Babasaheb Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s turn to Buddhism in 1956 is often described as a moment of rupture, a sudden departure from the socio-religious status quo. However, this was a dual-moment of radical rupture and recovery. While it drew upon indigenous traditions, it was a definitive break from the socioreligious status quo, formalised by the 22 Vows, which demanded the total renunciation of Hindu theological foundations.
For Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar, the question was never simply about rejecting a past, but about identifying within India’s own civilizational resources a framework capable of sustaining dignity, equality, and social harmony in a modern democratic society. Gautama, the Buddha is seen as the first dissenter against inequality within Indian society. His critique of caste was rightful, honest, uncompromising, and genuinely warranted, but it did not emerge in isolation. Rather, it was part of his larger concern about the viability of democracy itself. Drawing on John Dewey’s pragmatism, he argued that “graded inequality” prevented the “social endosmosis” (or fluid communication) necessary for a living democracy, and that the Buddhist Sangha provided the spiritual prototype for this democratic fraternity. This led him to interrogate not only social practices but also their moral and religious foundations. He insisted that a religion that fails to recognise the humanity of its adherents cannot claim legitimacy. In his view, any system that forbids education, blocks material advancement, and treats human beings worse than animals is not a religion but a “visitation” or a “mockery.”
As such, for Babasaheb Ambedkar, religion and slavery were fundamentally incompatible since “Religion is not the appellation of such an unjust order.” He demanded that religion justify itself through its ethical consequences, asserting that a religion which treats millions of its followers worse than “dogs and criminals” is no religion at all. This was a demand for a religion that teaches its followers to show humanity to one another, rather than merely acting as a display of force. It was this rigorous moral standard that eventually led him to the Buddha, who stood for intellectual, economic, and political freedom.
Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar’s engagement with Buddhism must be read in the context of a lifelong study. He did not approach it as an act of faith alone, but as the result of sustained intellectual inquiry. During the 1930s, he explored the possibility of converting to various other religions, but by the 1950s, he had reached a clarity that only Buddhism offered the synthesis of reason, morality, and social concern required for liberty. What he found in the Buddha’s teachings was a fundamental principle of equality, not just between men but between men and women, and a voice he meticulously reconstructed to champion the rights of women, stripping away later patriarchal accretions to recover a core principle of egalitarianism.
His attraction to Buddhism was rooted in its absence of irrationality and its firm moral base. He saw Buddhism as a “secular” force, grounded in liberatory action rather than ascetic withdrawal. He saw Buddhism as a force grounded in Prajna (understanding) and Karuna (compassion), arguing it was the only religious framework compatible with the modern scientific spirit and democratic values. Ambedkar believed that the world could not be reformed without the “reformation of the mind of man,” a task he felt Buddhism was uniquely equipped to handle. Yet, Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar did not simply adopt Buddhism in its traditional form but reinterpreted it. His formulation, often described as Navayana or the “New Vehicle,” sought to recover what he saw as the original ethical intent of the Dhamma. He shifted the focus away from metaphysical speculation and towards the practical question of how human beings can overcome suffering in this world. In his seminal work, “The Buddha and His Dhamma”, he redefined the path as a way of life centred on compassion and the elimination of injustice.
In this reconstruction, concepts such as karma and rebirth were reframed in ethical terms, not as instruments of fatalism but as reflections on human action and responsibility. He explicitly rejected the traditional deterministic view of rebirth, stating that such ideas “serve no purpose except to make man a slave.” By stripping away ritualism and dogma, he challenged traditionalists with a radical, rational approach that has no place for a God or permanent metaphysical entities. Instead, he placed morality at the centre, using the democratic criterion of “the happiness and welfare of the many” (bahujana hitaya bahujana sukhaya) as his motto.
The significance of this reinterpretation became visible during the mass religious adoptions at Nagpur on 14 October 1956. In what remains one of the largest organised adoptions of religion in modern history, approximately 500,000 individuals embraced Buddhism alongside Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar. This was not merely a spiritual act; it was a collective assertion of dignity and a political renunciation of “caste slavery.” Participants added a new “sarana” to the traditional Three Jewels of Buddhism, pledging “Bhima sarana gacchami” (I go to Ambedkar for refuge), acknowledging his role as a Bodhisattva who illuminated their future path.
The effects of this transformation were not confined to symbolism. His actions created new conditions for social and economic change. Scholars have noted that it fostered a renewed sense of self-worth and collective confidence, a sense of manuski (humanity and self-worth) that had been denied to them for millennia. This newfound dignity had tangible repercussions, particularly in rural villages where the tyranny of caste-Hindus was most felt. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s interpretation of Buddhism also offers an important perspective on the relationship between tradition and modernity. However, to understand his move to Buddhism, one must also look at his critique of the broader political landscape. He was highly critical of the Congress-led freedom struggle, contending that it essentially represented the class of “feudal lords and urban capitalists” who relied on bargaining with colonial rulers for power. He viewed “Hindu Imperialism,” perpetrated through the caste system, as a more vicious force than British rule.
While Babasaheb Ambedkar’s rationalism shares a surfacelevel affinity with western secular Buddhism, his Navayana remains a political theology. Unlike the often individualistic focus of Western mindfulness, Ambedkar’s project was a “social gospel” aimed at dismantling systemic oppression. Secular Buddhism in the West often focuses on mindfulness and psychological insight, but it has sometimes been critiqued for being too individualistic. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Navayana provides a means of reclaiming Buddhism as a vehicle for confronting systemic suffering. He famously insisted that “religion must be made to touch the heart of economics and must be made to give a moral sanction to it.”
Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar’s turn to Buddhism was not an isolated act but part of a larger intellectual and moral project of reconstruction. He demonstrated that meaningful social transformation need not come from outside; it can emerge from within through critical engagement with inherited ideas. His work suggests that tradition is not to be followed uncritically, but rather examined through the lens of justice and compassion. Though he was a Buddhist for only 7 weeks before his death, he arguably did more to promote the Dhamma than many could claim to have. While some observers describe him as a “Modern Ashoka,” Ambedkar’s legacy is distinct. He stands out for not merely patronising an existing faith but for re-engineering the Dhamma as a blueprint for modern social justice. His legacy lies in his attempt to reshape society’s ethical foundations to affirm dignity and sustain equality. That project remains unfinished, and therefore, remains deeply relevant to the present.
- Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of JNU.
