Did Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Accept the Concept of Sanatana Dharma as Claimed by Orthodox Hindus?

 

Did Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Accept the Concept of Sanatana Dharma as Claimed by Orthodox Hindus?

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

Introduction

Few issues in modern Indian intellectual history have generated as much debate as Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's views on Sanatana Dharma. In contemporary public discourse, it is sometimes claimed that Ambedkar accepted Sanatana Dharma because he appreciated certain ethical teachings found in Hindu philosophy, while others argue that he rejected Sanatana Dharma in its entirety. A careful reading of Ambedkar's writings, however, reveals a more nuanced position. He did not accept the concept of Sanatana Dharma as understood and defended by orthodox Hindu thinkers of his time. His critique was directed primarily against the Brahmanical interpretation of Sanatana Dharma that justified the caste system, hereditary inequality, untouchability, and the unquestioned authority of the Hindu scriptures. At the same time, Ambedkar distinguished between religion as a source of moral principles and religion as an instrument of social domination. His opposition was therefore directed not against spirituality itself but against a religious system that, in his view, perpetuated social injustice.

The Orthodox Hindu Understanding of Sanatana Dharma

The expression Sanatana Dharma literally means "eternal religion" or "eternal law." Traditionally, many Hindus have understood it as the eternal moral and spiritual order governing both the universe and human society. In orthodox interpretations, it has often been associated with the authority of the Vedas, Smritis, Dharmashastras, and the social institutions derived from them, including the fourfold Varna system.

Many modern Hindu scholars and reformers, however, interpret Sanatana Dharma more broadly as a universal ethical philosophy based on truth, compassion, self-discipline, non-violence, and spiritual realization. This diversity of interpretation is important because Ambedkar's critique was directed primarily against the historical and social meaning of Sanatana Dharma as it functioned in Indian society rather than against every possible philosophical interpretation of the term.

Ambedkar's Critique of Sanatana Dharma

Ambedkar consistently argued that the religion practised by orthodox Hindu society had become inseparable from caste hierarchy. In his view, the social order defended in the name of Sanatana Dharma rested upon five interconnected principles: the Varna system, the caste (Jati) hierarchy, hereditary occupations, untouchability, and the authority of the Shastras.

According to Ambedkar, these institutions were treated not merely as social customs but as divine and eternal laws. Because they were believed to be sanctioned by religion, they became extremely resistant to reform.

In Annihilation of Caste, he wrote: "The religion which discriminates between its followers, which gives privileges to one class and inflicts disabilities upon another, is not religion."

Elsewhere in the same work, he declared: "You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a nation. You cannot build up a morality."

These statements clearly demonstrate that Ambedkar rejected the religious legitimacy claimed for caste.

Rejection of the Doctrine of Eternity

One of Ambedkar's principal objections concerned the idea that any social institution could be eternal. Human society evolves continuously, and institutions must be judged according to their contribution to justice rather than their antiquity.

He argued that if caste and social inequality were declared "Sanatana" or eternal, then meaningful social reform would become impossible. No institution, however ancient, should be exempt from rational criticism.

Thus, Ambedkar rejected the claim that hereditary social hierarchy possessed eternal or divine authority.

Criticism of Scriptural Authority

Ambedkar devoted considerable attention to examining the Hindu scriptures, particularly the Manusmriti and other Dharmashastras. He argued that these texts explicitly prescribed unequal rights and duties for different castes and thereby institutionalized graded inequality.

His symbolic burning of the Manusmriti at Mahad in 1927 represented a rejection of scriptural authority wherever it sanctioned discrimination.

For Ambedkar, genuine social reform required questioning those religious authorities that perpetuated inequality rather than merely reforming social customs.

Religion as Morality Rather than Social Control

Although Ambedkar strongly criticised orthodox Hinduism, he did not reject religion itself. He believed that religion should serve as a source of moral guidance rather than social oppression. In his words: "Religion must mainly be a matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules."

He distinguished between ethical religion, which promotes justice and compassion, and rule-based religion, which regulates social behaviour through hereditary restrictions and ritual obligations.

According to Ambedkar, the value of any religion depends upon whether it advances liberty, equality, fraternity, and human dignity.

Did Ambedkar Reject Every Meaning of Sanatana Dharma?

A balanced reading of Ambedkar's writings suggests that he did not systematically examine every philosophical interpretation of the expression "Sanatana Dharma."

Many contemporary Hindu philosophers define Sanatana Dharma primarily as an eternal moral philosophy centred on truth, compassion, non-violence, and spiritual self-realization rather than as a defence of caste. Ambedkar did not devote significant attention to this broader theological understanding.

Instead, his writings addressed the concrete historical reality of Hindu society in which the concept of Sanatana Dharma was widely invoked to justify caste hierarchy and untouchability. It was this historically existing social order that he rejected.

Therefore, it would be inaccurate to claim that Ambedkar accepted Sanatana Dharma as understood by orthodox Hinduism. Equally, it would be simplistic to suggest that he discussed or rejected every philosophical interpretation of the term independently of its social context.

Conversion to Buddhism

Ambedkar eventually concluded that caste could not be abolished within the framework of orthodox Hinduism.

At the Yeola Conference in 1935, he famously declared: "I was born a Hindu, but I will not die a Hindu."

On 14 October 1956, he embraced Buddhism along with several hundred thousand followers at Nagpur.

His interpretation of Buddhism, known as Navayana Buddhism, emphasized rational inquiry, compassion, equality, morality, and social justice. He regarded Buddhism as fully compatible with constitutional democracy because it rejected hereditary privilege and affirmed the equal dignity of every human being.

Contemporary Relevance

Ambedkar's critique continues to shape debates on caste, religion, constitutional morality, and social justice in India.

Ambedkarite scholars generally maintain that his criticism remains relevant because caste discrimination continues to exist despite constitutional guarantees of equality.

Many Hindu scholars, on the other hand, argue that Sanatana Dharma should be understood primarily as an ethical and spiritual tradition rather than as a defence of caste, and that caste hierarchy represents a historical distortion rather than the essence of Hindu philosophy.

These differing interpretations demonstrate that the meaning of Sanatana Dharma remains contested within modern Indian intellectual discourse.

Conclusion

A careful examination of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's writings leads to a clear conclusion. He did not accept the concept of Sanatana Dharma as understood and defended by orthodox Hindu thinkers of his time because he believed that it had become inseparably associated with caste hierarchy, untouchability, hereditary privilege, and scriptural sanction for social inequality.

At the same time, Ambedkar did not reject religion as such. He argued that religion should be founded upon morality, reason, equality, liberty, fraternity, and respect for human dignity. His eventual acceptance of Buddhism reflected his conviction that these ethical values found their fullest expression in the teachings of the Buddha rather than in the orthodox Brahmanical interpretation of Sanatana Dharma.

Thus, Ambedkar's position should be understood not as a rejection of spirituality or ethical religion, but as a rejection of any religious doctrine that legitimizes inequality and denies the equal dignity of all human beings. His critique remains one of the most significant contributions to modern debates on religion, democracy, constitutional morality, and social justice in India.

If Gandhi were alive today, how he would have reacted to the present social, religious, economic, political and communal scenario

 

If Gandhi were alive today, how he would have reacted to the present social, religious, economic, political and communal scenario

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

(Special on 2^nd October Gandhi Jayanti)

“Gandhi would likely have been deeply troubled by much of the present scenario while still affirming certain gains, applying his consistent principles of ahimsa (non-violence), satya (truth), sarvodaya (uplift of all), swadeshi/self-reliance, Hindu-Muslim unity, and rejection of materialism and majoritarian coercion.”

This is necessarily speculative. It rests on what Gandhi actually wrote, said, and did—not on later political appropriations of his image. He was not a systematic ideologue or modern progressive; he was a religiously rooted moralist who prioritized means over ends, village-centred simplicity, and personal ethical transformation.

Social

He would have welcomed the formal abolition of untouchability, expanded education and legal equality for women and lower castes, and the decline of extreme traditional practices he opposed. He campaigned hard against untouchability and for basic dignity.

He would have criticized persistent caste hierarchy in practice, the commercialization and status-seeking that replaced older social bonds, urban atomization, and the spectacle culture of social media and celebrity. Gandhi’s ideal was decentralized, morally disciplined community life rooted in villages, not high-consumption urban individualism or identity politics that harden group grievances. He would have seen much modern “progress” as spiritually empty if it increased desire, inequality of spirit, and alienation from manual labour and nature.

 Religious

Gandhi was a devout Hindu who read the Gita daily, yet insisted that all religions contain truth and that no one holds a monopoly. He practiced interfaith prayer, defended Muslims’ right to practice their faith, and repeatedly put his life on the line for communal harmony. He would have rejected both aggressive majoritarian assertion and minority separatism that treats the other as permanent enemy.

He would have been alarmed by politicized religion, temple-mosque disputes turned into permanent mobilization tools, and any ideology that treats violence or humiliation of the other community as legitimate. At the same time, he was not a secularist in the modern Western sense; he wanted religion to permeate public ethics while remaining non-coercive. Aggressive atheism or state hostility to religious expression would also have troubled him.

Economic

Gandhi was a sharp critic of industrial capitalism, large-scale mechanization that displaced labour, and the chase for endless material growth. His constructive program centred on khadi, village industries, trusteeship (wealth held as a trust for society), and self-sufficient rural economies. He would have viewed today’s high-growth, consumption-driven, urban-centric model—with its extreme wealth concentration, ecological costs, and dependence on distant markets—as a moral and practical failure, even while acknowledging reductions in absolute poverty and technological gains in health and communication.

He would have favoured decentralization, local production, restraint of wants, and economic arrangements that do not treat human beings or nature as mere inputs. Corporate power, speculative finance, and status consumption would have been targets of his critique.

Political

Gandhi accepted parliamentary democracy as imperfect but workable after independence, yet he distrusted concentrated state power, party machines, and the idea that politics is primarily about capturing the state. He emphasized moral means, voluntary cooperation, and the primacy of civil society and individual conscience.

He would have condemned corruption, dynastic politics, majoritarian bullying, and the normalization of hatred or misinformation as political tools—regardless of which side practiced them. Free speech and the right to dissent were important to him; he would have opposed both state overreach and mob intimidation. Polarization that turns fellow citizens into permanent enemies would have struck him as a betrayal of the independence struggle’s ethical core.

 Communal

This is the area of clearest continuity. Gandhi’s last years were consumed by the catastrophe of Partition violence. He fasted, walked into riot zones, and insisted that Hindus and Muslims must live together as equals or the freedom struggle itself was hollow. He would have rejected any narrative—Hindu or Muslim—that treats the other community as inherently disloyal or as a demographic threat justifying permanent hostility.

He would have demanded accountability for violence from whatever side initiated or justified it, opposed the instrumentalization of history and sacred sites for electoral gain, and insisted on shared citizenship over competitive victimhood. At the same time, he would not have accepted the erasure of legitimate cultural or religious self-assertion; his unity was ethical and practical, not a demand that Hindus abandon their civilizational identity.

 Overall stance

Gandhi would almost certainly have continued his methods: public fasts, constructive work, personal example, and relentless moral criticism rather than party politics or state power. He would have celebrated India’s survival as a democracy and the formal equality of citizens while diagnosing the deeper failures as spiritual and ethical—greed, fear, hatred, and the substitution of force or cleverness for truth and self-restraint.

He was not soft or utopian in the sentimental sense; he could be severe with those he saw as betraying non-violence or truth. Modern India would have given him abundant material for such severity, just as it would have given him grounds for hope in the resilience of ordinary people and the persistence of democratic forms. Any claim that “Gandhi would have fully endorsed my side” is almost always anachronistic projection.