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.

Dr. Ambedkar preferred living as a HINDU

Some facts are often overlooked by those who are in a habit of over-exploiting the statement - “Though I was born a Hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die as Hindu” - of Dr. Ambedkar. This statement showing an unwavering determination for conversion was given by Dr. Ambedkar in 1939. Isn’t that intriguing to notice that he formally adopted Buddhism only in 1956 - after more than 20 years of his explicitly expressing this intention? Unfortunately he left us only after a few months of his converting to Buddhism, without explaining the real reason behind this inordinate delay. If allowed to extrapolate, how wrong will it be to assert that he only tried to keep his words that apparently he was not very keen to? Otherwise, what kept him postponing the implementation of his plans and made him wait for 20 long years? 

To say that he was not being allowed to take a call, will be an exhibition of dishonesty. Those days, Hinduism was not known for offering any ‘external’ pressure on those who intended to convert and people kept themselves away from pressures of conversion following entirely their own convictions. Instead, Hinduism was known to offer resistances through a strategy of non-acceptance to those who wanted to convert back. Isn’t the choice of ‘Buddhism’ also baffling? Wasn’t that one of the most ‘friendliest’ to Hinduism - available to him at that time? Wasn’t Dr. Ambedkar aware of the fact that outside this country, people were used to identifying all non-Muslims - primarily as Hindus? Didn’t his nationalist urge encourage him to choose Buddhism as compared to Islam and Christianity? In this analysis however, I find communists in a contradicting self-defeating cameo role. They have intended to exploit the legacy of Dr. Ambedkar in a rather dishonest manner. Like Ambedkar even communists are also known for expressing their extreme dislike for Hinduism but they are known to showcase ‘Islam’ as a better option. Their dishonesty however becomes evident as, only when they get cornered, they argue that they are against all religions but unlike Ambedkar their selectively use of ‘Islam’ against Hinduism to prove a point is the obvious contradiction between the two approaches. Ambedkar's approach was positive - to find solutions within us whereas Communists' approach is entirely negative - to ensure destruction.

To conclude, Dr. Ambedkar was born a Hindu and yes, he died not as a Hindu, but it would be difficult to challenge an assertion that he actually preferred living as a Hindu. Ambedkar’s approach was that of a reformer’s whereas Communists’ approach has been of a destructor’s. 

Left with Suicidal tendencies – Rohith’s death

There is absolutely no doubt that the ‘caste system’ is an unjust, inhuman and a ‘real’ discriminatory practice that is still being negotiated by the Dalits and other discriminated sections of the society. Nevertheless, any conclusion presuming Dalits to be necessarily anti-Hindu by default would be a blunder. In fact, Dalits are not anti-Hindu and instead they are ‘more Hindu’ than the upper castes themselves. As a matter of record, but for Dalits, Hinduism could not have survived the continuous onslaught by the invaders over the past few centuries. However they feel disappointed as they have unjustifiably been denied their due place, proper recognition and a dignified status in the society. For example, their genuine grudge against the temples is not that they exist and are built, but instead they want to enjoy dignified entry in them.

Unfortunately the Dalit movement in India has been hijacked by the left. In their frustrated quest to paint Hinduism merely as a repressive social construct, leftists relish denouncing everything that a Hindu likes to be proud of. They fail to realize that all sections of Hindu society do not have the luxury to abuse their past, condemn their history and shame their origin. The ‘upper castes’ with rulers’ background find this challenge glamorous enough as they often derive a sense of ‘greatness’ in abusing their own past. On the other hand, the discriminated castes feel hurt and devastated in doing the same. Making them to disrespect their Gods, worshipped by their own ancestors and family members, is depressing in itself but forcing them to worship their ‘Asuras’ creates an emotional disillusion for them. Snatching their Hindu-pride and at the same time demeaning their past often force them to pass through an emotional crisis similar to that of Rohith’s.

The ‘left’ rob ‘Dalits’ off their glorious past so much so that unless they are in a constant state of agitation and turbulence, which is an unnatural terrorists’ state, it becomes impossible for them to survive. And as and when they calm down, they feel miserable and culturally devastated. Dalits, who start believing in left ideology, are left with only a few options – either revolt and opt for the path of destruction and terror or stop believing in their ideology or commit suicide. Being Indian (Hindu) by heart, they rarely follow the first option. The disenchantment against ‘left’ often grows so unbearable for them that in search for pride and identity, instead of Marx, they begin looking up to their own Dr. Ambedkar. But in this process, irreversible emotional damages are caused resulting in situations similar to those that led to the unfortunate end of Rohith. The moment you start feeling yourself as empty, worthless and meaningless and realize that there is no aim worth pursuing in your life, you end yourself.

You need the luxury of having an alternate supporting mechanism at your disposal so that you are able to negotiate the ever-contradicting, self-destroying and frustration-generating arguments pursued typically by the Indian-leftists. With all their negativity, Indian leftists – are able to retain these characteristics only if they are able to get a space in academia or politics – otherwise the ‘Left’ inside them die out sooner or later. This is because the only skill they are able to develop, while living with left-ideologies, is how to find enough reasons to hate their own origin. It is therefore not surprising that although leftists vociferously sell themselves as being champions of the Dalit’s cause, they have not been able to improve the condition of Dalits even wherever they were in a position to do so.

RSS, on the contrary, without the support of the government, carries out several positive initiatives in helping the socially discriminated sections of the Indian society in achieving their aims through non-governmental organizations like Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Sewa Bharti, Samkalp and others. RSS attempts to share the common glorious past with Dalits that helps them transform into proud individuals – one of the essential characteristics required to progress. RSS initiatives have helped many Dalits in realizing their dreams of occupying policy-making positions. Compared to these the ‘left’ have used only the government-run academic institutions to spread their political influence and that too only by exploiting the discriminated class so that they can be disconnected from their roots.