Introduction
This paper has gone through so many permutations that it is nearly unrecognizable from its original form. I began with the intent to compare Buddhist and Christian “liberation theology,” a project born from my experiences at a progressive Jesuit high school and a semester of Buddhist studies in Kathmandu, Nepal. Eventually I narrowed my topic to the application of Buddhist and Christian liberation theologies in Asia. I decided to focus on the work of a theologian named Aloysius Pieris, a Sri Lankan Jesuit who attempts to combine Catholicism and Theravadin Buddhism into a new social message for Asia’s poor. As of spring 2000, my plan was to use a URO grant to spend the summer reading the works of Pieris and other theologians and then travel to India in the fall with the Antioch College Buddhist Studies Program. I knew that the Antioch program allows a month for independent study and travel, and looked forward to visiting Pieris in Sri Lanka.
During the course of the summer, however, the political situation in Sri Lanka rapidly deteriorated, and I realized that proper compassion for my mother necessitated a change of topic. I began to read books and articles by theologians who referred to themselves as “Dalit Christians,” and through them I discovered Ambedkar and the Dalit Buddhists. I eventually traveled to India, but instead of visiting Sri Lanka I divided my time for independent study between the Buddhists in Bombay and the Christians in Bangalore, a center for Indian Christian activity.
The month spent interviewing and reading about Dalit Buddhists and Dalit Christians was perhaps the most stimulating “academic” experience of my life, and it sparked a near obsession with Dr. Ambedkar and the social movements that have developed because of him. Here I use the term academic in the broadest possible sense, for the power of this experience lay in the fact that it prompted both intellectual and personal reflection. For example, I will never forget the end of my interview with Samuel, a Dalit Christian and Marxist in Bangalore. He looked at me and my friend and said, “So, what are you going to do with this?” I began to explain that I was working on my honors thesis, the final project of my college career, but he soon cut me off. “No,” he said, “I mean what are you going to do with this?” I can only hope that my inadequate response was subsequently given value by public and private exploration of what it means to take part in “religious studies.” Similarly, before I traveled to Bombay my education had barely touched upon the caste system, Indian politics, Dr. Ambedkar, and the Mahars. When I returned home, ready to work on my honors thesis, at very the least I understood how much more there was for me to learn.
As is clear from this paper’s title, I have narrowed my focus further and dropped the subject of Dalit Christians. This decision was dictated by time constraints only; untouchables present an interesting challenge to the growing ecumenism of the Catholic church and I hope one day to continue studying the developments that are occurring in Southern India. My paper also lacks an in-depth analysis of the politics of untouchability, a subject I began to learn about while writing a research paper on untouchable human rights and Indian law. There will never be enough time to include “everything,” but I would like to say that Ambedkar has influenced me most by illustrating the extent to which religion and politics have mutual influence on each other.
There are numerous people I’d like to thank for helping me with this project. Linda Hess has shared my enthusiasm for Ambedkar and has in turn shared of herself immeasurably. Bob Gregg, and Mark Mancall have had tremendous impact on my thinking and my Stanford experience in general. Peter Friedlander and Ellen Posman were my two guides from Antioch, and I would not have learned nearly so much from my time in Bombay if I had not been able to compare notes with Tom, Karen, and Becky. It is not an understatement to say that I was overwhelmed by the kindness of the people I interviewed in India. A few individuals stand out: Dr. Borhale, Fr. Frankie, and Samuel. Lastly, I want my parents to know that I appreciate the support and freedom they’ve given me—thank you for letting me travel so far and for being so fun to come home to.
Chapter 1
Purpose, Context, and Terminology
This paper explores the relationship between Ambedkar, Buddhism, and the Mahars (Ambedkar’s subcaste, or jati). It constitutes one method of examining the process of collective redefinition that the Mahars have engaged in as a result of their conversion to Buddhism. I begin with a brief overview of the untouchable situation and an explanation of my choice in terminology and subject. The second chapter then explores the linkages between Ambedkar’s biography and the political history of the Mahars. It places Ambedkar’s life within the context of Indian politics and history and argues that his interest in religious conversion was a product of that context. The third chapter outlines Ambedkar’s views on religion and his conscious reconstruction of Buddhism as an ideal religion for the Mahars. The fourth chapter examines the ways that contemporary Mahars have lived out Ambedkar’s Buddhist message, and the fifth synthesizes Ambedkar’s theory with current Mahar practice to create a typology of the “Dalit Buddhist myth.” Throughout, I emphasize the political and religious continuities between Ambedkar’s experience, the Mahar’s experience, and the form of Buddhism that has resulted from the two. I conclude by drawing on contemporary Dalit Literature to summarize the Mahars’ relationship to Ambedkar.
Overview of Untouchability
The practice of untouchability in rooted in both the religion and culture of India. Ancient Hindu texts such as the Vedas, provide insight into how Brahman priests conceived the caste system during the second millenium BCE (Flood 36). They describe four main castes (or varnas) which loosely correspond to the occupations of priest, warrior/ruler, merchant, and laborer. There is little mention of untouchables, a fifth and lowest group technically outside the system. The correctly order the universe, having been present since the creation of human beings. These groups are viewed descending order of karmic worth and are determined by birth. Untouchables, however, are largely excluded from the Hindu epics, although Ekalavya in the Mahabarata and Shambuka in the Ramayana are notable exceptions. Both tell the story of shocking atrocities that are committed against otherwise praiseworthy individuals, thus giving testimony to the precariousness of untouchables’ place in ancient culture. The Manu Smriti, dated between the second century BCE and the third century CE, argues that interactions between castes should be governed by complex laws of ritual pollution (Flood 56). This text condemns untouchables to a life of segregation and degradation, linked closely to the fact that they perform polluting tasks such as disposing of human and cow carcasses. It states, “Their dress shall be the garments of the dead, they shall eat their food from broken dishes, black iron shall be their ornaments, and they must always wander from place to place. Their food shall be given to them by others in a broken dish; at night they shall not walk about in towns and villages” (414-415). Whether or not the Manu Smriti describes the situation of untouchables with historical accuracy, it is clear that Brahmanic Hinduism regarded untouchables as an anathema to the caste system.
Much as Indian culture is often indistinguishable from Hindu culture, the caste system and untouchability are integrated into nearly every facet of Indian life. The historical origins of caste are unclear, although some hypothesize that it stemmed from racial differences between the Aryans, who are said to have migrated to India from the Northwest, and the darker indigenous Indians (the Sanskrit word for caste is varna, which means color) (Mendelsohn and Vicziany 7). Today, however, even Roman Catholics in southern India seat themselves according to caste during mass and follow principles of ritual pollution involving physical touch and food (interview, Fr. Frankie).
Contemporary anthropological theory of untouchability centers on the debate between continuity and discontinuity with respect to untouchables and greater Indian culture (Deliege 30). Louis Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus provides the standard example of the former, which emphasizes the interdependence of all the groups in the caste system (Deliege 39). Both Brahmans and untouchables are ultimately dependent on each other to maintain the dichotomy between ritual purity and impurity (Deliege 39). Thus the caste system creates a unified, though stratified, culture. However, a number of scholars have attempted to refute Dumont’s assertions, in general arguing against the comprehensiveness of the caste system as a form of societal governance. They conclude that untouchables do not subscribe to the values imposed on them by caste and that their relationship to Indian society is characterized by systematic exclusion (Deliege 43). Lastly, some scholars, such as Deliege, have developed the convincing argument that untouchables are both needed and excluded by the caste system. As Deliege writes, “Untouchables are indeed an integral part of Indian society, as their essential economic and ritual roles show; but they are, also and at the same time, excluded from this society, and their marginal position is constantly underscored through various taboos and discriminations” (67).
Whatever the origin and function of caste may be, it is clear that contemporary untouchables suffer from a sense of shame that is associated with their low social and ritual status. P. Mohan Larbeer, an Dalit Christian, writes, “When I was doing my seventh standard, I came to know that I belonged to an untouchable community…I felt very lowly and embarrassed and I tried to hide myself inside a shell, acutely aware and conscious of my caste, and avoided discussing it” (375). Larbeer’s use of the words “lowly” and “embarrassed” highlights the extent to which many untouchables have developed what of my informants referred to as a “damaged psyche” (Fr. Frankie, 11/7/01). Deliege’s survey of untouchability, published in 1995, confirms that Larbeer’s experience can be generalized: “Whatever their social position and merit, Untouchables are ashamed of their social background and try to conceal it whenever possible. To be forced publicly to acknowledge one’s caste is humiliating and insulting” (15). Before they can mobilize to claim their fundamental human rights, untouchables must themselves that they deserve those rights in the first place. Like Larbeer, many untouchables try to hide themselves in a shell because they lack any sense of self-worth that would allow them to be proactive about gaining social equality. Thus any untouchable attempts to change Indian society must be accompanied by an alternative way of defining the self.
The “Stinking Name”
Ambedkar writes, “Unfortunately, names serve a very important purpose. They play a great part in social economy. Names are symbols. Each name represents association of certain ideas and notions about a certain object. It is a label…The name “Untouchable” is a bad name. It repels, forbids, and stinks” (“Away from the Hindus,” 419). Given the importance that Ambedkar and his followers have assigned to they names they use to refer to themselves, I would like to explain my choices in terminology. There are currently several words used to describe the group of individuals referred to as "Scheduled Castes" by the Indian government: harijan, ex-untouchable, untouchable, and dalit. Harijan is a name first proposed by M.K. Gandhi, translating into English as “children of God.” It was chosen as an expression of all Indians’ equality under god, and implies that untouchables deserve access to the Hindu religious practices previously denied them. However, many untouchables argue that the term is paternalistic and condescending and, given Gandhi’s own attitude towards untouchables, there seems to be some merit to their critique. This makes harijan an undesirable choice for academic writing.
Whereas harijan is supposed to connote patient and pious suffering, the term ex-untouchable draws attention to the fact that all practices of untouchability were formally outlawed in 1950, by Article 17 of the Indian Constitution. As the rather awkward terminology of the Indian Census and other legal documents suggest, technically there are no untouchables in India today. However, to use the term ex-untouchable ignores the fact that Article 17 was followed by the Untouchability (Offenses) Act of 1955, the creation of the Protection for Civil Rights Cell in 1973, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules of 1995. In short, although the Constitution declared untouchability illegal, it merely represents the first in a long series of legal palliatives that have had little if any effect on the situation of untouchables. The punishable acts listed by the Prevention of Atrocities Rules, which include forcing someone to “drink or eat inedible or noxious substances,” forcing someone to beg or become a bonded laborer, and “murder, death, massacre, rape, mass rape, and gang rape, permanent incapacitation and dacoity,” give adequate testimony to the fact that untouchability has been removed from India in name only (Atrocities Rules 1995). As Robert Deliege points out, referring to untouchables as ex-untouchables disregards the defining characteristics of their contemporary experience (18).
The term dalit has been chosen by untouchables to specifically emphasize experiences that have often been ignored by the rest of Indian society. It is a Marathi word that means “ground, broken or reduced to pieces generally,” although some contemporary Dalit Christians argue that it is also found in Hebrew and Sanskrit (Zelliot 267 and Massey 1). By selecting the word dalit, untouchables self-consciously chose to redefine themselves in terms of their social and psychological oppression. Although dalit is the word most vocally supported by untouchables, it has certain political connotations. It is associated specifically with the Dalit Panthers, more generally with Dalit Buddhists, and has yet to gain wide acceptance beyond the Mahar community. Several scholars use dalit because it is the only term resulting from the active agency of untouchables, but I have hesitated to follow in their footsteps because it has only recently gained prominence beyond Ambedkar’s community (Deliege 16). Describing all untouchables as dalits implies a self-awareness of their situation that not all untouchables have. It also might imply that I support both Ambedkar’s ideology and the political views of his followers. This may be the case, but hope to achieve academic impartiality in this writing and then find other, more appropriate, venues for convincing others of the worthiness of Ambedkar’s cause.