Is Buddhism a Part of Hinduism?

 

Is Buddhism a Part of Hinduism?

Dr. Amritpal Kaur

 

(Translated from Hindi to English by SR Darapuri I.P.s. (Retd)

Buddhism is often portrayed as merely a branch or part of Hinduism—a claim that is utterly baseless. No religion employs such abusive language toward its own branches or constituents as the Hindu scriptures have directed toward Buddhism. The *Valmiki Ramayana* states:

"Just as a thief is deserving of punishment, so too is the Buddha (and his followers)—for he is opposed to the Vedas. The *Tathagata* and the atheist are to be categorized in this very same class. Therefore, for the welfare of his subjects, if an atheist can be subjected to punishment by the King, he must indeed be punished just like a thief; however, regarding an atheist who lies beyond one's control, a learned Brahmin must never engage with him—nor should he enter into any conversation with him." (Srimad Valmiki Ramayana, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, p. 303)

The *Ashokavadana* reveals that a Brahmin named Pushyamitra Shunga assassinated Brihadratha—the last emperor of the Mauryan dynasty—and seized power. Operating under an agenda of counter-revolution against Buddhism, he orchestrated the massacre of Buddhists, razed Buddhist monasteries to the ground, and upon reaching Sakala (Sialkot), issued a proclamation: "I shall reward one hundred *dinars* to anyone who brings me the severed head of a Buddhist." This is the reason why, in Chinese Buddhist literature, the name of Pushyamitra is never uttered without an accompanying curse. Rather than simply saying "Pushyamitra," they refer to him as "Pushyamitra—may he perish!"

In his book *In the Footsteps of the Buddha*, René Grousset notes that the Chinese traveler Xuanzang recorded how Mihirakula, the King of Kashmir, demolished Buddhist stupas, destroyed monasteries, and slaughtered hundreds of Buddhists. According to Waters' *Yuan Chwang's Travels* (Vol. 2), the Chinese traveler also recorded that King Shashanka had the Bodhi Tree cut down, replaced the statue of the Buddha with an idol of Maheshwara, and destroyed the Buddhist faith.

The *Shankara Digvijaya* contains a vivid account of King Sudhanva massacring Buddhists in accordance with the directives of the Hindu preceptor Kumarila Bhatta:

"Thereupon, issuing a decree for the extermination of the anti-Vedic Buddhists, the King declared: 'Throughout the entire territory stretching from the Himalayas to Rameswaram, whoever encounters a Buddhist—be it a child or an elder—must slay him. Whosoever fails to do so shall be slain by me.'" (1/92-93)

In his renowned treatise *Tantravartika*, Kumarila Bhatta characterized the Buddha's teachings—particularly those regarding *ahimsa* (non-violence)—as impure, futile, and worthy of rejection, likening them to milk spilled upon a dog's hide. Following him, the preceptor Shankara, in his commentary on the *Brahma Sutras*, described the Buddha as a "babbling enemy of the world" (3-2-32).

While expounding upon one of Panini's aphorisms (2-4-9) in his *Mahabhashya*—written in the 2nd century BCE—the grammarian Patanjali sought to provide an illustration of groups characterized by perpetual mutual antagonism; in doing so, he cited the Buddhists and the Brahmins, whose reciprocal hostility was likened to the relationship between a cat and a mouse, or a snake and a mongoose.

Emperor Ashoka had the words of the Buddha inscribed upon stone edicts—a practice that deeply offended the Brahmins. To cast Ashoka as a villain, these very Brahmins—along with their grammarians—went so far as to alter the rules of grammar itself. In his edicts, the emperor prefixed his name with the title *Devanam Priya* (Beloved of the Gods); however, by inserting a specific, novel rule into their grammatical framework, the Brahmins declared that *Devanam Priya* signified "a fool." (Katyayana, c. 150 BCE). In this context, these terms were interpreted to mean "fool."

In ancient Sanskrit plays, one frequently encounters scenes where Buddhist monks are beaten, mocked, and openly reviled. One such ancient and renowned Sanskrit drama is *Mṛcchakaṭikam* (The Little Clay Cart); in its seventh act, the protagonist, Charudatta, sets out to meet the heroine, Vasantasena, and along the way, he spots a Buddhist monk. He exclaims:

"Oh! Why have I encountered the inauspicious sight of a Buddhist monk right at the very outset?"

Furthermore, while cautioning the public against the *Buddhadhamma* (Buddhist doctrine), various Puranic texts also heaped condemnation upon the Buddha and his teachings. The *Brahma Purana* asserts that Vishnu, having assumed the incarnation of the Buddha, destroyed the religion of the Shakya people and foisted upon them a "counterfeit commodity"—that is, Buddhism. The *Bhavishya Purana* claims that the Buddha turned Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas—who were adherents of the *Devadharma* (the religion of the gods)—away from the Vedas, thereby spreading ignorance and darkness everywhere.

This superstition directed against the *Buddhadhamma* was deliberately propagated so that people would begin to shun even the mere sight of Buddhists. Under such circumstances, who would possibly wish to listen to their ideas? This served as a weapon of social ostracism, with superstition acting as the instrument. How could any religion unleash such a torrential barrage of invective and condemnation against a mere branch of its own faith? A religion would resort to such measures only when it faces a formidable challenge from a rival...!!!!

A Theoretical Reappraisal of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram in the Evolution of Dalit Politics

 

A Theoretical Reappraisal of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram in the Evolution of Dalit Politics

SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front 

 

Introduction

The intellectual and political trajectory of Dalit politics in modern India is marked by two paradigmatic moments: the republican constitutionalism of B. R. Ambedkar and the Bahujan majoritarian mobilization of Kanshi Ram. While both figures aimed at the emancipation of historically oppressed communities, their theoretical premises, strategic orientations, and conceptions of democracy differed in crucial respects.

Ambedkar developed a normative theory of democracy grounded in constitutional morality, minority safeguards, and social transformation. Kanshi Ram, operating in a later historical conjuncture, articulated a strategy of demographic consolidation and electoral capture through the formation of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).

This essay offers a theoretically dense comparison of these two paradigms by situating them within broader debates in democratic theory, minority rights, republicanism, and identity politics. It argues that Ambedkar represents a model of normative republican constitutionalism, whereas Kanshi Ram embodies a form of instrumental majoritarian democratic mobilization. Both have shaped Dalit politics in distinct yet intersecting ways.

I. Ambedkar’s Republican Constitutionalism

1. Democracy as Social Morality

Ambedkar’s understanding of democracy transcended proceduralism. In his Constituent Assembly speeches and earlier writings such as Annihilation of Caste (1936), he defined democracy as a mode of associated living premised on liberty, equality, and fraternity. Drawing implicitly on European republicanism and American constitutionalism, Ambedkar argued that political democracy must rest upon social democracy.

This view aligns with the republican tradition in political theory, particularly the idea that freedom is not merely non-interference but non-domination (Pettit, 1997). In caste society, Dalits were structurally dominated, rendering formal political equality insufficient. Hence, Ambedkar’s insistence on: Fundamental rights, Affirmative action independent judiciary and Federal safeguards.

Democracy, for Ambedkar, required institutional design capable of preventing majority tyranny in a hierarchical society.

2. Minority Safeguards and the Problem of Majoritarianism

Ambedkar’s advocacy of separate electorates for Depressed Classes during the Round Table Conferences must be understood as a theory of minority self-representation. His fear was that in a Hindu-majority polity structured by caste prejudice, Dalits would be permanently subordinated.

The Poona Pact (1932), forced compromise notwithstanding, reinforced his conviction that majority rule without safeguards could become oppressive. This anticipates modern multicultural theorists like Will Kymlicka, who argue that minority rights are compatible with liberal democracy.

Ambedkar thus reconceptualized democracy as counter-majoritarian constitutionalism. Unlike classical majoritarian democracy, his model was protective rather than aggregative.

3. Social Democracy and Economic Justice

Ambedkar’s republicanism also incorporated elements of social democracy. His proposals for state socialism in “States and Minorities” (1947) included nationalization of key industries and land redistribution. Though not fully realized, these ideas reveal his commitment to economic restructuring.

Thus, Ambedkar’s project was: Anti-caste, Anti-majoritarian Social democratic and institutionally constitutional.

His formation of the Republican Party of India (RPI) in 1956 signified an attempt to create a broad-based republican alternative, transcending sectarian caste politics.

II. Kanshi Ram’s Bahujan Majoritarianism

1. Historical Context: Post-Congress Fragmentation

Kanshi Ram emerged in the late 20th century when: Congress dominance declined, Caste-based mobilization intensified and Mandal Commission politics reshaped representation.

In this milieu, the question was no longer minority protection within a dominant-party system but electoral competitiveness within a fragmented polity.

2. From Minority to Majority

Kanshi Ram’s core innovation was conceptual. He reframed Dalits as part of the “Bahujan” — the majority composed of SCs, STs, OBCs, and religious minorities. This was less a sociological fact than a political strategy.

His thesis was arithmetic: oppressed communities together outnumber upper castes; their fragmentation prevents political power. Therefore, unity is prerequisite to rule.

Unlike Ambedkar’s minority-centric constitutionalism, Kanshi Ram embraced majoritarianism — but a counter-elite majoritarianism. It sought to invert, not abolish, majority rule.

3. Political Power as “Master Key”

Kanshi Ram famously described political power as the “master key.” The implication was that social reform, economic redistribution, and symbolic dignity require control of the state.

This instrumental view resonates with Schumpeterian competitive democracy: politics as struggle for power rather than ethical deliberation. Whereas Ambedkar theorized democracy as moral community, Kanshi Ram operationalized it as electoral contest.

4. Organizational Rationality

Kanshi Ram’s creation of BAMCEF, DS-4, and ultimately BSP reveals Weberian rational-legal organization. The BSP functioned as a disciplined cadre party, capable of booth-level mobilization and strategic alliance formation.

Under Mayawati, the BSP achieved majority government in Uttar Pradesh in 2007, demonstrating the effectiveness of Bahujan social engineering.

III. Comparative Democratic Theory

1. Normative vs Instrumental Democracy

Ambedkar: Democracy as moral ideal, Institutional safeguards against domination and Fraternity as ethical foundation.

Kanshi Ram: Democracy as arithmetic aggregation, Electoral mobilization, and Power as precondition for justice.

Ambedkar’s framework aligns with deliberative and republican democratic theory. Kanshi Ram’s aligns with competitive, mobilizational democracy.

2. Minority Constitutionalism vs Counter-Elite Majoritarianism

Ambedkar feared tyranny of the majority; Kanshi Ram sought to create a new majority.

The tension reflects two solutions to caste hierarchy: Protective constitutionalism and Transformative demographic mobilization.

Ambedkar sought to constrain power; Kanshi Ram sought to capture it.

3. Identity Politics and Strategic Essentialism

Ambedkar treated caste identity as a problem to be annihilated. His ultimate act of conversion to Buddhism symbolized transcendence of caste Hindu order.

Kanshi Ram treated caste identity as a strategic resource. His mobilization of Dalit consciousness did not aim at immediate annihilation but at empowerment through consolidation.

This corresponds to what Gayatri Spivak terms “strategic essentialism”: temporary consolidation of identity for political ends.

IV. Impact on Dalit Politics

1. Ambedkar’s Long-Term Structural Impact

Constitutional reservation system, Legal abolition of untouchability, Intellectual canon of anti-caste thought and Institutionalization of rights discourse.

Ambedkar created normative infrastructure.

2. Kanshi Ram’s Transformative Electoral Impact

Independent Dalit-led governments, Assertion in public symbolism and memorial architecture,  Creation of Dalit political bureaucracy networks and  Psychological shift from marginality to rule.

Kanshi Ram converted identity into electoral sovereignty.

V. Limits and Contradictions

Ambedkar’s RPI fragmented after his death, revealing limits of normatively driven politics without robust organization.

Kanshi Ram’s Bahujan coalition faced internal contradictions among SCs, OBCs, and minorities. Over time, the BSP’s social engineering diluted core Bahujan rhetoric.

Both models encounter structural constraints:

Persistence of caste hierarchy, Majoritarian nationalism, and Neoliberal economic transformations

VI. Toward a Synthetic Framework

A theoretically robust Dalit democratic project today may require synthesis:

Ambedkar’s constitutional morality and minority safeguards, Kanshi Ram’s organizational discipline and mass mobilization, Intersectional expansion beyond caste arithmetic and deepening of internal party democracy

Republicanism without mobilization risks irrelevance. Majoritarian mobilization without normative anchor risks instrumentalism.

Conclusion

Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram represent two distinct yet interconnected paradigms of Dalit politics.

Ambedkar theorized democracy as ethical, constitutional, and counter-majoritarian. Kanshi Ram operationalized democracy as strategic, majoritarian, and power-oriented.

Ambedkar provided the moral grammar of Dalit emancipation; Kanshi Ram supplied its electoral syntax.

The future of Dalit politics depends on reconciling these traditions — embedding Bahujan mobilization within a robust framework of republican constitutionalism and social democracy.