Ambedkar’s Approach to Indian Philosophy

Prof.P.Kesava Kumar

Introduction
Philosophy is reasoning of our thoughts, beliefs, assumptions and actions. Philosophy in
broad terms understood as critical reflection on reality, life and existence. Philosophy
critically evaluates our belief systems and clarifies concepts. Philosophy has the cutting
edge over other discipline of knowledge for its comprehensive understanding. The
definition of Philosophy goes on changing with its philosophical methods. For Charles
Taylor, Philosophy is articulateness. Philosophy involves a great deal of articulation of
what is initially inarticulated. The social practice has to be articulated. The social
practices are located in history. In that sense philosophy is inescapably historical. For
Delueze, philosophy is an act of creation of concepts. The concepts are grounded in a
plane of immanence. For Taylor philosophy engages with creative rediscription. For
Richard Rorty, philosophy is an act of both rational and historical reconstruction.
Immanuel Levinas proposes ethics as first philosophy. Philosophy is a social expression
in understanding everyday life. This social expression is reflexive and abstract in nature.
It was not historically constructed but also creatively novel. Philosophy has not only
organizes thought but also provides principles in understanding the complex social
reality. Historically, we may find diverse approaches and methods of philosophy. There
are contesting positions on what constitutes philosophical and what philosophical
problems are. There are many styles of doing philosophy. Mostly the philosophical
canons are decisive in appropriating or excluding the philosopher. As Richard Rorty
observed as long as 'philosophy' has an honorific use it will matter which figures count as
'philosophers'. So if things go well we can expect continual revisions of the philosophical canon
in order to bring it into line with the present needs of high culture. If they go badly, we can expect
the stubborn perpetuation of a canon - one which will look quainter and more factitious as the
decades pass. In Indian philosophy, the Brahminical philosophical canon was not recognized the
Ambedkar as philosopher. The struggles against brahminical tradition formed alternative canon in
Indian philosophy and celebrating Ambedkar is a focal figure in this philosophical genre.
In India, Philosophy as an honorific value carried with Braminical intellectuals. The celebration
of Ambedkar as the contributor to philosophic ideas has creating tension among the academic
elite. They bounced back with many questions to belittling the image of Ambedkar. They have
repulsive attitude to recognize Ambedkar as a philosopher. They often argue that Ambedkar is
not a philosopher in real sense. He does not have any epistemology. His ideas are not belongs to
any known grand philosophical systems. However, these claims could not dismiss Ambedkar as
thinker. Even a cursory reading of Ambedkar reveals the philosophical strength of Ambedkar and
its importance in social reconstruction. He constructed Indian philosophy from a Buddhist
perspective against dogmatic Brahmanism.

Ambedkar’s notion of Philosophy

1
Ambedkar is clear in the function and purpose of philosophy. He believes that philosophy
has its roots in the problems of life and whatever theories philosophy propounds must
return to society as instruments of reconstructing society. It is not enough to know. Those
who know must endeavour to fulfil. 1 B.R. Ambedkar is a strong critic of brahminical
tradition for it’s irrational, undemocratic, humiliate and exploitative character. He
thoroughly interrogates the dominant philosophical traditions which are identified as
Indian philosophy. In such process he considers Buddhism as the revolutionary thought
against the reactionary brahminical Hinduism. He viewed Indian history as nothing but a
struggle between Brahmanism and Buddhism.
Ambedkar’s approach to Indian philosophy is unique, novel, convincing and more
rational that which is missing in dominant Brahminical constructions and philosophies of
Indian philosophy. He understood the Indian social reality from the perspective of
philosophy of religion. For this, he considered religion as a social force rather a mere
faith. He is against authoritative, dogmatic, ritualistic, God centered religion and favours
rationalistic, democratic, humanistic religion. He believes religion sustains social and
cultural traditions of a society, but also upholds the spiritual values. Religion acts as a
medium for morality. He considers that Indian philosophy based on Hinduism neither
qualifies as philosophy nor as religion. His work Buddha and His Dhamma is a
construction of Indian philosophy on solid foundations of rationalistic, humane and
democratic culture. The way Ambedkar connecting the religion and political governance
is interesting. He believes that moral community that was internalized the principles of
equality, liberty and fraternity should be the foundation for democratic government. In
search of this, he interrogates whole Indian philosophical traditions and its texts. Further,
his approach is different from orthodox Marxists and naturalistic approaches to Indian
philosophy adopted by different thinkers. Ambedkar’s philosophy and his methodology in
understanding Indian social reality proves contemporary relevant and has a real potential
in providing a principles of social reconstruction in transforming the Indian society in
much more humane and democratic fashion, in times of revival of Hindu nationalists.

Brahminical Characterization of Indian philosophy:

The bulk of Indian philosophy is technically identified with the classical systems. The
Indian philosophical systems were standardized with respective works of sutras. The later
philosophical writing is followed by commentaries, bhasyas and commentaries on
commentaries, tikas, and karikas, varttikas .However Indian classical systems of
philosophy got identified with the texts of sutras. These philosophical schools are divided
on the basis of acceptance of authority of Vedas, as orthodox and heterodox schools. The
systematization of philosophical schools happened to be roughly somewhere in between
2century A.D- to 6th century A.D. It is maintained by many writers that there is no further
growth in Indian philosophy. Even they extended their argument that contemporary
Indian philosophy too, is nothing new to offer. At most it is the reinterpretation of earlier
2
schools. The broad divisions of Indian philosophy as Radhakrishnan made is, the Vedic
period (1500 B.C.-600 B.C.), the epic period ( 600 B.C. to 200 A.D.),the Sutra and
Scholastic period (from 200.A.D.)2. Then what happened later. Is there no people? Is
there no struggles? Or, our Indian society had totally stagnant? Does the Medieval period
is a dark period?

Indian philosophy is very often projected without having any history. It is a

commonsensical view that any ideas are products of history. All our ideas, including
philosophical ideas are located in social context. But our Indian philosophy is quite often
presented as it is beyond time and space. By presenting Indian philosophy in this manner
the Brahminical scholars were succeeded in keeping away from socio-cultural contexts of
their own. It means philosophical development took place with out having any social
meaning. Or the Brahminical class was not ready to sacrifice their privileges. It is
obvious for this class to safeguard their interests and philosophized accordingly. They
were not prepared to acknowledge any change. They often used a tactics of
‘assimilation’. By assimilating the ‘other’, these classes would not allow/recognize any
specificity or difference that goes against their interest. Over the period of time it is easy
to accommodate the social forces that are fighting against them. In fact, most of the
heterodox schools fought with dominant Brahminical philosophical traditions and had its
own socio-historical context. By ignoring this view, presenting Indian philosophy as a
unified system, is a deliberate attempt to dilute the very spirit of heterodox philosophies.
There are attempts to write history of Indian philosophy, but they were failed in their
task. The idealistic approach of these writers has not allowing them to give historical
account of various philosophical ideas.

In the nineteenth century and early twentieth century there occurred a renaissance in
India, which was significant movement in Europe in fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
With changed socio- political situation , there emerged a social elite(liberal brahminical
class) and started thinking critical about their religious and cultural traditions. In India,
this renaissance movement began with the realization that hindu society was
anachronistic, that there was a need for its reform and reorganization to adjust obsolete
social relationships. This impulse for reform did not come from the oppressed classes or
lower castes, but from persons who belonged to the upper classes, studied western
science and literature and understood the needs of their contemporary world. It was soon
found that without religious reform there could be no social reconstruction. The essence
of the fundamental beliefs which form the core of Hinduism was identified, reexamined
and reinterpreted. The social reformers Raja Ramohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati, Vidya
Sagar, Vivekananda identified as contemporary Indian philosophers in philosophy text
books are classic example.3
The intellectuals of the Indian renaissance to resist the hegemony of the colonialism
interpreted the past for their immediate demands. The nationalist intellectuals happen to
3
be elites of the Brahminical class and reflected from their own social imagination in
constructing the Indian philosophy. 'In their search for internal principle of unity to the
past, religion was given a foundational position by both orthodox and reformist Brahmin
intellectuals'4. This can be seen in torch bearers of modern India like Rajramohan Roy,
Dayananda Saraswati, Sri Aurobindo, Tagore, Vivekananda, Tilak, Gandhi,
Radhakrishnan etc5. The hindu nationalists started the tradition of dressing up the spirit
centred metaphysics of orthodox Hinduism in modern scientific clothes6. As
Radhakrishnan argues that Indian wisdom is needed today not only to rejuvenate the
Indian nation but to reorient the entire human race. 7’ P. T. Raju offered that ‘the East can
impart the spiritual basis to the west. The future of mankind depends on conciliation and
synthesis.8’ There are many writers engaged in this project by saying cultural synthesis of
east and west or of dialogue of India with west’. The Oriental Scholars like Max Muller,
Duessen, Schopenhauer too fascinated by it. They promoted or over-exaggerated Indian
irrationalism and mysticism.
The modern hindu intellectuals are very much aware of the social contradictions of the
Indian society, but they never attempted seriously to change the society. They responded
to the situation indirectly in such a way that it does not effect their socially privileged
position. To conceal the contradictions of the Indian society, the renaissance and
nationalist intellectuals were clever enough to invent a new language that works well 9.
One may find equality in spiritual realm and inequality in material world or social world.
It promises equality in other world by negating affairs of this world or by projecting it as
maya. The grand philosophies constructed on this line, ultimately helps in maintaining
the status quo and hegemony of brahminism.

In contemporary times, there are many writers responded to this kind of characterization
of Indian philosophy. With changing socio-historical contexts, some of the thinkers like
Radhakrishnan tried to give new interpretation for the same old characterization of it. For
him, Indian philosophy is essentially spiritual, idealistic and mystic. Intuition is the
source of knowledge. Their views are in justifying the status quo without considering the
‘change’. Radhakrishnan represents the dominant philosophical position which is
essentially brahminical.
Another dominant popular notion that still working is, Indian philosophy and religion are
inseparable. Indian spiritualism is counter posed to western materialism/colonial
modernity/rationality in context of struggle for independent nation. Western educated
liberal Indian social elite started reinterpreting Indian culture and its philosophy. Vedas
and Upanishads become a source for them by considering it as glorious past. As a result,
Hinduism with minor reform presented as the Indian way of life. Vedanta and its idealism
emerged as only philosophical tradition of India at cost of consciously marginalizing the
other religions or Indian philosophical traditions.

4
 On one hand western scholars like Hegel dismissed Indian thought as insufficiently
distinguished from religious and mythological ideas to count as ‘philosophy’. He argued
that Indian thought is still at the level of custom. On the other, the vast majority of
Brahminical scholars ignore the central place of the question of the relation between
existence and thought-between matter and consciousness-among the philosophical
problems and decisive significance of its solution for characterizing the nature of every
philosophical school. As a result, they are incapable of properly interpreting the history of
Indian philosophy as the history of struggle between materialism and idealism, between
atheism and religion. These scholars either totally deny the conflict of ideas in Indian
philosophy or admit such conflict only within the framework of idealism by viewing it as
the struggle between the three major religions of India-Hinduism, Buddhism and
Jainism10. The main reason for distorted interpretation of Indian philosophy, the scholars
idealistic bias in their outlook, they ignore the social significance of philosophy and do
not comprehend the truth that philosophy is the product of concrete social environment.
They tried to understand through textual and linguistic analysis of its sources.11

Indian philosophy: A Critical Introspection

In India there are few the thinkers exposed to western education like S.N.
Dasgupta, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya and Dayakrishna finds problems with the basic
assumptions of writers on Indian philosophy. As they pointed out most of the writers had
never overcome the certain dogmas and myths about Indian philosophy. As S.N.
Dasgupta 12explains, many of these writers/philosophers had affinity with some dogmas
in developing Indian philosophy (e.g., the doctrine of rebirth, doctrine of moksha and
theory of karma). This made them subservient to ethics and religion in writing Indian
philosophy. For instance, belief in theory of karma justifies that the social inequalities of
present life is determined by the unknown activities of past life. Likewise, many of the
writers on Indian philosophy carried by these dogmas, without having a critical look at
them. Whereas, Dasgupta argues against these kind of dogmas carried by the Indian
philosophers. He felt that the immediate imperative of Indian philosophy is to rejuvenate
and revitalize itself by critical reformation of the fundamental postulates that have so
long been guiding its destiny.13

In the same manner, Dayakrishna 14 critically considers the myths about Indian
philosophy that are influencing the writers in the conception and presentation of Indian
philosophy ( i.e, 'Indian philosophy is exclusively spiritual', ‘the acceptance of authority
of veda’, and ‘development and classification of Indian philosophical schools’). In this
context he explains that most of the presentations of Indian philosophy are non- historical
in nature. History is always the story of change, development, differentiation or
innovation. But most of the writers/philosophers on Indian philosophy are immune to
change. He considers that, the dead and mummified picture of Indian philosophy will be
5
alive only when it is seen to be a living stream of thinkers who have grappled with
difficult problems that are: philosophically, as alive today as they were in the ancient
past. Indian philosophy will become contemporarily relevant only when it is conceived as
philosophy proper. For him philosophy is a living tradition 15. He further considers that
conceptual structures will grow only when they are used in everyday life and in the
context of thought and when contemporary thinkers in India begin to articulate their
experiences about man, society, and polity in terms of classical thought, a new direction
will be given to concepts. In a sense, Indian thinkers from the time of Ramamohan Roy
have been trying to do this, but the focus has mostly been on matters primarily non
intellectual and non conceptual in nature. Indian philosophy like Indian culture
approached with either too much enthusiasm or total negation of it. To assess Indian
philosophy properly, one has to keep aside both positive and negative emotions.

Against Idealistic Tradition

Against the dominant idealistic approach, there are few attempts to interpret Indian
philosophy from materialistic point of view. 16 Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya wrote Indian
philosophy A popular introduction keeping the philosophical needs of the people. By
interpreting the Marxist dialectical materialism in understanding Indian philosophy, our
ideas are always have correspondence with material conditions. He is looking for
scientifically satisfactory philosophy. He tries to make a point that even in traditional
Indian philosophical systems there is a struggle between idealism and materialism in
India. He identifies idealistic philosophy with feudalism. In our traditional philosophy
itself there were also vigorous attempts to out grow idealism. 17. These anti-idealistic
trends like idealistic one, were themselves historically determined i.e. had their roots in
the socio-economic conditions of ancient and medieval India.
Through his writings Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya is critical about Indian scholars who
are presenting Indian philosophy typically from idealist point of view. He argues Idealist
outlook as associated particularly with the Upanishads and advaita Vedanta. The idealists
were pleading for irrationalism and surrender of logic. Karma theory accepted by great
many of our philosophers. He tried show that there are many philosophers of India are
maintained materialistic position or at least the elements of materialism is very much
internalized in their philosophy.18 One way of changing it is of course to cultivate an
objective attitude to idealistic outlook along with all the sundry superstitions that grew
under its shelter.
A survey of Indian philosophy remains obviously incomplete if it does not take note of
these great movements of medieval and modern India which took place outside what is
strictly called the traditional systems of Indian philosophy. Even during the medieval
period outside the scholastic circles there are open revolt against it-extremely significant
events took place in the Indian battle of ideas. Under the given historical conditions, these
had to assume the form of religious reforms, though in its actual contents- being
essentially revolts against feudalism-these contributed vitally to the heritage of our
6
democratic thought. The great popular movements associated with the names of
Chaitanya, Kabir, Nanak were contains the elements of revolutionary opposition to
feudalism. The popular movements of medieval India were revolts, though in the
inevitable religious garb. Debiprasad continues further by identifying our social
reformers of modern times like Rajaram Mohan Roy, Vidyasagar, Vivekananda, Tagore
and Gandhi with their identification with religion.

S. N. Dasgupta identified the dogmas followed by many writers involved in philosophical

enterprises. Even after identifying the problem he didn’t offer any novel way in his book
on history of Indian philosophy. Dayakrishna argues contemporary relevance of our
philosophical traditions. He never probes why certain hindu philosophical traditions
become irrelevant and what makes any philosophical idea to be relevant. He failed to
raise the question of philosophical ideas relevance for whom. He simply describes the
phenomenon rather going further with purpose. By applying dialectical materialism of
Marxist methodology, Chattopadhyaya, made an attempt to look at Indian philosophical
traditions from materialistic point of view. He fails to establish idealists whom he
contesting, in concrete socio- historical context. One point it is striking that their
methodologies in approaching Indian philosophy had limitation. It is clear that they never
reflected on caste as an ideology conditioning the Indian social life. As A.P. Rao criticizes
Chattopadhyaya, ‘The destiny of fifth caste is irrelevant to Chattopadhyaya as it has been
to ‘his’ intellectual ancestors; so it does not figure anywhere in the bulky volume of
Chattopadhyaya (What is Living and Dead in Indian philosophy).There is no need either
to shocked or surprised at this for if Sankara is a sacred brahmnin, Chattopadhyaya is a
secular Brahmin.’19

Philosophy as Social Expression

There is an argument that philosophy as such is an activity of ‘high culture’. The

practice of philosophy is generally associated with highly abstract and reflective thought.
Because of intellectual skills and training usually required to pursue abstract and systemic
reflection is a rigorous manner, philosophical works tend to be product of educated
intelligentsia of a given community. This reflects the generally elitist nature .As walter
Ong suggested that philosophy along with the sciences and the arts are analytical
procedures which ‘depend for their exercise on writing, which is to say they are produced
not by the unaided human mind but by the mind making use of a technology that has
been deeply interiorized, incorporated into mental process themselves….philosophy, it
seems, should be reflectively aware of itself as a technological product-which is to say a
special kind of very human product. Logic emerges from technology of writing. 20 In this
sense, for dalits there is no possibility to become a ‘philosophers’ since majority of them
illiterate and consciously kept away from education for generations. On the other hand it
is natural for brahminical class to establish as philosophers. In modern India, the
7
Brahminical scholars by monopoly of knowledge systems established the idea that Indian
philosophy is essentially spiritual, religious, mystic and idealistic through their writings
in print. They propagated Vedanta is only living philosophy of India that can be
accommodate/assimilate any philosophical tradition. They presented only one version of
history of philosophical ideas. The other voices got nullified in print culture and are still
alive in life forms through oral culture. One must unearth the silences of history, the
voices of the marginalized and the forgotten, the heterogeneity which is buried by
singular versions of history.

Our actions spring from as the members of different social institutions like family, caste,
and region. Human actions had some societal affiliations. Human actions are more or less
socially oriented, purpose guided and conscious. Social and human actions distance itself
from ground level human actions leading to misleading abstracts. For John Dewey, the
pragmatic thinker and a philosopher who inspired Ambedkar, ‘Ideas’ meant conceptions
historically anchored, playing their appropriate roles in the ebb and flow of historical
circumstance; for if ideas in general are primarily to be conceived as instruments of
adaptation and adjustment, then philosophic ideas too must be examined in the light of
social needs they were meant to fulfill, and the class structure of the society whose
tensions they were originated to explode or adjust.’21
History of philosophy is constituted by its interrelation between the ideas, agents and
social context. To view philosophic achievement as the cognitive correlate of certain
cultural ‘life style’ means to ask questions such as, What sort of society was the author
writing for and trying to persuade? What were the conventions of communication and
literary forms of discourse current at that time? What was the author’s class affiliation,
his place in the social hierarchy of his age? What were his moral commitments, the
structure of his ideals?22 These questions will help us in interrogating Indian
philosophical tradition and to evolve objective approach towards it. Philosophers have to
reflect on the social and cultural practices in which they lived. In India, caste is the
fundamental social reality that shapes and influences everyday life. It is determining
force in one’s perception of the world. As Pratima Bowes rightly observed, "....The
philosophers in India failed in their task in as much as they did nothing towards
developing political, social or moral philosophy in India. One reason for this non-
development may be that philosophical thought was a monopoly of the Brahmin caste,
whose privileges would have been under attack if questions were to be asked about the
social system23"

Discourse of philosophies of lower Castes :

From late eighties onwards, there are struggles especially in the name of caste, gender,
region are made an attempt to revisit our history and culture. These struggles are not only
politicizing the social anger and anxieties of respective social groups, but also had serious
attempts in establishing their own epistemological position. These struggles are
8
continuing in digging the past and bringing out the submerged or marginalized
philosophers and philosophical traditions. Dalit movement is one such movement directly
confronted with the brahminical philosophical discourse. It gave a new meaning to
philosophy in general and Indian philosophy in particular. It questioned the canons of
dominant Indian philosophical traditions.
Dalit movement in India changed the whole discourse of Indian philosophy. It considers
philosophy as a social expression since it is conditioned by the social life. Dalit
movement enriched the very meaning of Indian philosophy. It rejuvenates the
philosophical traditions of India in place of dead, mummified brahminical philosophies.
Parallel to this dominant Brahminical philosophical tradition, there exists a powerful
philosophical stream of the lower castes which is ignored by these brahminical elites.
Their knowledge systems and life styles are not considered as the regimes of truth. In fact
they developed their philosophy from the condemned life styles and socio- cultural
practices. It is not an exaggeration to say that philosophers of lower castes of India made
an attempt to democratize the philosophical traditions of India. In the late medieval
period there were many philosophers/yogis from the artisan communities exposed the
hollowness of the philosophies of Brahminical Hinduism by using the same
philosophical principles proposed by the philosophers of caste hindus. In contemporary
times, Ambedkar is one such a philosopher. His intervention in Indian philosophy is
crucial and significant in many ways. He represents living philosophical tradition. His
approach to Indian philosophy is rational and practical rather speculative and dogmatic.
He evaluates the Indian philosophy from historical perspective. His philosophy is 'this
worldly', 'realistic' and 'man- centred' rather 'otherworldly', 'transcendent', 'idealistic', and
'God centred'. His philosophy enriched with social and cultural practices of Indian
society. He philosophized the social experiences of Indian masses in order to change the
world of oppression and humiliation. He proves that philosophy emerges from the social
struggles but not in isolation.

Ambedkar’s approach to Indian philosophy:

No traditional scholar match to Ambedkar for extensive reading of Indian philosophy. He
thoroughly interrogated the Indian philosophy from the victim’s point of view. The
humiliating social experience forced him to find the root cause of it. The social anger
reflects in his reading of Indian philosophy and its basic texts. He understood the whole
gamut of this material from historical point of view. He had a sincere attempt of historical
interpretation of the Vedic literature, Upanishads, sutras, Dharmasastras, puranas and the
whole mythology rather considering it as sacred and eternal truth. All his philosophical
interpretations of it aimed at change. He had a conviction that before proposing any
change, one has to understand the basic foundations of Indian social reality. He
recognizes that the soul of Indian society, especially in case of hindu social order lies in
its sastras. The close reading of its basic texts helps in sharpening his criticism against it.
9
The strength of his criticism lies in relating the social reality to the texts. His approach
gives the hints that our ideas are product of our social conditions. In other sense,
philosophy is social expression. Like other brahminical scholars, he is not confined to
textual analysis. At one level, he pointed out the inconsistency and contradiction within
its texts. And on the other hand he is critical of the texts and its social implications by
applying the methods of rationalistic, realistic and historical approach. He made all
possible attempts in grasping the underlying social phenomenon of the very celebration
of ideas/texts/beliefs/religion.
In developing Ambedkar’s methodology, one has to take a note that he believes in
change. He understood that Indian society has undergone change at different periods of
time. He opposed to a view point as put forwarded by Brahmins, hindu civilization is
sanatanic, that is, unchanging. He tries to prove this in his ‘Riddles of Hinduism’ and
argues that it is not in accord with facts. As he said, ‘…hindu society has changed from
time to time and that often times the change is of the most radical kind. In this
connection, compare the riddle from himsa to ahimsa and from ahimsa back to himsa. I
want to make the masses of people to realize that hindu religion is not sanatan.’24
Ambedkar next to proceed to the basic texts of hindus. He identified the religious
literature of hindus - the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads, Sutras, Itihas,
Smritis and Puranas. From the ancient to contemporary times Vedas are enjoyed as basis
for all the later philosophical and religious practices. Vedas are considered as eternal truth
and infallible, ‘apaurusheya’ and propagated accordingly without any critical look at it.
Ambedkar considered this infallibility of Vedas as ‘most mischievous dogma’
propounded by Brahmins and spread among the masses. He believes that doubt is the
source of knowledge and progress will possible only through knowledge. In his writings
he endorse the opinion of Buckle that , ‘It is evident that until doubt began, progress was
impossible….without doubt there will be no inquiry and without inquiry there will be no
knowledge.’25
Ambedkar consider the Vedas as worthless books that contains nothing but invocation to
tribal Gods to destroy enemies, loot their property and give it to their followers. He
continues further, that the time has come to hindu mind must be freed from these ideas
which are propagated by Brahmins. Without this liberation India has no future’26
Ambedkar observed that there are three strands in the philosophic and religious thought
of Ambedkar- Brahmaism, Vedanta and Brahmanism.Brahmaism identified with dogmas
of Mahavakyas. Vedanta summed up in dogmasof, Brahman is the only reality, the world
is maya, relation between Jiva and atman. The Brahmanism is summed up in the dogmas
of, belief in chaturvarna, sanctity and infalliability of Vedas and sacrifices to gods the
only way to salvation.

Against Brahminical Philosophical Tradition

Philosophically, Vedic literature is considered as the heart of Indian philosophy. As per
the dominant conception, Vedas are considered as apususheya, authorless and sacred.
10
Ambedkar countered this position. As he puts, was it because the Vedas had been made
the exponent of the chaturvarna with the Brahmins as the lords of all? Further Ambedkar
illustrates that from different sections of Vedas, to show that Vedas contain nothing that
can be said to be spiritually or morally elevating. Neither subject matter nor contents of
the Vedas justify the infallibility with which the Brahmins have invested. He maintains
that the intention of the Brahmins to uphold the authority of Vedas is to uphold their
position and power. The philosophy of Hinduism exposes the inhuman and unjust
character of Hinduism and its social order. It brings the nexus between caste system and
Hinduism. The Riddles in Hinduism is direct attack on the prevailing inconsistency and
coherence in their own religious literature of Hinduism. He considers that Indian
philosophy based on Hinduism neither qualifies as philosophy nor as religion. In his
Essays on Bhagwat Gita, Ambedkar argues that Bagwat Gita is neither a book of religion
nor a treatise on philosophy. It defends the dogmas of religion on philosophic ground. It
is a philosophic defence of counter- revolution. Further Ambedkar had an attempt to
dissect the symbols of Hinduism such as Rama and Krishna through his logical, social,
ethical and historical analysis. He explains mythology from a historical and sociological
point of view rather dogmatic religious faith.

Amerdkar writings especially The Riddles in Hinduism and Philosophy of Hinduism are
important scholarly works in attacking the dominant brahminical philosophy. The
philosophy of Hinduism exposes the inhuman and unjust character of Hinduism and its
social order. It brings the nexus between caste system and Hinduism. The Riddles in
Hinduism is direct attack on the prevailing inconsistency and coherence in their own
religious literature of Hinduism. Strategically, he adopted a method of internal critic of
Hindu tradition to convince and reach out more people. As his introduction to this work
reads, ‘this book is an exposition to the beliefs propounded by what might be called
Brahmanic theology. It is intended for the common mass of Hindus who need to be
awakened to know in what quagmire the Brahmins have placed them and to lead them on
to the road of rational thinking.’27 The other purpose is to draw the attention of Hindu
masses to the devices of the Brahmins and to make them think for themselves how they
have been deceived and misguided by the Brahmins.28
Ambedkar like modern western philosophers has believed that doubt is the source of
knowledge and that leads to progress. As he quotes Buckle ‘…without doubt there will be
no inquiry and without inquiry there will be no knowledge.’ Ambedkar viewed the Indian
philosophy with this spirit. He exposed certain dogmas of Indian philosophy on which
Indian philosophy got flourished. He says, Brahmins have left no room for doubt, for
they have propounded a most mischievous dogma which the Brahmins have spread
among the masses, is the dogma of the infallibility of the Vedas. If the Hindu intellect has
ceased to grow and if the Hindu civilization and culture has become a stagnant and
stinking pool, this dogma must be destroyed root and branch if India is to progress.’29

11
The myth of Sanatan
Amedkar pointed out that Hindu religion is not sanatan and changes timely.The Brahmins
have propogated the view that hindu civilization issanatan, unchanging.Even this view
has been reinforced by a good many of the European scholars who have said that hindu
civilization is static.Ambedkar argues that this view is not in accord with facts and that
hindu society has changed from time to time and that often times the change is of the
most radical kind.One may observe that hindu society changed its position on himsa ,
‘from himsa to ahimnsa and from ahimsa back to himsa’.

Infallibility of Vedas
Vedas are considered as apususheya, authorless and sacred. Vedic literature is considered
as the heart of Indian philosophy. Any agreement based on the Vedas id final and
conclusive. there is no appeal against it. They are considered as apurusheya., means that
they are not made by man. So they are free from the failings, faults and frailties. The
Indian philosophical schools are divided on the basis of acceptance of the authority of
Vedas as orthodox and heterodox. The age of social reformism too considered Vedas and
Upanishads as high value and find solution to the problems of contemporary times. There
are very few critics in considering veda as the aspurusheya and infallible. Their views are
often marginalized or unheard. Ambedkar is one of such marginalized Indian thinker but
is power and penchant in his attack on the authority of Vedas. The questions he raised are
valid and is the responsibility of brahminical scholars to answer these. Ambedkar asks us,
who are the authors of the Vedas? The thinkers like Kaluka Bhatta are argued that Vedas
are reproduced from memory. Ambedkar responds to this by saying, the real question is
who made them and not who reproduced them. To find out the origin of the Vedas, he
surveyed the related hindu literature-the Brahmanas,Upanishads, Smritis and Puranas. He
finds that eleven different explanations regarding the origin of Vedas and considered this
bewildering multiplicity of answers to a simple question is a riddle. And the explanations
offered are incoherent and chaotic. All these explanations were given by the Brahmins of
vaidik school of thought, the guardians of the ancient religious lore. It is evident that the
vedic Brahmins, the authors of dharma sutras expressed differently on the authority of
Vedas as being final and conclusive at times. Ambedkar maintains that the intention of
the Brahmins to uphold the authority of Vedas is to uphold their position and power. As
he puts, was it because the Vedas had been made the exponent of the chaturvarna with the
Brahmins as the lords of all?30 Further Ambedkar illustrates that from different sections of
vedas , to show that Vedas contain nothing that can be said to be spirutully or morally
elevating. Neither subject matter nor contents of the Vedas justify the infallibility with
which the Brahmins have invested. 31the Vedas are considered as sruti literature and other
hindu literature such as Upanishads, sutras, itihas, smuti and puranas are non –sruti
literature.It is believed that smiti dealt with social costumes and conventions and the
sanctions of sruti is divine. Ambedkar calls it a riddle this kind of classification and to
exclude its own literature from the sruti tradition. The people who considers Vedas as
12
infaliible and sacred and there are attempts by them to degrades in the order.The question
of all questions is what made them the Brahmins degrade the Vedas and supersede them
by smritis, puranas and tantras if they regarded their Vedas as the most sacred? 32 The
belief that the Vedas and Upanishads are complimentary came into being is really a
riddle.33

Ambedkar on Philosophy of Religion :

Ambedkar had more focus on philosophy of religion in understanding the socio-historical

phenomenon and its moral basis of Indian society, than exclusively depending on either
religion or philosophy. He developed it as a method. It seems in evolving this method; he
got influenced by John Dewey. Dewey is known as one of the philosophers belongs to
pragmatism. He wrote extensively on philosophy of religion from this perspective. In the
west, religion is identified with faith, and philosophy is with reason/science/rationality, in
the age of enlightenment. It is also understood as tradition and modernity dichotomy.
Religion and science started considering adverse to each other. In this backdrop
pragmatism of Dewey got importance by considering religion on practical utility.
Ambedkar’s idea of religion is philosophical and more rooted in normative behaviour. He
stressed more on the philosophy of religion rather than religiosity. He regards it is as both
descriptive and normative. He considers that in so far as it deals with the teachings of
religion, the philosophy of religion becomes descriptive. In so far as it involves the usage
of critical reason for passing judgment on those teachings, the philosophy of religion
becomes normative. Based on the normative judgments, he negated Hinduism as a
religion that doesn’t stand to be a religion. Ambedkar argued that philosophy of religion
should be based on two norms- social utility and justice for the individual. To be a
religion it should pass this test. Ambedkar’s judgment would be that Hindu philosophy
served neither social utility nor justice for the individual. He showed that social and
religious inequalities were deep rooted in Hinduism.

‘As for myself I think it is safe to proceed on the view that to know the philosophy of any
movement or any institution one must study the revolutions which the movement or the
institution has undergone. Revolution is the mother of philosophy and if it is not the
mother of the philosophy it is the lamp which illuminates philosophy .To me therefore
best method to ascertain the criterion by which to judge philosophy of religion is to study
the revolutions which religion has undergone’.34 Religion is an institution or an influence
and like all social influences and institutions, it may help or it may harm a society which
is in its grip. There was a time when religion had covered the whole field of human
knowledge and claimed infallibility for what it thought. The Copernican revolution freed
astronomy from the domination of religion. The Darwinian revolution freed biology and
geology from the trammels of religion. For ascertaining the norm for judging philosophy
13
of religion, another kind of revolution that religion has undergone. This revolution
touches the nature and content of ruling conceptions of the relations of god to man, of
society to man and of man to man. For Ambedkar, in civilized society Religious
revolution is meant by revolution in norms. In the first place the norm must enable people
to judge what is right and wrong in the conduct of men. In the second place the norm
must be appropriate to current notion of what constitutes the moral good. He considers
the norm or criteria for judging right or wrong in antique religion is utility and in modern
society is justice. There is a difficulty in equating religion with philosophy. For
philosophy is meant, critical reason used in passing judgments upon things and events. In
that sense Ambedkar considers philosophy of religion as both descriptive and normative
science.

Hindu scheme of divine governance are laid down in Manusmriti. It is a divine code
which lays down the rules which govern the religious, ritualistic and social life of hindus
in minute detail and which must be regarded as the bible of hindus and containing the
philosophy of religion. The principle of slavery inherent in hindu philosophy by
accepting the rules of caste system. The rule of inequality preserved by Manu -slavery
and intermarriage, penal code(Law)-irrational system of punishment for the same
offence-to maintain the social inequality on which his whole scheme is founded. Hindu
philosophy, dissects society into fragments, dissociates work from interest, disconnects
intelligence from labour, and prevents society from mobilizing resources for common
action in the hour of danger. It doesn’t satisfy the test of social Utility.35

In Indian philosophical tradition, the philosophical analysis and understanding of

religious beliefs and doctrines have started only with the emergence of heterodox systems
of philosophy, especially Buddhism. The Buddhist philosophers were the first to start the
activity known as philosophy of religion in India whatever may be their intention in
trying to rationally analyse and criticize the religious beliefs and doctrines of sruti
tradition of Hinduism. Prior to the emergence of Budhist philosophy we do not find in
India any significant and systematic attempt to critically or rationally understand
religious claims.’36
The civilized society splits into antique society and modern society. The conception
regarding the relationship between god, society and man too varies in these forms of
societies. Here again, Ambedkar tries to explore the real norm for the basis of religion.
He considers that norms must enable people to judge what is right and wrong in the
conduct of men. Based on this normative criterion he tries to judge religion. As he
observed:
“Utility as a criterion was appropriate to the antique world in which society being the
end, the moral good was held to be something which had social utility. Justice as a

14
criterion became appropriate to the modern world in which individual being the end, the
moral good was held to be something which does justice to the individual.”37

He applied this method to critically interrogate Hinduism. He came to the conclusion that
Hinduism neither passed the test of social utility nor the test of individual justice. So
Hinduism doesn’t stand to be a religion of either antique society or modern society: “The
philosophy of Hinduism therefore neither satisfies the test of social utility nor does it
satisfy the test of individual justice.”38

Hinduism is premised on the principle of inequality. The arresting feature about

Hinduism is caste system. The important feature of the caste system is that different
castes do not stand as a horizontal series. It is a system in which the different castes are
placed in a vertical series one above the other. Manu may not be responsible for the
creation of caste. But he gave sanctity to Varna. . From the point of view of justice, the
philosophy of Hinduism is inimical to equality, antagonistic to liberty and opposed to
fraternity’39
The rise of Buddhism in ancient Indian society was considered by him as a revolution
against Aryan Brahminism. More than religious revolution, it is social and political
Against Hinduism, Ambedkar proposes Buddhism as a religion.

Caste as Key institution in understanding Indian Social Reality

Ambedkar identified caste as an important institution, in understanding the Indian
society. In evolving philosophy or political theory, one could not ignore the role of caste
system in India. No philosophy/political theory are possible with out understanding the
caste system.He made an attempt to understand the origin and functioning of caste in
order to understand the lives of the victims of the caste system. He understood that whole
Indian social system has caste as its foundation. The beliefs, customs, knowledge are
centered on caste system. All the human activities are determined by the caste. Caste has
social, political and economical implications. Minusing the caste system, the so-called
majoritarian religion Hinduism could not withstand on its own. In simple terms, caste is
the primary institution of Indian society and other institutions like family, state, nation,
and school are directly or indirectly related/ influenced by it. Ambedkar considered that
there is no doubt that caste system is an evolution of the Varna system. One may not get
any idea of caste system by studying Varna system. He argues that caste must be studied
apart from Varna and it is a perversion of Varna. The working of the caste system was not
purely functional. It not just divided the people but humiliated some groups and
legitimized this division through religious texts. The caste system is not merely a division
of labour, but a division of labourers. It is a hierarchy in which the division of labourers
are graded one above the other. Ambedkar identified some of the features of caste system
as hierarchy, lack of social efficiency, social immobility, disruptive tendencies, ex-
communication, endogamy and anti-social spirit. The effects of this system are that it
15
prevents assimilation, creates indifference and makes the Hindus inactive. It creates
obstacles for any reforms and leads to economic and social backwardness. Ultimately
both social and natural justice is denied for lower castes.
Ambedkar has a vision of ideal society that reflected in most of his writings. An ideal
society should be mobile and it should be full of channels for conveying a change-taking
place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests
consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact
with other modes of association. In simple terms, Ambedkar viewed that an ideal society
would be based on liberty, equality and fraternity.40

Reinterpretation of Marxism
Some were of the opinion that caste is analogous to class and that there is no difference
between the two. Others hold that the idea of castes is fundamentally opposed to that of
class. Ambedkar noticed that although caste is different from and opposed to the notion of
class yet the caste system- as distinguished from caste-recognizes a class system, which is
somewhat different from the graded status. He illustrates this point through the example.
Just as the Hindus are divided into so many castes, castes too are divided into different
classes of castes. The Hindu is caste- conscious. He is also class conscious. Whether he is
caste conscious or class conscious depends upon the caste with which he comes in
conflict. If the caste with which he comes in conflict in a caste within the class to which
he belongs he is caste conscious. If the caste is outside the class to which he belongs he is
class conscious. It is evident from the study of Non-Brahmin movement in Madras and
Bombay presidency.41
Ambedkar creatively interprets the Marxism in the Indian social context. On one hand, he
counters the Brahminical scholars who negate Marxism on ceratin issues and also by
differing with the certain principles of Marxism in general and the mechanical
interpretation of Marxism by Indian Marxists in particular. As he observed , present day
hindus are probably the strongest opponents of Marxism. They are horrified at its
doctrine of class- struggle. But they forget that India has been not merely the land of class
struggle but she has been the land of class wars. The bitterest class war took place
between Brahmins and kshatriyas. The classical literature of hindus abounds in reference
to class wars between these two varnas.42 It must not be supposed that this class war in
India is a matter of ancient history. It has been present all along. its existence is very
much noticeable in mahjarastra during the Maratha rule. It destroyed Maratha empire.. in
India the class war is a permanent phenomenon which is silently but surely working its
way. It is a grain in the life and it has become genius of hindus.

Ambedkar brings Buddhist religion as parallel to Marxism in his Budha or Karl Marx.
He highlighted some points from the readings of Tripitikas, the Buddhist literature.
Religion is necessary for a free society. It must relate to facts of life and not to theories
and speculations about God or soul or heaven or earth. It is wrong to make God as centre
16
of religion. Man and morality must be central to it. All human beings are equal. Worth
and not birth is the measure of man. Every one has right to learn. Learning is necessary
for man to live as food is. Learning without character is dangerous. Religion lives in the
heart of man and not in sastras. Nothing is permanent or sanatan. Everything is subject
to change. Being is always becoming. Nothing is infallible. Nothing is binding forever.
Everything is subject to inquiry and examination. The private ownership of property
brings power to one class and brings sorrow to another. It is necessary for the good
society that this sorrow be removed by removing its cause. War is wrong unless it is for
truth and justice.43
Ambedkar has no agreement with the Marxism that economic interpretation of history is
only explanation of history and proletariat has been progressively pauperized. He
compares Buddhism with Marxism on certain fundamental points. The language and the
timings of Buddha and Marx are different but the meaning is same in so many points.
One finds the common agreement between them. The function of philosophy is to
reconstruct the world, the conflict of interests exists between classes, private property
brings power to one class and sorrow to another through exploitation, it is necessary for a
good society that the sorrow be removed by the abolition of private property- all these
principles of Marxism compared with the some of the principles of Buddhism. To prove
this, Ambedkar quotes so many passages from Buddhist literature. Ambedkar not only
elevates the means of Buddhism in realizing the same ends proposed by the communists.
He also argues in favor of government based on moral disposition.Further Ambedkar
believes that humanity doesn’t only want economic values; it also wants spiritual values
to be retained. He believes that human beings must realize both materially and spiritually.
In his own words, ‘But the communist’s 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.’44

Buddhist interpretation of Indian Philosophy

Ambedkar in his work Buddha and His Dhamma provides detailed note of Buddhist
interpretation of Indian philosophy. Buddha did not find anything in the philosophy of the
Vedic Rishis. Their theories were mere speculations not based on logic nor on facts. Their
contributions to philosophy created no social values. He therefore rejected the
philosophy of the Vedic Rishis as useless. Buddha appreciated the sankya philosophy that
truth must be supported by proof. Thinking must be based on rationalism. He accepted
that there was no logical or factual basis for the presumption that God exists or that he
created the universe. He accepted that there was Dukha (suffering) in the world. Vedas
and Brahmanas constitute the sruti tradition . The Brahmins had not only a theory of an
ideal religion as contained in the Vedas but they also had a theory for an ideal society.
The pattern of this ideal society they named Chaturvarna. It is imbedded in the Vedas and
as the Vedas are infallible and as their authority cannot be questioned so also Chaturvarna
as a pattern of society was binding and unquestionable. Far from producing harmony,
17
graded inequality, the Buddha thought, might produce in society an ascending scale of
hatred and a descending scale of contempt, and might be a source of perpetual conflict.
For these reasons the Buddha rejected Brahmanism as being opposed to the true way of
life. The main thesis of the Upanishads was that Brahmana was a reality and that Atmana
was the same as Brahmana. The Atmana did not realize that it was Brahman because of
the Upadhis in which it was entangled. The Buddha could find no proof in support of the
thesis that Brahmana was a reality. He, therefore, rejected the thesis of the Upanishads.
Buddha began by saying that his path which is his Dhamma (religion) had nothing to do
with God and Soul. His Dhamma had nothing to do with life after death. Nor has his
Dhamma any concern with rituals and ceremonies. The centre of his Dhamma is man and
the relation of man to man in his life on earth. The recognition of the existence of
suffering and to show the way to remove suffering is the foundation and basis of his
Dhamma. The Buddha then told them that according to his Dhamma if every person
followed (1) the Path of Purity ; (2) the Path of Righteousness ; and (3) the Path of Virtue,
it would bring about the end of all suffering. He told them that the path of virtue meant
the observance of the virtues called : (1) Sila; (2) Dana; (3) Uppekha; (4) Nekkhama; (5)
Virya; (6) Khanti; (7) Succa; (8) Adhithana ; (9) Karuna ; and (10)Maitri
"The Path of Virtue must, therefore, be subject to test of Prajna which is another name for
understanding and intelligence. . " My Dhamma has in it both hope and purpose. To
understand Buddha’s Dhamma one must understand all the three—Dhamma, Adhamma
and Saddhamma.

Conclusion
Ambedkar characterizes hiundu philosophy as brahminical. Brahminical philosophy is
not to be qualified as philosophy since it is neither critical nor having the conceptual
clarity. Philosophy is meant to be an exercise of critical reason in passing judgments upon
things and events. The brahminical philosophy is surviving through hindu religion. Hindu
religion lies on the foundation of Vedas, Upanishad, Dharma sastras, Puranas and Smritis.
The caste system is essentially internalized in all these texts. The caste system maintains
through the hierarchy and graded inequality. It lacks the principles equality, liberty and
fraternity. So it is the same with hindu religion and its philosophy. Ambedkar looks at the
alternative religion and philosophical streams of India which are either marginalized or
negated by the brahminical tradition. For this he evolved a philosophy of religion as a
method to interrogate Indian philosophical tradition. This method is based on the
principles of rationality and morality. It is even difficult to locate him either idealist or
materialist, since he maintains affinities with both and at the same differs on certain
points. He seems to be a pragmatist than anything. However, his approach is novel and
creative and more objective. He demands new language to understand him. He considers
philosophy as a social expression. Moreover, the strength of his philosophy lies in a
project towards annihilation of caste. This way of looking at Indian philosophy will
definitely rejuvenate philosophical thinking in India.
18
End Notes

19
1
Ambedkar Riddles in Hinduism, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches ,Vol.4 , Mumbai: Education Department,
Government of Maharastra, P.286
2
Radhakrishnan, S. Indian Philosophy Vol. 1
3
Rajram mohan Roy (1772-1833) considered father of modern Indian philosophy, at first concluded that Upanishadic
teachings, rightly interpreted, contains eternal truth relevant to all ages. (xxix). Roy for the first time tried to show that only
a correct interpretation of Upanishads could be true hindu religion, and that only such religion could reconciled with modern
world and science.`
4
Khilnani, Sunil. Idea of India. London: Penguin, 1999, p.154.
5
Rajaram mohan Roy's Brahmasamaj (reformed Hinduism, and seeks reinterpretation of Upanishads) Dayanada
Saraswati's 'going back to vedas' Gandhi's religion as a source for interconnectivity and for community life.
6
Aurobindo's theory of evolution of spirit, Vivekananda- ‘Hinduism not just as fulfillment of all other religions, but also as
a fulfillment of all sciences'.
7
P.A. Shilipp.(Ed.) “Fragments of confession” In The Philosophy of Radhakrishnan, New york, 1952, p.11
8
P.T.Raju Radhakrishnan’s influence on Indian thought in Philosophy of Radhakrishnan, p.518.
9
‘Fusion between modern and tradition’, ‘Meeting East and West’, ‘Truth is one, the wise call it by different names’,
‘Truth is God’ (Gandhi) ‘Integral Consciousness’ (Aurobindo) ‘Holistic approach’ and ‘Religious revolution’
(J.Krishnamurti) ‘Unity in diversity’ (Radhakrishnan) ‘Inner and outer’ ‘tolerance’, ‘scientific spirit' etc. – the language
used by the contemporary modern philosophers.
10
Ibid.P.43
11
Ibid. p.51
12
Surendranath Dasgupta is the liberal Indian philosopher wrote history of Indian Indian philosophy in five volumes and
considered this as an authority on indian philosophy. He himself identified with idealism of different kind.
13
Dasgupta, S.N. "Dogmas of Indian Philosophy", Philosophical Essays, New Delhi: Mothilal Banarsidas, 1982, pp. 208-
233.
14
Dayakrishna critically approached the Indian philosophy. He authored the books like Indian Philosophy: New approach
and Indian philosophy: A Counter perspective.
15
Dayakrishna, "Three Myths about Indian Philosophy", Indian Philosophy: A Counter Perspective, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1991. Pp. 3-15
16
American historian of philosophy, Dale Riepe’s of The Naturalistic tradition in Indian Thought (1961), Russian
Indologist P.N. Anikev’s History of Philosophy (1957), German indologist Walter Ruben’s Geschichte der Indischen
Philosophie (1954) and Indian thinkers Debiprasd Chattopadhyaya’s Lokayata, Indian Atheism, What is Living and Dead in
Indian Philosophy, M.N.Roy, B.P.Datta are some examples.
17
Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. Indian Philosophy- A popular Introduction. Bombay: Popular Prakasan, 1964 p.xiv.
18
For example at the same time is to remember that philosophers like Piyaasi in 6 th century B.C. rejected karma theory on
experimental basis. There is a prestige for yoga experience in Indian philosophy, philosophers like the Mimamsaka
philosopher Kumarila laughed at it.
19
Rao. A.P. The Philosophy of Politics- A Marxian Analysis. Delhi: Ajanta Publications,1983, p.59
20
Ong, quoted in Richard King Indian Philosophy An Introduction to Hindu and Budhist Thought, Ane Books, OUP,1999.
P.6
21
Quoted in Levi, Albert William. Philosophy as Social Expression p.2
22
Levi, Albert William. Philosophy as Social expression, P.301.University of Chicago Press, Chicago,1974
23
Bowes, Pratima. "What is Indian about Indian Philosophy?" S.S.Ramarao Pappu and R.Puligandla (Eds.) Indian
Philosophy: Past and Future, New Delhi: Mothilal Banarsidas, 1982. Pp.8-9
24
Ambedkar.B.R. Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. 4. Mumbai: Government of Maharastra, 1987. p.5.
25
Ibid. Buckle ‘History of Civilization’ quoted by Ambedkar p.8
26
Ibid. p.9
27
Ibid.p.5
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.p.8
30
Ibid p.36
31
Ibid p.52
32
Ibid.p.61
33
Ibid p.66
34
Ambedkar.B.R. Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. 3. Mumbai: Government of Maharastra, 1987. p.8.
35
Ibid. p.71
36
Ramamurthy, A. Indian philosophy of religion New Delhi: Decent Books, 2002 p.2
37
Ambedkar, B.R. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol.3. Mumbai: Education Department, Government
of Maharastra, 1987. p.22
38
Ibid, p.71.
39
Ibid.p.66
40
Ibid. p.57
41
Ambedkar, B.R. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol.1. Mumbai: Education Department, Governement
of Maharastra, 1989, p.146
42
Ambedkar, B.R. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol.3. Mumbai: Education Department, Government
of Maharastra,1987. p.48 To cite a few examples, Brahmins and kshtriya king Vena, Puravaras(Adiparva of
Mahabarata),Nahusha (Udyogaparva of Mahabarata), Nimi (Vishnu purana relates the story)
43
Ambedkar, B.R. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol.3. Mumbai: Education Department, Government
of Maharastra,1987. p.442
44
Vol.3 p.462