Jawaharlal Nehru’s views and contributions toward the revival of Buddhism

 

Jawaharlal Nehru’s views and contributions toward the revival of Buddhism

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

                                     

Jawaharlal Nehru’s views and contributions toward the revival of Buddhism were shaped by his secular humanism, anti-communal nationalism, and deep respect for Buddhism as one of India’s greatest ethical–civilizational gifts to the world. While Nehru was not a religious revivalist, his role was crucial in restoring Buddhism’s national and international stature after centuries of decline in India.

Below is a clear, academic, and balanced account of Nehru’s views and contributions.

1. Nehru’s Views on Buddhism

(a) Buddhism as India’s Greatest Moral Export

Nehru regarded Buddhism as India’s most significant contribution to world civilization, more important than ritualistic Hindu traditions.

In The Discovery of India (1946), he wrote that Buddhism represented: Rationality, Ethical universalism, Compassion (karuṇā), Non-violence (ahiṃsā) and Human dignity.

For Nehru, Buddhism was not superstition or priestcraft, but a moral and philosophical revolution against: Brahmanical ritualism, Caste hierarchy and religious dogma.

(b) Buddhism as a Rational, Scientific Ethic

Nehru admired Buddhism for being: non-theistic, experimental and rational and compatible with modern scientific temper. This resonated with his vision of a modern, scientific, secular India.

He saw the Buddha as: “One of the greatest human beings who ever lived.”

(c) Buddhism and Indian Secularism

Nehru viewed Buddhism as: An indigenous Indian tradition yet non-sectarian and universal.

Thus, Buddhism helped Nehru argue that Indian secularism was not Western-imported, but rooted in India’s own pluralistic past.

2. Nehru’s Role in the Revival of Buddhism in Independent India

(a) State Patronage to Buddhist Heritage

Under Nehru’s leadership, independent India undertook systematic restoration and promotion of Buddhist sites, including: Sarnath, Bodh Gaya, Sanchi, Kushinagar and Nalanda.

These sites were developed as: National heritage monuments and centres of international pilgrimage. This marked the first major state-supported Buddhist revival since Ashoka.

(b) Ashoka as Nehru’s Political-Ideal Model

Nehru consciously projected Emperor Ashoka as the moral ancestor of modern India: Ashoka’s Dhamma influenced Nehru’s vision of governance. The Ashoka Chakra was adopted on the Indian national flag.

This symbolized: Ethical state power, Non-violence and Buddhist moral governance.

(c) Buddhist Diplomacy and Asian Solidarity

Nehru actively used Buddhism as a tool of cultural diplomacy, especially with: Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Japan and China (before 1962).

His key initiatives were: International Buddhist conferences in India, Promotion of Buddhist cultural exchanges and Emphasis on India as the “land of Buddha”

This helped India re-establish leadership in Asia without religious chauvinism.

(d) Support for Buddhist Institutions

Nehru supported: Revival of Nalanda as an international centre of learning (conceptual groundwork), Buddhist studies in Indian universities and Archaeological Survey of India’s work on Buddhist remains.

Though slow and elite-driven, these efforts gave Buddhism institutional legitimacy.

3. Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Critical Contrast

(a) Nehru’s Buddhism: Cultural–Civilizational

Nehru approached Buddhism as: A civilizational heritage, A moral philosophy and A diplomatic and ethical resource.

He did not see Buddhism as a tool of social revolution in contemporary India.

(b) Ambedkar’s Buddhism: Social–Political Liberation

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in contrast: Saw Buddhism as a counter-revolution against Brahmanism. He used it as a weapon for annihilation of caste and led a mass conversion of Dalits (1956)

Nehru: Respected Ambedkar personally, welcomed religious freedom but remained uneasy with mass religious mobilization, including Buddhist conversion

Thus, Nehru’s revival was symbolic and elite, while Ambedkar’s was radical and grassroots.

4. Limitations of Nehru’s Contribution

Despite his admiration, Nehru’s role had clear limits: No active promotion of Buddhism among oppressed castes, no challenge to Brahmanical dominance in Hindu society, Buddhism was preserved as heritage, not revived as living mass religion and Dalit–Bahujan Buddhist movement was largely ignored by the Nehruvian state.

This explains why Buddhism revived internationally and academically, but remained marginal demographically.

5. Overall Assessment Jawaharlal Nehru’s contribution to Buddhism can be summarized as: Nehru saw Buddhism as a Philosophy which elevated Buddhism as rational, ethical tradition. His state policy restored Buddhist sites and symbols, his diplomacy used Buddhism for Asian cultural unity, Buddhism as National Identity linked India with Ashoka–Buddha legacy, Nehru’s Limitation was that he Avoided social-revolutionary Buddhism. Conclusion Jawaharlal Nehru was not a Buddhist revivalist in the Ambedkarite sense, but he was the chief architect of Buddhism’s cultural and political rehabilitation in modern India. He transformed Buddhism from a forgotten, marginal tradition into: A global symbol of India’s moral past, a pillar of Indian soft power and a respected philosophical legacy. However, the task of making Buddhism a living force of social equality was left to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the Dalit–Bahujan movement. References / Footnotes 1.     Nehru, Jawaharlal. The Discovery of India. Oxford University Press, 1946. 2.     Nehru, Jawaharlal. Glimpses of World History. Oxford University Press, 1934. 3.     Nehru, Jawaharlal. Letters from a Father to His Daughter. The John Day Company, 1929. 4.     Thapar, Romila. Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Oxford University Press, 1961. 5.     Ambedkar, B. R. The Buddha and His Dhamma. Popular Prakashan, 1957. 6.     Gombrich, Richard. Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge, 1988. 7.     Keer, Dhananjay. Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission. Popular Prakashan, 1954. 8.     Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR). India and Buddhist Cultural Diplomacy. Government of India Publication. 9.     Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. Pearson Education, 2008.

Swami Vivekananda’s views on the Hindu caste system and its Ambedkarite / Dalit–Bahujan Critique

Swami Vivekananda’s views on the Hindu caste system and its Ambedkarite / Dalit–Bahujan Critique

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

Swami Vivekananda’s views on the Hindu caste system were complex, internally contradictory, and evolved over time. He criticised caste-based discrimination and untouchability, yet defended the theoretical framework of Varna and stopped short of advocating the annihilation of caste as later demanded by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Below is a clear, structured, and academically balanced account of his position.

1. Vivekananda’s Basic Position: Varna vs. Caste

Swami Vivekananda consistently distinguished between: Varna – which he described as a functional division of labour and Jāti (caste by birth) – which he admitted had become degenerate and oppressive. His Claim was that the original Varna system was based on guna (qualities) and karma (work), not on birth. He believed that Varna was socially useful in ancient times and the problem was hereditary fixation and ritual hierarchy, not Varna itself.

2. Critique of Caste-Based Discrimination

Vivekananda strongly condemned Untouchability, Social exclusion, denial of education to Shudras and Brahminical arrogance and priestly monopoly. He called untouchability a “great national sin”, he blamed upper-caste Hindus for India’s weakness and decline and He insisted Shudras must be educated and uplifted. He said: “So long as the millions live like brutes, no number of politics will save this country.”

3. Defence of Varna Order

Despite his social criticism, Vivekananda did not reject caste altogether. He argued that society naturally produces different types of people, Varṇa represented psychological and occupational diversity and complete social equality was neither possible nor desirable. He even said that all societies have caste-like divisions and modern class systems are merely new forms of caste.

This defence places him closer to reformist Hinduism than to radical social democracy.

4. His View on Shudras and “Lower Castes”

The progressive aspects of Swami Vivekanand are: He declared Shudras were oppressed historically, asserted that education and power must reach them and he predicted the rise of Shudras as inevitable. His prophecy was that “The next Buddha will be born among the Shudras.” He also said that the next raj will be of Shudras.

His limitations were that he did not call for destruction of the caste system, he saw uplift as moral–spiritual, not structural–legal and he never demanded political power or constitutional safeguards for Dalits.

5. Vivekananda vs. Ambedkar (Brief Contrast)

Vivekananda criticised Birth-based caste as degenerated Varna but Dr. Ambedkar 

Saw it as a structural system of graded inequality.

Vivekananda defended the Varna system whereas Dr. Ambedkar completely rejected it.

Vivekananda treated Untouchability as a moral sin whereas Dr. Ambedkar saw it as a crime requiring law.

Vivekananda saw spiritual reform as its solution whereas Dr. Ambedkar stood for Annihilation of caste and law.

Vivekanand said that Hindu scriptures required to be reinterpreted whereas Dr. Ambedkar rejected them as creators of the caste system.

Ambedkar famously argued that reformers like Vivekananda underestimated the structural violence of caste.

6. Why Vivekananda Did Not Reject Caste Entirely

Three key reasons were: Vedantic framework as he believed Hindu philosophy could be morally purified without social rupture. His fear of social chaos as he saw caste abolition as potentially destabilising Indian society. His elite reform perspective which made his approach top-down and moral, not subaltern or political.

7. Scholarly Assessment

Most historians agree that Vivekananda was progressive for his time but not radical enough to challenge caste as an institution. His ideas helped Hindu reform, not Dalit emancipation

From a Dalit–Bahujan or Ambedkarite perspective, his approach is seen as: Ethically sympathetic but structurally inadequate. Swami Vivekananda: Condemned caste oppression, opposed untouchability and supported Shudra uplift. But he: defended Varna, did not call for annihilation of caste and prioritised spiritual reform over social justice. Thus, he remains a reformist within Hinduism, not a revolutionary against caste.

 Swami Vivekananda’s Thought from an Ambedkarite and Dalit–Bahujan Perspective

(Sympathetic yet Structurally Weak)

From an Ambedkarite and Dalit–Bahujan perspective, Swami Vivekananda’s engagement with the question of caste can be described as sympathetic reformism, but one that fails to challenge the foundational structure of the caste system. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, caste is not merely a moral aberration or social evil; rather, it is a system of division of labourers, rooted in the division of labour itself. It is an institutional arrangement that determines and restricts an individual’s social, economic, and intellectual possibilities from birth.

8. Ambedkarite / Dalit–Bahujan Critique

(a) The Fundamental Problem of Defending Varna

From an Ambedkarite standpoint, Vivekananda’s greatest limitation lies in his theoretical defence of the Varna system. Ambedkar unequivocally argues: “There is no fundamental difference between Varna and caste; Varna is the philosophical justification of caste.”

From this perspective, Vivekananda’s claim that Varna was originally based on guna (qualities) and karma (work) is regarded as historically and sociologically untenable. Dalit–Bahujan thinkers argue that any social system which determines occupation, status, and social worth across generations on the basis of birth is inherently oppressive.

(b) Moral Critique versus Structural Critique

Swami Vivekananda viewed untouchability as a “sin” and a form of “immorality,” whereas Dr. Ambedkar understood it as a form of crime and institutionalized social violence. This marks the fundamental divergence between the two approaches: Vivekananda sought solutions in moral purification, compassion, and spiritual awakening whereas Ambedkar located solutions in law, political power, social rights, and structural transformation.

From a Dalit–Bahujan standpoint, moral exhortations without structural change amount to little more than consolation for the oppressed.

(c) The Shudra Question and the Question of Power

Vivekananda expressed sympathy for the Shudras and spoke of their uplift, but: He did not raise the issue of political representation, he did not demand redistribution of resources and power and he did not propose dismantling Brahmanical monopoly over knowledge

For Ambedkar, the liberation of Shudras and Ati-Shudras meant education, organization, and power. Vivekananda’s thought does not reach this level of political and institutional clarity.

(d) Scriptures, Religion, and Caste

While Vivekananda attempted to portray caste as a “distortion” through reinterpretation of Hindu scriptures, Ambedkar arrived at a far more radical conclusion that “Caste is the soul of Hinduism; unless the religion itself is transformed, caste cannot be annihilated.”

According to Dalit–Bahujan critique, Vivekananda’s approach seeks to preserve the Brahmanical religious structure while merely reforming its moral surface.

(e) Evaluation from a Buddhist–Navayana Perspective

In the light of Ambedkar’s Navayana Buddhism, Vivekananda’s thought: prioritizes harmony over equality, detaches compassion from social justice and places concern for nation and religion above liberation (nirvāṇa)

From the Navayana perspective, caste is not a spiritual problem but a question of human rights, democracy, and social equality.

Conclusion

From an Ambedkarite / Dalit–Bahujan perspective, Swami Vivekananda: Was a sensitive reformer with regard to caste oppression yet remained a theoretical defender of the Varna system and proposed moral solutions rather than revolutionary transformation.

Therefore, he may be regarded as an internal moral critic of Hindu society, but not as a caste-annihilating emancipatory thinker. The historical and philosophical credit for the annihilation of caste ultimately belongs to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the Buddhist Navayana tradition.