Deepavali and the Contest over India's Cultural Heritage: Buddhist Traditions, Brahmanical Assimilation and the Politics of Historical Memory—An Ambedkarite Perspective

 

Deepavali and the Contest over India's Cultural Heritage: Buddhist Traditions, Brahmanical Assimilation and the Politics of Historical Memory—An Ambedkarite Perspective

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

        

           

. Introduction

The historical origins of Deepavali are more complex than the popular understanding that it commemorates Lord Rama's return to Ayodhya after defeating Ravana. Deepavali, meaning a row of lamps, has acquired different religious, philosophical and cultural interpretations over centuries. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs associate the festival with different historical events and religious traditions.

An important historical question is whether Deepavali originated as a Buddhist festival and was subsequently appropriated by Brahmanical traditions, or whether different religious communities independently incorporated an older festival of lights into their religious practices.

The available historical evidence does not establish that Deepavali originated exclusively within Buddhism or Brahmanical religion. A more plausible explanation is that an older seasonal and cultural celebration gradually acquired different religious meanings through centuries of social and religious interaction.

2. The Buddhist Connection: Buddha's Return from Tavatimsa

Buddhist traditions preserve an important account connecting the symbolism of light with Buddha's return from Tavatimsa heaven.

According to Theravada Buddhist tradition, Gautama Buddha ascended to Tavatimsa heaven to preach the Abhidhamma to his deceased mother, Mahamaya, who had been reborn there. After spending three months teaching, Buddha descended to earth at Sankassa. His return was celebrated by devotees, and the occasion became associated with illumination and the symbolism of light.

This tradition is commemorated in Myanmar through Thadingyut, popularly known as the Festival of Lights. It celebrates Buddha's return from Tavatimsa and symbolises the victory of knowledge over ignorance.

However, the Buddhist celebration of Thadingyut should not be confused historically with India's Deepavali. Although both involve illumination and religious symbolism, there is no conclusive evidence that Indian Deepavali originated from Buddha's return from Tavatimsa. Nevertheless, this Buddhist tradition deserves recognition as an important part of the wider cultural history of festivals of light.

3. The Jain Connection: Mahavira's Nirvana

Jainism has a particularly strong and historically significant association with Deepavali. According to Jain tradition, Mahavira, the twenty-fourth Tirthankara, attained Nirvana at Pavapuri on the new-moon day of Kartika. His followers illuminated their homes to commemorate the departure of their spiritual teacher and preserve the symbolic light of his knowledge.

The eighth-century Jain text Harivamsha Purana, attributed to Acharya Jinasena, contains an important reference to Dipalika in connection with the Nirvana of the Jina. This provides significant evidence of an early Jain religious interpretation of the festival.

For Jains, therefore, Deepavali is not primarily a celebration of the return of a Hindu deity or the victory of one religious community over another. It commemorates Mahavira's liberation and represents the enduring significance of spiritual knowledge, self-discipline and enlightenment.

4. The Brahmanical Connection

Brahmanical traditions associate Deepavali with several religious narratives. The most popular interpretation in northern India connects it with Rama's return to Ayodhya after fourteen years of exile and his victory over Ravana. Other traditions associate the festival with Krishna's destruction of Narakasura and the worship of Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and prosperity.

These different narratives demonstrate that Deepavali has developed multiple religious meanings within Hindu traditions themselves.

However, these religious narratives should not automatically be treated as evidence of the festival's original historical origins. Ancient Indian literature contains references to festivals involving lamps and illumination. Historical research, including P.K. Gode's work on the history of Deepavali, examines the development of such celebrations and their changing religious associations.

References to festivals such as Yaksharatri in early Sanskrit literature suggest that seasonal and cultural celebrations involving lamps existed before some of the later religious narratives became prominent. This indicates that the historical development of Deepavali was gradual rather than the product of a single religious event.

5. Was Buddhism's Contribution Subsequently Absorbed?

The question of whether Buddhist cultural traditions were subsequently absorbed into Brahmanical religious practices deserves serious historical investigation.

Buddhism was a major religious, philosophical and cultural force in ancient India. For centuries, Buddhist monasteries, educational institutions, philosophical traditions and social movements profoundly influenced Indian civilisation. Buddhism also challenged Brahmanical authority, ritual hierarchy and the ideological foundations of caste.

Brahmanical traditions developed through prolonged interaction, competition and accommodation with Buddhism and Jainism. There are historically significant examples of religious assimilation and reinterpretation. The incorporation of Buddha into certain Brahmanical traditions as an avatar of Vishnu is one example of this complex historical relationship.

From this perspective, it is reasonable to investigate whether certain Buddhist cultural practices and symbols were subsequently incorporated into Brahmanical religious traditions. However, the claim that Deepavali itself originated as a Buddhist festival and was later appropriated by Brahmanism requires stronger documentary evidence.

Such a conclusion would require evidence establishing the festival's early Buddhist character, its historical prevalence in Buddhist communities and the subsequent adoption or transformation of its practices by Brahmanical communities. At present, this chain of historical evidence has not been established.

Therefore, cultural assimilation is a legitimate subject of investigation, but it should not be confused with a proven historical explanation of Deepavali's origins.

6. An Ambedkarite Interpretation

From an Ambedkarite perspective, examining the historical origins of Indian festivals is important because cultural narratives are also instruments through which social authority, religious identity and collective memory are constructed.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's critique of Brahmanism provides an intellectual framework for examining the relationship between religious institutions, caste hierarchy and cultural domination. His revival of Buddhism was not simply a religious conversion; it was also a movement for social emancipation, equality, liberty and fraternity.

Three considerations are particularly important.

First, recognition of India's Buddhist heritage: India's Buddhist past should not be marginalised when interpreting its cultural and religious history. Buddhist philosophy, institutions and traditions made substantial contributions to Indian civilisation.

Second, the independent recognition of non-Brahmanical traditions: Buddhist and Jain traditions should be studied on their own historical and philosophical terms rather than automatically incorporated into Brahmanical narratives. Their distinctive contributions to Indian intellectual and cultural development deserve independent recognition.

Third, recovery of historical memory: The history of Indian civilisation must recognise the contributions of different religious and philosophical traditions. Cultural assimilation, where historically demonstrable, should be examined critically rather than accepted uncritically.

An Ambedkarite interpretation should therefore encourage historical investigation based on documentary evidence, critical scholarship and the recognition of India's pluralistic cultural heritage.

7. Conclusion: What Does Historical Evidence Establish?

The available evidence suggests that Deepavali developed through the interaction of older seasonal, cultural and religious practices. Buddhism, Jainism and Brahmanical traditions subsequently attached distinct religious meanings to celebrations involving light.

The Buddhist tradition of Buddha's return from Tavatimsa, the Jain commemoration of Mahavira's Nirvana and the Brahmanical narratives concerning Rama, Krishna and Lakshmi represent different religious interpretations. These traditions should be recognised without assuming that one necessarily originated from another.

It is therefore premature to describe Deepavali as originally and exclusively a Buddhist festival subsequently appropriated by Brahmanism. Equally, it would be historically simplistic to claim that its origins are exclusively Brahmanical.

The more defensible historical position is that Deepavali evolved through centuries of cultural interaction, religious reinterpretation and social change. Further research is necessary to establish the chronology and relationship between its different traditions.

Ultimately, the issue is not merely who owns Deepavali, but whether India's pluralistic cultural history can be understood without marginalising its Buddhist, Jain and other non-Brahmanical contributions. Recovering these traditions is an important part of reclaiming India's diverse cultural heritage.

Prof. Palshikar! I Am Sorry: Dr. Ambedkar

    

     

        Prof. Palshikar! I Am Sorry: Dr. Ambedkar

            S. R. Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

                     

Prof. Palshikar! I am deeply pained by the vandalism carried out yesterday in your office by four members of the so-called 'Republican Party'—an act directed at a cartoon of me. I trust that perhaps they do not fully grasp the nature of their actions; therefore, I ask that you forgive them. I, too, am profoundly saddened by what they have done, and I struggle to understand what ideal of mine they sought to uphold through such behaviour. Throughout my life, I have fought for the freedom of Dalits to speak, for they have been victims of enforced silence for centuries—rendered, in effect, deaf and mute. For ages, they were compelled to endure every form of humiliation in silence—an experience I, too, have lived through. Through my education, I became their voice, dedicating my life to ensuring they had a means to express themselves. Yet, by acting as they did against you yesterday, they have effectively silenced that very voice. 

No! I cannot remain silent. I must speak out about this incident, especially since it was carried out in my name. I understand that this was triggered by a cartoon of me featured in a book. Citing my alleged 'insult,' some of my overzealous followers created an uproar in Parliament, bringing its proceedings to a complete standstill. Others even demanded that the scholars who authored the book be prosecuted under the SC/ST Act. One of my well-wishers even went so far as to call for the dissolution of the very institution that produced these books. I am deeply distressed to learn of all this. I have been a lifelong lover of books; I spent my entire life curating a diverse collection in my personal library—a collection I also took the time to read. If demands are now being made to ban a book in my name, you can well imagine how much pain this causes me. 

I had hoped that once the government, in the House—yielding to pressure from a few individuals for the sake of electoral politics and without any proper justification—gave an assurance that the cartoon would be removed from the book, those demanding it would be satisfied. Yet, they were not; instead, they went to your office yesterday and engaged in acts of vandalism. This is an affront to my own approach—one where I have always patiently listened to the barbs and criticisms of my opponents and responded to them with civility. Throughout my life, I have faced countless such criticisms, yet I have never lost my composure. I have always subscribed to the sentiment famously attributed to Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I engaged in serious debates on critical issues with figures like Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel, but I never sought to suppress the views of my opponents; rather, I always responded with arguments, facts, and decorum. In fact, during my very first meeting with Gandhiji, I told him, "If you wish to defeat me, do so through principles, not through appeals to emotion." If some people, invoking my name, choose the path of vandalism over dialogue, it stands in direct opposition to my own principles. 

The cartoon that has sparked this entire uproar was published in 1949, while I was present. I saw it then and understood the satire—as well as the underlying concern—expressed by Shankar regarding the slow pace of the Constitution-making process. I actually found it quite apt. Both Nehru and I were concerned about the sluggish pace of the Constitution-making process, though such delays were, in fact, natural given the nature of the task. Later, in my speech on November 25, 1949—the day the Constitution was adopted—I provided a justification for the time taken to draft it. I have learned that the book containing the aforementioned cartoon also discussed the reasons for the slow pace of the Constitution-making process and posed questions to students based on the cartoon. If only those who engaged in vandalism and uproar—claiming it was in response to an insult to me—had taken the time to read the context provided in the book, perhaps they would not have acted this way. 

Throughout my life, I have always advocated for constitutional methods of protest. Every movement I led was peaceful and remained strictly within the bounds of the law. I have never endorsed violence or vandalism. To those who engage in destruction in my name, I would advise them to read the specific portion of my speech delivered upon the adoption of the Constitution, where I stated: "We must abandon the methods of *satyagraha*, non-cooperation, and civil disobedience. While there may be some justification for resorting to unconstitutional means when no constitutional avenues remain to achieve social and economic objectives, there is no such justification when constitutional methods are available. These methods are the grammar of anarchy, and the sooner we abandon them, the better it will be for us."

It causes me great distress today to see the extent to which efforts are being made—both by the state and non-state actors—to suppress voices of dissent in our country. I recall the high hopes with which we enshrined the freedom of expression in our Constitution. Today, I observe that some individuals, leveraging their numerical strength or brute force, succeed in silencing the legitimate voices of the vulnerable. Governments today, too, employ similar tactics to stifle the voice of the public. The culture of reasoned argument and debate has all but vanished from our nation. I am aware that some people suppress the voices of others by claiming that their religious or sectarian sentiments have been offended. I have witnessed how, through orchestrated uproar, certain groups managed to get books—such as those written about Shivaji, or works by Taslima Nasrin and Salman Rushdie—banned. These very people did not even spare me. You may recall that when the Maharashtra government published my previously unpublished book, *Riddles in Hinduism*, certain individuals demanded its ban, labeling it anti-Hindu and hostile toward Hindu deities. It was only through the efforts of my Dalit followers and intellectuals—who organized a massive public demonstration in Bombay in its defense—that the book was saved. Yet, what they did yesterday is entirely contrary to the principle of freedom of expression. If, tomorrow, some people were to demand a ban on my writings based on the criticisms contained within them, what argument would the Dalits have left to oppose such a move? 

I understand why my Dalit followers act this way. I am well aware of the depth of their respect for me and the extent to which they are emotionally connected to me. Whenever someone tells them something—whether true or false—about me, they become agitated and resort to such actions. It is not entirely their fault; they are often misled by their own leaders. Many of them have not even read my work in its entirety, leaving them susceptible to the influence of others. It seems to me that the Dalit community has not truly grasped the essence of my slogan: "Educate, Agitate, and Organize." It also pains me deeply to witness the nature of Dalit politics being practiced in my name today. The Republican Party, which I founded with such high hopes, has now splintered into fragments, with its leaders forging unprincipled and opportunistic alliances for personal gain. Instead of addressing the issues faced by Dalits, they are engaged in pure "vote-bank" politics and a pursuit of power, all while emotionally exploiting the people. The situation surrounding this cartoon is a case in point. 

It causes me great distress that some of my overzealous and ill-informed followers have reduced me to being merely a messiah for the Dalits. I, in fact, belong to the entire... I belong to the nation. When I spoke of liberty, equality, and fraternity, it was not solely for the Dalits; I sought these for all the people of this country. When I drafted the Hindu Code Bill, I advocated for the complete emancipation of all Hindu women. It is true that I secured certain special rights for the Dalits—rights that were essential for them to attain equality. Therefore, I urge my followers and admirers not to confine me within the boundaries of a single caste, but rather to view me on the canvas of the entire nation.

I also request my followers not to elevate me to the status of a deity, for I prefer to remain a human being. It seems you have forgotten my words regarding the 'worship of individuals'—a practice I warned against, saying, "If you do not nip this in the bud, the very idea of ​​hero-worship will lead to your ruin." By deifying an individual, you begin to place your faith in one person for your own security and liberation; the consequence is that you develop a habit of dependency and turn away from your own duties. If you fall prey to such notions, your condition within the national mainstream will become even more precarious than that of a mere log of wood drifting in a river. "Your struggle will be entirely in vain." It seems to me that by taking issue with my cartoon, my followers are intent on turning me into a deity. I do not wish to be anyone’s prophet; like the Buddha, I simply want to remain a human being. Throughout my life, I have offered sharp criticism of many people—criticism that was, in fact, well-founded. No one in this world is beyond error; therefore, criticism is an essential component of public life. 

I also urge my followers to truly understand my life’s philosophy and values, and to embody them in their own conduct. They must clearly grasp that their own freedom of expression will remain secure only if they, in turn, protect the freedom of others; otherwise, they will merely strengthen the rising fascism and fundamentalism in the country. To those political leaders who exploit my name, I say this: instead of engaging in the emotional manipulation of Dalits, or playing the politics of 'vote banks' and caste, you should focus on a politics of substantive, issue-based change—one that would foster the well-being not only of Dalits but of all Indians. 

Prof. Palshikar! I would like to express, once again, my sincere regret for the mistreatment you faced at the hands of some of my so-called followers.