

To prior readers of Ambedkar, the thrust of the book is fairly obvious. The fashion with which Ambedkar calls a spade a spade is to this day stunning - exposing the deeply hierarchical and oppressive configurations of Manu especially. Ambedkar has also compiled a list of stories which enliven a caste conflict, primarily between Kshatriyas and Brahmanas.

[Zia]

A great work if one wants to educate oneself about the caste system in India that has been prevalent for thousands of years. Especially from one of the most notable social reformers of all time. Putting Hinduism, itself, in trial, not just as a religion but as philosophical ideas, is spectacular in itself. An absolute masterwork.

[Gowtham]

Must read. ⭐