Chapter - VI

The Gita and Ambedkar:

Buddhism as the Alternative.
 Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar (1891-1956) was an irrepressible critic of the Hindu

social order. He was widely recognised as the champion of the downtrodden and the
leader of the untouchables, in the history of social movements in India. Several of his

writings and speeches focussed critically on Sanskrit texts such as the Vedas,

Upanisads, Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Manusmriti and on the specific

social structure of India.1 His interpretation of the Gita was one of the attempts to reflect

some aspects of such criticism.

Scholars, however, widely differ in understanding Ambedkars perception and

understanding of the Gita. M.S. Gore argued that Ambedkar regarded the Gita as a text
worthy of respect or as an authority.2 K.N Kadam states that for Ambedkar the Gita was

a cruel perversion of the philosophy of Kapila (Samkhya) and a justification of caste

system as the law of Hindu social life 3 Dhananjay Keer, his biographer, suggested that

he regarded the Gitas philosophy as acceptable to both the touchables and the
untouchables4 although, it upheld the essence of the Vedas, rising brahmanism to the
supreme position. 5

This diversity and contrast in the perception of Ambedkars regard to the Gita

owes mainly due to his changing position on a range of related issues. Till the Round

Table Conferences (1930-1933), Ambedkar thought that it was possible to reform

Hinduism. One of the possible directions of such a reform was through the route

suggested in the Gita. It is in this context that the following statement is understandable
which he made before the court on 2 April 1930 on the issue of burning of Manusmriti.

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar was an economist, constitutionalist, historian, satirist, political leader

and one of the most acclaimed social reformer of the 20th century. He comment^ i ancient

Indian scriptures. His Writings and Speeches run into fourteen volumes. The? nclude both
published and unpublished writings of him. These volumes were compiled by Vasant Moon and
published by the Education Department, Government of Maharastra since 1987.
2 M S. Gore, The Social Context of an Ideology Ambedkar's Political and Social Thought, New

Delhi: Sage Publications, 1993, p.106.

3 K.N Kadam, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar and the Significance of his Movement, Bombay: Popular

Prakashan, 1993, p.124.

4 Dhananjay Keer, Dr. Ambedkar, Life and Mission, Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1995, p.9Q.

5 Dhananjay Keer, Dr. Ambedkar, Life and Mission, Ibid., p.368.

258
 It is said that the Varna system is the foundation of Hindu religion. This is unacceptable to me. I
do not accept that Hindus outside the four Varnas are untouchables. There are Hindus who do

not accept the authority of the Vedas. I do not accept any book except the Bhagavadgita to be
worthy of respect or as an authority. Though I do not accept the authority of the Vedas, I consider
C
myself to be Sanatan Hindu.

However, once Ambedkar realises that there is no way of reforming Hinduism

that would dismantle the hierarchy built within it, he increasingly turned towards

Buddhism as a possible ethic to construct modern India. Ambedkars commentary on

the Gita as a text defending the counter-revolution was written during this phase of his
decisive shift towards Buddhism. 6
7

The Gita as a Historical Text:

Ambedkars principal intervention with respect to the Gita can be found in his

Essays on the Bhagavadgita: Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution. It was one of

the unpublished writings of Ambedkar. In the Introduction to the third volume of his
Collected Works it is said, that these essays originally consisted of forty-typed pages.8

These were first published in the third volume in 1987.

One of the most striking features of Ambedkars interpretation of the Gita was

that he regarded the Bhagavadgita as a historical text meant to shape events and

thinking at a particular conjuncture in a determinate direction. He located its composition

within a specific historical context. He argued that for a long time Hindus regarded the
Vedico-Upanisadic texts, which conferred special privileges on the Brahmins, as the

only authoritative texts. They not only bestowed higher position on the Brah tins, they

organized social relations on the basis of graded inequality. For the first time this
privileged position of the Brahmins and the conception of graded inequality were

6 M S. Gore, The Social Context of an Ideology: Ambedkars Political and Social Thought, op.cit.,

p. 106.
7 Valerian Rodrigues, B.R. Ambedkar, Essential writings, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001

(Forthcoming); Eleanor Zelliot, From Untouchables to Dalits, New Delhi: Manohar Publications,
1996.
8 Introduction, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit., pp. XI-XVII. See

also Editors Note, Essays on the Bhagavadgita, vol. Ill, p.357.

259
questioned by the revolution effected by the Buddha and the social order upheld by

Buddhist states, particularly under Ashokas reign. Under Buddhism which was the
most enlightened and the most rationalistic age India has known,9 the dominant

position of the Brahmin was threatened due to the new values introduced by it such as
ahimsa and equality. Their position was reduced to the level of the common people. It

was to destroy Buddhism and the revolution initiated by it, and to restore Brahminical
domination that counter-revolution was led by Pushyamitra, a Samavedi Brahmin.

The first landmark in India's political history is the emergence of the Kingdom of Magadha in
Bihar in the year 642 B.C.............. So vast became the growth of this Empire under
Ashoka,.............. the First Buddhist Emperor of India (273-232 B.C). Under Ashoka, Buddhism did
not remain as one of the many diverse religions then in vogue. Ashoka made it the religion of the
state. This of course was the greatest blow to Brahminism. The Brahmins lost all state patronage
and were relegated to a secondary and subsidiary position in the Empire of Ashoka. Indeed it
may be said to have been suppressed f >r the simple reason that Ashoka prohibited all animal
sacrifices, which constituted the very essence of Brahminic Religion. The Brahmins had not only
lost state patronage but they lost their occupation which mainly consisted in performing sacrifices
for a fee.............. The Brahmins, therefore, lived as the suppressed and Depressed Classes for
nearly 140 years during which the Maurya Empire lasted. A rebellion against the Buddhist state
was the only way of escape left to the suffering Brahmins and there is special reason why
Pushyamitra should raise the banner of revolt against the rule of the Mauryas.............. No wonder
if Pushyamitra who as a Samavedi Brahmin was the first to conceive the passion to end the
degradation of the Brahmins by destroying the Buddhist state which was the cause of it and to
free them to practise their Brahminic religion.
That the object of the Regicide by Pushyamitra was to destroy Buddhism as a state
religion and to make the Brahmins the sovereign rulers of India so that with the political power of
the state behind it Brahmanism may triumph over Buddhism.10

It was to defend and safeguard Brahminical domination through Pushyamitra and

to give administrative guidelines to the latter, the Pun/amimamsa of Jaimini was written.

9
'Essays on the Bhagavadgita, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

p.363.
10 'The Triumph of Brahmanism: Regicide or the Birth of Counter-Revolution, Dr. Babasaheb

Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit., pp.267-69; The Birth of Counter Revolution,

260
But Jaiminis Purvamimamsa could not withstand the sway of Buddhist influence

because the practices it advocated which upheld the Vedic karma kanda lacked
philosophical foundation necessary for its defence. Ambedkar felt that the Bhagavadgita

was mainly written to provide this philosophical foundation to Jaimini against Buddhism.

it was to save them from the attack of Buddhism that the Bhagavad Gita came into
being............. There is no doubt that under the furious attack of Buddhism, Jaiminis counter
revolutionary dogmas were tottering and would have collapsed had they not received the support
which the Bhagavad Gita gave them.*11

The Gita, by providing philosophic base, animated the dogmas of counter

revolution without which it could not have survived.

There is not the slightest doubt that without the help of the Bhagavadgita the counter-revolution
would have died out, out of sheer stupidity of its dogmas. Mischievous as it may seem, to the
revolutionaries the part played by the Bhagavadgita, there is no doubt that it resuscitated counter
revolution and if the counter-revolution lives even today, it is entirely due to the plausibility of the
philosophic defence which it received from the Bhagavadgita............. There is therefore no
difference between Jaiminis Purvamimamsa and the Bhagavadgita. If anything, the
Bhagavadgita is a more formidable supporter of counter-revolution than Jaiminis Purvamimamsa
could have ever been. It is formidable because it seeks to give to the doctrines of counter
revolution that philosophic and therefore permanent basis which they never had before and
12
without which they would never have survived.

It will be noticed from the above that Ambedkar regarded the Gita as posterior to
Buddhism and Jaiminis Purvamimamsa. It was composed to uphold the counter

revolution of Pushyamitra and Brahminical domination brought about in its wake.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Buddhist Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India, ed. D.C. Ahir,
Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 1996, pp.74-5.
11 Essays on the Bhagavad Gita', Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill,

op.cit., p.363-64.
12
'Essays on the Bhagavad Gita', Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,
pp.364-65.

261
The Gita as Defence of Brahminical Counter-Revolution:
Ambedkar resolutely countered the argument that the Gita could be the moral

foundation to wield the Indian nation together. It could not be an archetypal moral

treatise. It did not herald any good tidings. It could not, therefore, be a gospel like the

Koran or the Bible. It primarily defended certain dogmas of the pre-Buddhist Vedic

religion in philosophical language.

The Bhagavadgita is not a gospel and it can therefore have no message and it is futile to search
for one. The question will no doubt be asked: what is the Bhagavadgita if it is not a gospel? My
answer is that the Bhagavadgita is neither a book of religion nor a treatise on philosophy. What
the Bhagavadgita does is to defend certain dogmas of religion on philosophic grounds. If on that
account anybody wants to call it a book of religion or a book of philosophy he may please himself.
13
But essentially it is neither. It uses philosophy to defend religion.

It was from this standpoint that Ambedkar criticises different interpretations of the
Gita. After stating different readings both orthodox and modern,14 Ambedkar argued that

the variety of opinions and interpretations of the text were due to the endeavour to
discover in it a universal message. They approached the text with a pre-conceived

mind that the Gita was a gospel and hence had a definite doctrine to preach. This, he

felt, led them to arrive at wrong conclusions and resulted in the creation of a variety of
texts on the Bhagavadgita.

It cannot but be a matter of great surprise to find such a variety of opinions as to the message,
which the Bhagavadgita preaches. One is forced to ask why there should be such divergence of
opinion among scholars? My answer to this question is that scholars have gone on a false errand.
They have gone on a search for the message of the Bhagavadgita on the assumption that it is a

Essays on the Bhagavadgita', Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

p. 361.

In his Essays on the Gita Ambedkar quotes both orthodox and modern interpretations of the

Gita. He states the views expressed by Bohtlingk, Hopkins, Holtzman, Garbe, Telang etc. as the
views of the modem scholars. He locates the interpretations of the Gita by Samkaracarya,
Karmayoga readings, Bhakti readings and readings by Tilak etc. within the framework of orthodox
interpretations. Essays on the Bhagavadgita', Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches,
vol. Ill, op.cit., pp. 357-60.

262
 gospel as the Koran, the Bible or the Dhammapada is. In my opinion this assumption is quite a
false assumption.15

While rejecting the Gita as the gospel in the way the Bible is for Christians and

the Dhammapada for Buddhists, he, at the same time, thought that the Gita has played

a major role in the defence of Brahminism in the post-Buddhist phase. It has done so

not merely by advancing a set of reasons for the Vedic karma kanda but by deploying a
range of Buddhist concepts to reinforce its position.16 The central doctrines of the Gita

such as its philosophy of Brahmanirvana and its various steps such as shraddha,

vyavasaya, smriti, samadhi, prajna etc., the qualities of the true devotee such as maitri,
karuna, mudita, upeksa etc., the subjects of kshetra-kshetrajna and its various aspects
such as pridelessness, non-injury, forgiveness, purity, steadiness, devotion to

preceptor, birth and death, even-mindedness etc., that spread in different chapters of
the text were drawn from the Buddhist writings. Its philosophy of karma, such as yajna,
dana, tapa, and svadhyaya etc., was permeated by Buddhist teachings, particularly as
expressed in Mahaparinibbana Sutta, Mahapadana Sutta, Tevijja Sutta, Majjhima
Nikaya etc.17 Except institutions such as chaturvamya, violence etc. and the practices in

defence of them which, it borrowed from the Vedas and Jaiminis Purvamimamsa, there

was verbatim reproduction of Buddhist philosophy and the words of Buddha across
large parts of the text.

For if it is true to say that the Gita is saturated with samkhya philosophy it is far more true to say
that the Gita is full of Buddhist ideas. The similarity between the two is not merely in ideas but

also in language.

15 'Essays on the Bhagavadgita', Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

pp.360-61.
16
The Hindu Social Order: Its Unique Features, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches,

vol. Ill, op.cit., pp.127-28; Essays on the Bhagavadgita, vol. Ill, op.cit.
17
Essays on the Bhagavadgita, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

pp.369-371,
16
Essays on the Bhagavadgita, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

p.369.

263
Reassertion of Chaturvama:
For Ambedkar the institution of chaturvama was one of the central dogmas of the

counter-revolution that the Gita defended in its philosophy. It did not simply defend it as

it was handed down to it by Jaimini; it went further to provide philosophical foundation to

protect it from the Buddhist impact. It propounded a divine law of inborn qualities and

made it integral to Hindu social order unlike the situation earlier.

Another dogma to which the Bhagavadgita comes forward to offer a philosophic defence is
Chaturvama. The Bhagavadgita, no doubt, mentions that the Chaturvama is created by God and
therefore sacrosanct. But it does not make its validity dependent on it. It offers a philosophic basis
to the theory of Chaturvama by linking it to the theory of innate, inborn qualities in men. The fixing
of the Varna of man is not an arbitrary act says the Bhagavadgita. But it is fixed according to his
innate, inborn qualities.19

One belongs to the different Vamas based on graded inequality on account of

the distinctive properties one inherits. Of course, for Ambedkar, the Gita was not the

first text to expound the theory of chaturvama. The Vedas first expounded it. But under
the Buddha, the system of chaturvama was undermined and the whole society was

reorganized on the principle of equality. The mere reassertion of the statement that the
four Vamas originated from different parts of the body of the Creator would not have

satisfied any.

Buddha preached against Chaturvama. He used some of the most offensive similes in attacking
the theory of Chaturvama. The framework of Chaturvama had been broken. The order of
Chaturvama had been turned upside down. Shudras and women could become
Samnyasis,............... People who had accepted the gospel of social equality and who were
remaking society on the basis of each one according to his merits- how could they accept the
Chaturvama theory of gradation, and separation of man based on birth simply because the Vedas
_ 20
say so?

19
Essays on the Bhagavadgita', Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,
pp.360-61.
20
'Essays on the Bhagavadgita, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,
pp.363-64.

264
 Ambedkar thought that Jaiminis Mimamsa, which was post-Buddhist, argued for

the continued validity of the Vedic karmakanda on grounds ,of the Vedic authority as
unquestionably holding good. However, such an assertion without adducing valid

reasons for the same was not acceptable to people trained under Buddhism where
reasons for and against for a practice had to be advanced. The Gita precisely does this

in favour of Jaiminis karmakanda. Further, the Gita through such a measure reinforces

Chaturvarna enormously and make it much more formidable than it was in the Vedic
text and in Jaimini.

Particularly formidable than Jaiminis Purvamimamsa is the philosophic support, which the
Bhagavadgita gives to the central doctrine of counter-revolution- namely Chaturvarna. The soul of
the Bhagavadgita seems to be the defence of Chaturvarna and securing its observance in
practice, Krishna does not merely rest content with saying that Chaturvarna is based on Guna-
Karma but he goes further and issues two positive injunctions. The first injunction is contained in
chapter III verse 26. In this Krishna says: that a wise man should not by counter propaganda
create a doubt in the mind of an ignorant person who is follower of Karma Kanda which of course
includes the observance of the rules of Chaturvarna. In other words, you must not agitate or
excite people to rise in rebellion against the theory of Karma Kanda and all that it indudes. The
second injunction is laid down in chapter XVIII verses 41-48. In this Krishna tells that every one
do the duty prescribed for his varna and no other and warns those who worship him and are his
devotees that they will not obtain salvation by mere devotion but by devotion accompanied by
observance of duty laid down for his Varna. In short, a Shudra however great he may be as a
devotee will not get salvation if he has transgressed the duty of the Shudra- namely to live and
die in the service of the higher dasses.21

However, Ambedkar finds that the reasons advanced by the Gita in defence of

Chaturvarna are attempts at squaring a circle and puerile.

Childish is the defence of the Bhagavadgita of the dogma of Chaturvarna. Krishna defends it on
the basis of the Guna theory of the Samkhya. But Krishna does not seem to have realised what a
fool he has made of himself. In the Chaturvarna there are four Vamas. But the Gunas according
to the Samkhya are only three. How can a system of four Vamas be defended on the basis of a
philosophy, which does not recognise more than three Vamas? The whole attempt of the

'Essays on the Bhagavadgita, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.dt.,

p.365.

265
 Bhagavadgita to offer a philosophic defence of the dogmas of counter-revolution is childish- and
22
does not deserve a moments serious thought

Ambedkar advanced the same argument in another essay wherein he

considered the opinions of the various Hindu scriptures on the system of Vama. His
viewpoint was that except in Upanisads,23 there was no basic disagreement in the

opinions of the various texts such as the Vedas, Manusmriti, Purvamimamsa and the

Bhagavadgita regarding the system of Vamas as they are all agreed on the same
fundamental features of the system. They are woven on the same pattern, the same
thread runs through them and are really parts of the same fabric.24 The only distinction

that he identified was that while the Vedas and the Bhagavadgita dealt with general

theory of vama, the Manusmriti and the Purvamimamsa specifically provided for the
persecution of Buddhists under Pushyamitra to back Brahminical tyranny.25 The Gita,

Ambedkar declared, upheld the system as handed down without mixing any words.

What the Bhagavadgita teaches is also beyond controversy. Its teaching may be summarized in
the following four pronouncements made by Krishna in the Bhagavadgita.
(1) I myself have created the arrangement known as Chaturvama (i.e. the fourfold division of
society into four castes Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Shudras) assigning them different
occupations in accordance with the native capacities............. -Gita IV. 13.
(2) Even if it may be easier to follow the occupation of another varna yet to follow the occupation
of ones own Varna is more meritorious,............to follow the occupation of another Varna is
risky -Gita III.35.
(3) The educated should not unsettle the faith of the uneducated who have become attached to
their occupation. He himself should perform the occupation of his Vama and make others
perform theirs accordingly.......... -Gita III.26, 29.

22 Essays on the Bhagavadgita', Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

p.364.
23 For Ambedkar this was due to the reason that barring the Upanisads, the whole body of Hindu

Religious Literatures were produced by the Brahmins and hence they basically represent
Brahminical doctrines or their domination in the society. Philosophy of Hinduism, Or.
Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit., p.81.
24
'Philosophy of Hinduism, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit., p.81.
25 For his criticism of Manusmriti, Philosophy of Hinduism Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and

Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit., pp.76-81, 108-118, 121-126, 207-73, 276-84, 332-38 etc.

266
 (4) Oh, Arjun! Whenever this religion of duties and occupations (i.e. this religion of Chaturvarna)
declines, then I myself will come to birth to punish those who are responsible for its downfall
and to restore if -Gita. IV. 7-8 26

Given such a position of the Gita, Ambedkar finds that it is no different from that
of Manusmriti.

Such is the position of the Gita. What difference is there between it and the Manusmriti? The Gita
is Manu in a nutshell. Those who run away from Manusmriti and want to take refuge in the Gita
either do not know the Gita or are prepared to omit from their consideration that soul of the Gita,
which makes it akin to the Manusmriti.27

Ambedkar argued that the role played by the Gita was not limited to endorsing

and sustaining the Vama system as handed down by precedent texts. It contributed

towards strengthening it in other two fundamental aspects. First, it bestowed on the

hitherto legal character or code of Vama a divine foundation by declaring the whole

system as created by God. It made the system much more harsh and inflexible binding
the ethico-religious sentiments of the people accordingly.28 Second, it disallowed cross-

Vama mobility or any other attempt or movement to uproot or change it, which could be
initiated either by the upper strata or by the low. It forbade every kind of propaganda
against the Vama system.29

Defence of war and violence:

Ambedkar argues that against the central doctrine of Buddhism the Gita l

advances a philosophical defence for war and killing in war. He cites the Gitas second
chapter, slokas 11-28, as vindicating the same. He finds that there are two lines of

26 'Philosophy of Hinduism, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

pp.80-1.
27 'Philosophy of Hinduism, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit, p.81.

28
'The Hindu Social Order: Its Essential Principles, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and

Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit., p.127.

29 The Hindu Social Order: Its Essential Principles, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and

Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit, pp.127-28.

267
reasoning that the Gita offers for the purpose. The first is that the world is perishable

and man is mortal. The world would come to an end and evety man will die. It does not
make a difference to a wise man whether he dies today or tomorrow or regarding the

mode of his death. If death is inevitable why should one bother how it occurs?

The second line of reasoning sees body and the soul as fundamentally different

principles. Soul is eternal and imperishable; body is contingent and perishable. When

death occurs it is the body that dies and the soul is set free to the kind of state that it

deserves.
Ambedkar felt that Arjuna was urged to do battle on the basis of these

arguments. He finds that these reasoning not merely go against the ethical foundation

of Buddhism but also against its central metaphysics such as the doctrine of anatta and

kammasiddanta. While undercutting Buddhism this kind of reasoning could uphold the
Vedic karmakanda as presented by jaiminis Mimamsa.

Defence of Rituals and Practices:

Ambedkar suggests that the upholding of karmamarga in the Gita is primarily

according approval to performance of observances such as yajna as a way to

salvation. Buddhism had come to denounce these yajnas. Jaimini however, attempted

to defend them and its associated practices on the authority of the Vedas. Ambedkar
feels that the Gita comes to the defence of Jaimini but by instilling these observances

with more acceptable realms. It introduced the principle of buddhiyoga i.e. to befitted
with buddhi or intelligence while undertaking these observances. There is nothing

wrong as such with the performance of karmakanda. But one needs to perform them
with the requisite consciousness and awareness. Further, the Vedic practices were

caught up in selfish motives. The Gita removes the motive of selfishness by insisting on

anasakti, i.e. asking for the performance of karma without any attachment to its fruits.

268
Interpretative Specificity:
The other commentators on the Gita had considered it as an ethical-
metaphysicai treatise expounding the nature of the Brahman, the relation of the

Brahman to the self and the relation between the Brahman, the self and the world. They
thought that it upheld a certain path to self-realization in general or suggested a mode of

reconciling between the divergent paths of realization. Ambedkar, however, argued that

the Gita has to be read in the context of counter-revolution and its concepts have to be

situated accordingly. Accordingly he understood the Gitas deliberations over karma and

jnana in a distinctive way. He did not consider them as independent courses to be

followed in the ethico-spiritual pursuits. He did not consider them as interdependent

paths to be pursued in the attainment of moksha either. He argued that the concept of

karma in the Gita implied Vedic karma, or karma outlined in Jaiminis Purvamimamsa
and jnana denoted Uttaramimamsa, or jnana explained by Badarayana in his Brahma
Sutras. The pronouncements of the Gita pertain to the debate between them. He
criticizes ethical readers for not only considering these concepts in the ethical sense but
also attempting to create an impression that the Gita was an independent and self-

contained treatise.

Most writers on the Bhagavadgita translate the word Karmayoga as action' and the word
Jnanayoga, as knowledge and proceed to discuss the Bhagavadgita as though it was engaged
in comparing and contrasting knowledge versus action in a generalized form. This is quite wrong.
The Bhagavadgita is not concerned with any general, philosophical discussion of action versus
knowledge............By Karmayoga or action Gita means the dogmas contained in Jaiminis Karma
kanda and by Jnanayoga or knowledge it means the dogmas contained in Badarayanas Brahma
Sutras. That the Gita in speaking of Karma is not speaking of activity or inactivity, quieticism or
energism, in general terms but religious acts and observances cannot be denied by anyone who
has read the Bhagavadgita. It is to lift the Gita from the position of a party pamphlet engaged in a
controversy on small petty points and make it appear as though it was a general treatise on
matters of high philosophy that this attempt is made to inflate the meaning of the words Karma
and Jnana and make them words of general import. Mr. Tilak is largely to be blamed for this trick
of patriotic Indians. The result has been that these false meanings have misled people into
believing that the Bhagavadgita is an independent self-contained book and has no relation to the
literature that has preceded it............in speaking of Karmayoga the Bhagavadgita is referring to

269
 nothing but the dogmas of Karma kanda as propounded by Jaimini which it tries to renovate and
strengthen.30

Ambedkar, however, believes that the Gita although took over these notions from
the context, it installed its own meaning on them. It replaced the redundant and blind

practices, for instance, that had developed around the Vedic self-centered karma by

insisting on desireless action (anasakti) and its intelligent performance. It effected these

modifications owing to the large-scale protest and criticisms that were directed against

the Vedic karmakanda.

The Bhagavadgita stands out for the Karma marga throughout and is a great upholder of it. The
line it takes to defend Karmayoga is by removing the excrescence, which had grown upon it and
which had made it appear quite ugly. The first excrescence was blind faith. The Gita tries to
remove it by introducing the principle of Buddhiyoga as a necessary condition for Karmayoga.
Become Sthitaprajna i.e., Befitted with Buddhi there is nothing wrong in the performance of
Karma kanda. The second excrescence on the Karma kanda was the selfishness, which was the
motive behind the performance of the Karmas. The Bhagavadgita attempts to remove it by
introducing the principle of anasakti i.e., performance of Karma without any attachment for the
fruits of the Karma. Founded in Buddhiyoga and dissociated from selfish attachment to the fruits
of Karma what is wrong with the dogma of Karma kanda? This is how the Bhagavadgita defends
the Karma marga.31

The reinvigoration of these notions by the Gita, Ambedkar felt, owe largely to the
influence of Buddhism.

Buddha had condemned the Karma kanda and the Yajnas He condemned them on the ground of
Himsa or violence. He condemned them also on the ground that the motive behind them was a
32
selfish desire to obtain bonus.

30
Essays on the Bhagavadgita, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

pp.362-63.
31
Essays on the Bhagavadgita', Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

p.362.
32 Essays on the Bhagavadgita', Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, vol. Ill, op.cit.,

p.363.

270
The Teaching of the Buddha as the basis of the National Ethic:
While some of the most important nationalist leaders in India attempted to
retrieve the ethical basis of the Indian nationalism on the reading of the Gita Ambedkar

resorted to the teachings of the Buddha for the purpose. His magnum opus was the

Buddha and his Dhamma, which was posthumously published in 1957. In this work and

his other writings on Buddhism, Ambedkar attempts to construct a national ethic based

on Buddhas teaching and he places these teachings in opposition to Hindu scriptures

and particularly the Gita. While Hindu scriptures and particularly Jaiminis Mimamsa

upheld authority and counterposed themselves to reasoning and argumentation,

Ambedkar surmises the Buddhas teachings as eminently reasonable. Buddha

discarded several questions as of no worth and it is futile to set on these explorations.

Unlike the belief in the Supreme Being and eternal atman that the Hindu scriptures

uphold, the Buddha rejects the existence of the Supreme Being or eternal soul.

Ambedkar finds Buddhas teachings as upholding the moral foundations of society.

There is place for dissent and disagreements. The claims of people as persons are
respected. Against the doctrine of Chaturvama the Buddha holds aloft equality of one

and all. He denounced the doctrine of Chaturvama in no uncertain terms.

Buddha turns his face away from the kind of violence that was pervasive in

society and his intervention was to result in non-violence as becoming a way of life.
Buddha condemned karmakanda and yajnas as sites of violence or necessarily

promoting inequality. Ambedkar finds that Buddha extended considerations of equality

not merely towards the endowed but to the lowly, the downtrodden and woman.

Against the trans-historical and transcendental aspiration that the Hindu scriptures
promoted, the Buddha called upon people to engage in this world and to collectively

work to solve the problems of this world. Against the individualistic strivings towards

perfection of the Vedic religion, the Buddha, Ambedkar believes, stressed on

community life and collective investigation as expressed in the sangh. For Ambedkar,
therefore, Buddhism becomes the ideological terrain for the Indian nation on the
foundations of which the claims of rights, equality and community needs to be
constructed.

271
In Conclusion:
Ambedkars setting of the text of the Gita in the post-Buddhist period and his

arguments that it is a text aimed to defend and justify Jaiminis Mimamsa and thereby

undercut Buddhism sets the tone for his considerations of the Gita to a great extent. He

gives little heed to any transcendental considerations of the text such as in the works of

Gandhiji and Aurobindo. Ambedkar also is not interested in locating the text in the

Vedantic traditions. Krishna is a mischievous and contradictory character for Ambedkar,

who has no claims to be God. Certain central concepts that others used to workout the
national ethic for India such as Sthitaprajna, anasakti, svadharma are seen by

Ambedkar as nothing but attempts to crop up social relations seeped through and
through with Chaturvama.

272