Understanding the 22 oaths of Dr. Ambedkar (that he took 70 years ago on October 14, 1956)

In 1956, on October 14, Dr. Ambedkar and many of his followers underwent a mass conversion at Deekshabhumi, Nagpur. Dr. Ambedkar lived until December 6, 1956. It is a matter of speculation as to why he waited for 21 years, carrying the identity of being a Hindu, despite having clearly stated his intention to leave Hinduism on October 13, 1935, at a conference held in Yeola near Nashik, Maharashtra.

Whatever the explanation may be, the fact that he continued within the fold of Hinduism for a long period of 21 years—almost one-third of his life—even after deciding to leave it, suggests that he was not feeling suffocated within it. Even during this ‘waiting period’ he continued to carry anger against many practices prevalent during his time, and this is evident in his writings and speeches. He openly expressed his views and remarkably without any apparent serious threat to his life. In all probability, the reason behind his ‘wait’ was that he was hopeful of a positive outcome of his efforts, as he sought to use the freedom available to him as a Hindu to raise his concerns from within.

His expectations were not unfounded, as Hinduism has an extensive tradition of reformers, all of whom have historically been respected, almost without exception, within the Sanatani tradition. He has acknowledged this aspect of Hinduism without mincing words and unequivocally accepts the superiority of Hinduism over Islam in this crucial aspect. In the tenth chapter of “Thoughts on Pakistan” under the title “Social Stagnation” he clearly compares Islam with Hinduism as “The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about them—namely, that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices.” He was aware that Buddhism also belongs to one of the Nastika traditions that evolved as a reforming movement within the broader Sanatani belief system and therefore was preferred by Dr. Ambedkar over other religions only to lead the reform. He consciously chose Buddhism—a religion for which Bharat was a Punya-Bhumi—much in agreement with Savarkar, who was no less patriotic and committed to reform within Hinduism. 

With this background, when Dr. Ambedkar finally chose to convert to Buddhism in 1956, it is clear that the issues he found unacceptable within Hinduism were comprehensively articulated in the 22 vows he took during the conversion ceremony. Here, I will decode and interpret these vows to understand their meaning, purpose, and underlying thought.

All the vows are listed below. Each vow is followed by an explanation to suggest what he, in all probability, meant—or did not mean—while taking it. This is necessary because many of his followers have, at times, been influenced by extrapolations that have contributed to misunderstandings. These vows have sometimes been used in ways that not only create division and widen differences between the followers of Dr. Ambedkar and those of Hinduism but also push them closer to Islamic and Communist (Hindu-phobic) philosophies, that Dr. Ambedkar had opposed to, throughout his life.

1. I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them.

Comment: In the true Sanatani Nastika tradition, he did not mean that he will disrespect, vilify or abuse them and their believers or will break their idols or temples. In fact, Buddha himself never wanted his followers to worship him. This is a fair oath that does not justify disrespecting Hindu Gods.

2. I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnations of God nor shall I worship them.

Comment: Same as the comment to Oath 1.

3. I shall have no faith in ‘Gauri’, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them.

Comment: Same as the comment to Oath 1. 

4. I do not believe in the incarnation of God.

Comment: Thereby, he also meant that he did not consider Buddha as God. A fair oath that allows Rama and Krishna to be considered as great human beings and not incarnations. 

5. I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda.

Comment: This, yet again, reiterates the earlier oath wherein he did not consider Buddha as God but had the highest respect for him. A fair oath again.

6. I shall not perform ‘Shraddha’ nor shall I give ‘pind-dan’.

Comment: Yet again, he did not mean that he will disrespect his ancestors. He never supported the idea to forget ancestors in his writings. He only stated that he will not follow these methods (rituals) to express his respect for his ancestors. A fair oath for a follower of Sanatani Nastika tradition.

7. I shall not act in a manner violating the principles and teachings of the Buddha.

Comment: Buddha never disrespected Sanatan; instead, he talked of an innovative and fair Nastika tradition that was perfectly possible under the Sanatani belief system itself. A fair and honest admission.

8. I shall not allow any ceremonies to be performed by Brahmins.

Comment: Reading this along with his other writings and his mass movements to gain entry into the temples clearly indicates that he wanted Hindu ceremonies to be performed by non-Brahmins—this shows that he was still concerned with reforms in Hinduism and wanted to pursue the same. This oath lists his unambiguous concern for reforms in Hinduism.

9. I shall believe in the equality of man.

Comment: He considered all - including Brahmins and other categories of Sanatanis - as equal. He neither excluded the elites, the learned, nor the Brahmin—in this equality.

10. I shall endeavour to establish equality.

Comment: He considered all - including Brahmins and all categories of Sanatanis - as equal. He neither excluded the elites, the learned, nor the Brahmin—in this equality.

11. I shall follow the ‘noble eightfold path’ of the Buddha.

Comment: He vowed to follow the path of Buddha and did not intend to either worship or disrespect (abuse) anyone, including Buddha—in line with the traditional ‘Nastika’ Sanatani belief system.

12. I shall follow the ‘paramitas’ prescribed by the Buddha.

Comment: He vowed to follow the path of Buddha and did not intend to either worship or disrespect (abuse) anyone, including Buddha—in line with the traditional ‘Nastika’ Sanatani belief system. 

13. I shall have compassion and loving kindness for all living beings and protect them.

Comment: He vowed to have compassion and loving kindness towards all (including Brahmins and Sanatanis)—in line with the traditional Sanatani belief system.

14. I shall not steal.

Comment: He considered stealing as unacceptable behaviour irrespective of whether it was done to harm non-Buddhists or others.

15. I shall not tell lies.

Comment: He wanted no one to tell lies and considered this unacceptable behaviour irrespective of whether it was done by a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist—in line with the traditional Sanatani belief system.

16. I shall not commit carnal sins.

Comment: He considered sexual misconduct as completely unacceptable behaviour whether it was done with non-Buddhists or otherwise—in line with the traditional Sanatani belief system.

17. I shall not take intoxicants like liquor, drugs, etc.

Comment: He considered consuming liquor and drugs as unacceptable habits.

18. I shall endeavour to follow the noble eightfold path and practice compassion and loving kindness in everyday life.

Comment: The eightfold path includes Right Understanding, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration—and all these are in line with basic traditional Sanatani thoughts.

19. I renounce Hinduism, which is harmful to humanity and impedes its advancement and development because it is based on inequality, and adopt Buddhism as my religion.

Comment: In this particular oath, he states unambiguously that ‘inequality’ is harmful to humanity and creates hurdles in the path of its advancement and development. Since he himself has admitted that Hinduism has a unique tradition of carrying out reforms sincerely from within itself, this oath must not be considered a complete rejection of Hinduism, but rather an expression of his concerns about the features he wanted to correct. Instead of viewing this as a reflection on Hinduism in its entirety, it should be seen as his view on a specific aspect associated with Hinduism—‘inequality’—about which he had an uncompromising concern.

20. I firmly believe that the Dhamma of the Buddha is the only true religion.

Comment: At first glance, this appears to be the strongest of all the vows, as it clearly runs counter to the traditional Sanatani belief system, which firmly believes in the equality of religions and ways of worship. Quite strangely, such an oath aligns with the prevailing Semitic religions, such as Islam and Christianity. This may explain why, unlike mainstream Buddhists, who are rarely seen in serious confrontation with Hinduism, Ambedkarites are generally perceived as having a more confrontational attitude towards Hinduism. Such an attitude is normally absent in religions that originated in Bharat. In this sense, this oath seems to have been formulated under the influence of other intolerant and unaccommodating Semitic religions.

An honest submission is that one must believe in one’s own belief system. Having said that, even in this oath, unlike in other Semitic religions that claim that those who do not follow them must either be converted or eliminated, there is no hint of hatred towards those who do not believe in the Dhamma of the Buddha.

21. I believe that I am having a rebirth.

Comment: He believed in the idea of rebirth similar to the traditional Sanatani belief and made it incompatible with the Semitic beliefs like those of Islam and Christianity.

22. I solemnly declare and affirm that I shall hereafter lead my life according to the principles and teachings of the Buddha and his Dhamma.

Comment: He declared that he would follow Buddhism but did not explicitly announce that he would dedicate himself to converting others into the Buddhist fold. In the true Sanatani tradition, he only hoped that his followers will consider converting to Buddhism voluntarily.

Of all the 22 oaths, only the 20th oath can be seen as being influenced by Semitic beliefs. It does hint at a departure from the traditional belief system of Bharat, in which he chose to be exclusive rather than inclusive. Despite this, unlike other Semitic beliefs, even in this oath, he did not ask his followers to hate non-believers of Buddhism. None of his oaths, therefore, can be misused to justify the hatred, abuse, and vilification of Hindu Gods that are presently being practised by his followers.

Two-Test package approach to address the NEET Examination crisis

It is said that when an excessively large number of candidates compete directly for a limited number of seats in a single examination, the process creates enormous psychological pressure to succeed in a life-changing event and encourages an unhealthy culture of repetitive coaching and examination preparation. The situation potentially invites all kinds of corrupt practices. Let us study three all-India examinations that are being conducted centrally - the Admission Test for Engineering Colleges, Selection in UPSC Civil Services, and the NEET Admission Test for Medical Colleges. The following table clearly displays that the NEET examination is well placed with a much better promise for success since the probability is ‘one out of 15.8’ as against ‘one out of 22.4’ in the Engineering Test and the mind-boggling ‘one out of 602' in the Civil Services exams.

 

It is interesting to note that while the pressure of manipulation should have been the largest for civil services exams, making it potentially exploitable for coaching and related mafia, it performs the best with unquestioned sanctity. Let us study the issue in further detail.

Engineering Test

In engineering admissions, approximately 15 lakh candidates compete for around 67,000 highly sought-after seats, producing a competition ratio of roughly 22.4 candidates per seat. This pressure is eased out in two stages. First, a broader pool of approximately 1.8 lakh aspirants are shortlisted, wherein the success ratio is approximately ‘one out of 8.3.' The next stage of the advanced selection process then selects 67000 candidates out of the 1.8 lakh shortlisted pool of students, and this makes a fairly balanced success rate as ‘one out of 2.67.'

Civil Services Test

The Civil Services examination provides an instructive model to study. Approximately 9,37,876 candidates applied last year, and 5,76,793 appeared for the Preliminary Examination. The preliminary test shortlisted only 14,161 candidates for the Main Examination, creating a success rate of approximately ‘one out of every 40.7 candidates’ reaching the Mains. Subsequently, only 2,736 candidates qualified for the personality test, meaning that approximately ‘one out of a group of 5.2 candidates’ succeeded in reaching the interview stage. Finally, against approximately 958 vacancies, the final selection ratio was brought down to roughly ‘one out of 2.9 candidates.' In other words, the Civil Services Examination does not require nearly six lakh candidates to compete directly at the final stage. Instead, it uses successive stages to progressively reduce the number of candidates until the final competition becomes manageable. 

Study of NEET Examination

The above analysis clearly indicates that despite being placed well with the success rate in its favor with a large number of seats available, the NEET test provides a potentially fertile ground for manipulation for the coaching mafia only because it conducts the admission for all candidates in one go. NEET examinations demonstrate a severe imbalance in this sense. Around 22.7 lakh candidates registered for NEET, while approximately 22.1 lakh actually appeared last year. Against roughly 1.39 lakh medical seats, this represents a competition ratio of approximately 15.9 candidates per seat. 

The Civil Services examination reveals that a lighter kind of preliminary test to shortlist candidates to ease out the success rate pressure is the key for its success. Even though the preliminary test of civil services has a success rate of ‘one out of 40,' it might have encouraged the coaching industry to grow but fails to draw the attention of the education mafia to manipulate the same because the stakes are not high and candidates are better placed to accept their exclusion at this stage. The first stage of examination, therefore, should be light, preferably a single test with multiple-choice questions. The shortlisting should leave the success rate for the final selection process preferable around ‘one out of 3’ candidates. This creates a favorable environment for the agency to conduct the final examination in a rigorous manner only at time-tested venues and involving only known individuals with proven credentials. 

The Recommendation

If India has approximately 1.39 lakh MBBS and other relevant medical seats, and the objective is to ensure that the final examination does not have a competition ratio worse than 3:1, then the number of candidates permitted to take the final-stage NEET examination should ideally be approximately 1.39 lakh × 3 = 4.17 lakh candidates. Thus, instead of allowing more than 22 lakh candidates to compete directly for approximately 1.39 lakh seats, a preliminary examination could be conducted to shortlist approximately 4–4.5 lakh candidates for the final examination. The following table suggests the same.

One must note that rejection at the preliminary exams is not taken that seriously. The proposed NEET Preliminary Examination should not be treated as an additional burden or a second full-scale NEET examination. It should instead function primarily as a screening mechanism. The examination could test fundamental eligibility, basic scientific aptitude, and essential knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology. Its purpose would be to identify candidates who have achieved a minimum level of preparedness for medical education. A single paper, light intensity MCQ-type online examination can serve the purpose of this shortlisting. The solution lies in keeping the success rate in the main final examination as less than one out of three candidates. Other factors - such as involvement of non-permanent staff in conducting the exams - can always be observed rigorously in the final test since the scale will become manageable.

Such a system would have several advantages. First, it would substantially reduce the extreme pressure associated with a single examination involving more than twenty lakh competitors. Second, it would help the conducting agency to take good control with all loopholes plugged in the final examination because of its reduced scale—cutting it to one fifth of the present enormity. A ‘3 to 1’ competition ratio at the final stage would represent a more humane, rational, and academically defensible model of medical selection.

Admission process of DU turns into a Blind Game in the CUET era

 CUET (Common University Entrance Test), conducted by the NTA (National Testing Agency), follows a transparent mechanism for testing and evaluating candidates seeking admission to undergraduate and postgraduate programs at Central Universities. However, the process that follows after the results are announced is completely non-transparent.

Before 2022, Delhi University followed a cut-off-based admission process that was entirely transparent. Anyone familiar with the publicly declared cut-off percentages could easily advise an aspirant on their chances of admission. In the new system, however, it is no longer possible to provide such guidance with any degree of confidence. The only suggestion that can be offered is to wait for the computer to generate a "favorable" outcome. In fact, there seems to be a widespread sense of uncertainty about how the process works. The most common response from a responsible authority is that everything is handled by a computer algorithm, which takes into account the candidate’s initial preferences entered at the time of form submission. This leaves little room for discussion or appeals, as the algorithm’s functioning is not disclosed publicly. As a result, successful candidates credit their "luck," while others are left confused and disheartened, unsure of what went wrong.

Compare this with the earlier scenario when the cut-off-based admission process was in place. At that time, reasonable advice could be offered based on previous years’ cut-off percentages and the last announced cut-off for the current year. In contrast, the introduction of CUET, essentially a Class XII-level re-exam, has added unnecessary complexity to the admission process.

The CBSE conducts examinations for nearly 800 subjects (source), while Delhi University offers around 550 undergraduate programs. Over the years, a well-accepted mapping between school subjects and university courses had naturally evolved. Unfortunately, CUET attempted to dismantle this framework in a single stroke. As expected, the system is still struggling to adapt to the resulting disruption.

CUET has since continued to revise its format each year, acknowledging the challenges that have kept on popping up by such an abrupt shift. There was no compelling reason to completely discard a well-functioning and widely accepted system that had taken decades to develop. It is true that the complete transparency of the earlier cut-off-based system was occasionally exploited by certain vested interests, who used to help their students by somehow giving high marks to them through generous marking. In 2022, such attempts crossed all reasonable limits when a particular board awarded 100 percent marks to an unreasonably large number of students. This single act subverted the DU admission process, as students from that board unrestrictedly dominated the admissions that year.

The response from university officials, however, was far from appropriate. The only necessary step was to rationalize the marks awarded by different boards. This could have been achieved using AI-based methods to analyze the marks secured by the students' across various boards. Alternatively, a single-paper common test assessing 'intelligence' or aptitude could have been conducted and used as a benchmark to normalize board marks.

With rationalization in place, the cut-off-based system could have continued as before. Such a straightforward solution would have ensured fair and proportionate representation of successful candidates from different boards, maintaining the same balance that existed at the applicant stage. On the other hand, the current admission process is, quite inexplicably, allowing over-admission in some colleges while leaving many others struggling to fill seats. Repeated delays in the announcement of CUET results, year after year, have only added to the overall confusion and lack of transparency. I have been writing to the DU authorities on this issue in the hope of a suitable action. Failing to see an appropriate response I have asked DU to provide the data of last year admission (through an RTI dated June 24, 2025) to ascertain and get convinced that my apprehensions are invalid. 

NEP 2020: The devil lies in the details of implementation strategy

 

The National Education Policy 2020 could dare to recommend some fundamental changes in the very idea and approach of Indian education as many of those who prepared the NEP document thankfully, had no faith in the earlier system of education. However, many of those who have now the responsibility to implement the policy, are products of the same earlier education system. Those who believe in the earlier system, have never been trained or encouraged to think out of box and to explore innovative ideas. NEP 2020 has very efficiently pointed out the deficiencies in our earlier education system and consequently prescribed the remedies. But to achieve the same, the most important issue is to design and develop the implementation strategies. Such strategic issues were not a part of the document since these are bound to be different at different places. It was therefore most judiciously left to the ability of the implementers to decide these concerns.

The fact that our earlier education system was incapable of producing visionaries, thinkers and innovators have got exposed in this process by those who had the responsibility to affect the changes and implement NEP. The earlier education system was such that most of the innovators were necessarily rejects of the system. The human resource product of our earlier education system always looked for decisions and instructions in all the documents that were to be followed but was not explicitly written in the policy. NEP has no such set of instructions but it only mentions the targets. But most unfortunately, academic administrators kept on trying to find instructions in the same even in this case. They were used to finding out instructions in all such documents and therefore searched for the same even in this case. They tried to decipher some kind of instructions from their discussion with the higher authorities who could never be logically expected to have adequate understanding of the exact local status and institutional environment throughout the length and breadth of this huge country.

Many clever academic administrators used this opportunity in getting their vested interest satisfied. As a classic case, I have no hesitation in stating that our the then Head of the Department of Physics of Delhi University misused this opportunity in cutting down the practical lab component in the undergraduate physics course. His famous claim that teachers don’t take practical labs seriously and that is why this aspect must be done away with as far as possible. Imagine how did he arrive at this conclusion from the document of NEP that talks of increasing the hands-on practical approach throughout the document.

Another statement of a similar academic administrator that they are least concerned about the workload of the teaching faculty only highlights that they were very poor in understanding and foreseeing the problems and thereby suggesting a tailor made solution in that particular environment. This is clearly an escapist’s approach and these administrators were able product of our earlier education that was designed primarily to produce escapists. 

Due to this the administrators tried to race through its implementation, while it should have been a slow and consolidating process. The administrators that were product of our earlier system just wanted to showcase their efficiency to their seniors by making all changes in one go which could have never been advisable just because the change this time was not a routine one.

Those who would attempt to go through the NEP document and would look for the need of VAC and SEC courses will be convinced that VAC (Value Added Courses) should have been primarily aimed for school going students and SEC (Skill Enhancement Courses) should have basically targeted students of higher education. But in the race and scoring points, VAC courses were introduced in a big way even in the higher education with an intensity similar to SEC. 

To accommodate VAC and SEC courses and that too without compromising on the core courses led to a situation wherein the attention on core courses have got diluted to undesirable levels. Papers that required 4 to 5 lectures per week are given only 2-3 lectures now. Due to this, for example in University of Delhi, the number of papers to be studied by the undergraduate students jumped from 4 to 7 in each semester. Such an increase can never be balanced by reducing the credits and lectures in each paper since the burden of number of papers itself became too much for the students to absorb. To ease themselves, students started opting for courses not to gain skills or values but to somehow manage them. Courses like ‘Fit India’ & ‘NCC’ became so much sought after that the university had to notify a rule that only those students who were engaged in such activities in their schools will be able to take these courses. Increase in the number of papers to such a level increased the number of events of making assessments at the cost of their time that could have gone in studies. The result is that students are passing out having little skills and that is just opposite to what the NEP 2020 had been prescribed for. Students will pass out having neither the skill of following instructions and nor the skill of carrying out innovations.

If the trend is not arrested, I am afraid, those who wanted this excellent well-meaning NEP policy document to fail, will have the last laugh.