Dr Ambedkar’s Reply to the Critics of Religious Conversion
FacebookTwitterWhatsAppTelegramBufferShare
The following excerpts are from Vol. 5 of Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, starting from page 403. – Editor
A large majority of Untouchables who have reached a capacity to think out their problem believe that one way to solve the problem of the Untouchables is for them to abandon Hinduism and be converted to some other religion. At a Conference of the Mahars held in Bombay on 31st May 1936 a resolution to this effect was unanimously passed. Although the Conference was a Conference of the Mahars, the resolution had the support of a very large body of Untouchables throughout India. No resolution had created such a stir. The Hindu community was shaken to its foundation and curses imprecations and threats were uttered against the Untouchables who were behind this move.
Four principal objections have been urged by the opponents against the conversion of the Untouchables:
(1) What can the Untouchables gain by conversion? Conversion can make no change in the status of the Untouchables.
(2) All religions are true, all religions are good. To change religion is a futility.
(3) The conversion of the Untouchables is political in its nature.
(4) The conversion of the Untouchables is not genuine as it is not based on faith.
It cannot take much argument to demonstrate that the objections are puerile and inconsequential.
To take the last objection first.
Today religion has become a piece of ancestral property. It passes from father to son, so does inheritance. What genuineness is there in such cases of
conversion? The conversion of the Untouchables, if it did take place, would take [place] after full deliberation of the value of religion and the virtue of the different religions. How can such a conversion be said to be not a genuine conversion? On the other hand, it would be the first case in history of genuine conversion. It is therefore difficult to understand why the genuineness of the conversion of the Untouchables should be doubted by anybody.
The third objection is an ill-considered objection. What political gain will accrue to the Untouchables from their conversion has been defined by nobody. If there is a political gain, nobody has proved that it is a direct inducement to conversion.
The opponents of conversion do not even seem to know that a distinction has to be made between a gain being a direct inducement to conversion and its being only an incidental advantage. This distinction cannot be said to be a distinction without a difference. Conversion may result in a political gain to the Untouchables. It is only where a gain is a direct inducement that conversion could be condemned as immoral or criminal. Unless, therefore, the opponents of conversion prove that the conversion desired by the Untouchables is for political gain and for nothing else, their accusation is baseless. If political gain is only an incidental gain then there is nothing criminal in conversion. The fact, however, is that conversion can bring no new political gain to the Untouchables. Under the constitutional law of India, every religious community has got the right to separate political safeguards. The Untouchables in their present condition enjoy political rights similar to those which are enjoyed by the Muslims and the Christians. If they change their faith the change is not to bring into existence political rights which did not exist before. If they do not change they will retain the political rights which they have. Political gain has no connection with conversion. The charge is a wild charge made without understanding.
The second objection rests on the premise that all religions teach the same thing. It is from the premise that a conclusion is drawn that since all religions
teach the same thing there is no reason to prefer one religion to other. It may be conceded that all religions agree in holding that the meaning of life is to be found in the pursuit of ‘good’. Up to this point the validity of the premise may be conceded. But when the premise goes beyond and asserts that because of this there is no reason to prefer one religion to another, it becomes a false premise.
Religions may be alike in that they all teach that the meaning of life is to be found in the pursuit of ‘good’. But religions are not alike in their answers to the question ‘What is good?’ In this they certainly differ. One religion holds that brotherhood is good, another, caste and untouchability is good.
There is another respect in which all religions are not alike. Besides being an authority which defines what is good, religion is a motive force for the
promotion and spread of the ‘good’. Are all religions agreed in the means and methods they advocate for the promotion and spread of good? (BAWS, Vol.5, pp. 404–06)
Apart from these oscillations there are permanent differences in the methods of promoting good as they conceive it. Are there not religions which advocate violence? Are there not religions which advocate non-violence? Given these facts, how can it be said that all religions are the same and there is no reason to prefer one to the other?
In raising the second objection the Hindu is merely trying to avoid an examination of Hinduism on its merits. It is an extraordinary thing that in the
controversy over conversion, not a single Hindu has had the courage to challenge the Untouchables to say what is wrong with Hinduism. The Hindu is merely taking shelter under the attitude generated by the science of comparative religion. The science of comparative religion has broken down the arrogant claims of all revealed religions that they alone are true and all others which are not the results of revelation are false. That revelation was too arbitrary, too capricious a test to be accepted for distinguishing a true religion from a false [It] was undoubtedly a great service which the science of comparative religion has rendered to the cause of religion. But it must be said to the discredit of that science that it has created the general impression that all religions are good and there is no use and purpose in discriminating them.
The first objection is the only objection which is worthy of serious consideration. The objection proceeds on the assumption that religion is a purely
personal matter between man and God. It is supernatural. It has nothing to do with social. The argument is no doubt sensible. But its foundations are quite false. At any rate, it is a one-sided view of religion and that too based on aspects of religion which are purely historical and not fundamental.
Equally necessary it is not to think of religion as though it was supernatural. To overlook the fact that the primary content of religion is social is to make
nonsense of religion. The savage society was concerned with life and the preservation of life and it is these life processes which constitute the substance
and source of the religion of the savage society. So great was the concern of the savage society for life and the preservation of life that it made them the basis of its religion. So central were the life processes in the religion of the savage society that everything which affected them became part of its religion. The ceremonies of the savage society were not only concerned with the events of birth, attaining of manhood, puberty, marriage, sickness, death and war but they were also concerned with food. (BAWS, Vol. 5, pp. 406–07)
FacebookTwitterWhatsAppTelegramBufferShare
The following excerpts are from Vol. 5 of Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, starting from page 403. – Editor
A large majority of Untouchables who have reached a capacity to think out their problem believe that one way to solve the problem of the Untouchables is for them to abandon Hinduism and be converted to some other religion. At a Conference of the Mahars held in Bombay on 31st May 1936 a resolution to this effect was unanimously passed. Although the Conference was a Conference of the Mahars, the resolution had the support of a very large body of Untouchables throughout India. No resolution had created such a stir. The Hindu community was shaken to its foundation and curses imprecations and threats were uttered against the Untouchables who were behind this move.
Four principal objections have been urged by the opponents against the conversion of the Untouchables:
(1) What can the Untouchables gain by conversion? Conversion can make no change in the status of the Untouchables.
(2) All religions are true, all religions are good. To change religion is a futility.
(3) The conversion of the Untouchables is political in its nature.
(4) The conversion of the Untouchables is not genuine as it is not based on faith.
It cannot take much argument to demonstrate that the objections are puerile and inconsequential.
To take the last objection first.
Today religion has become a piece of ancestral property. It passes from father to son, so does inheritance. What genuineness is there in such cases of
conversion? The conversion of the Untouchables, if it did take place, would take [place] after full deliberation of the value of religion and the virtue of the different religions. How can such a conversion be said to be not a genuine conversion? On the other hand, it would be the first case in history of genuine conversion. It is therefore difficult to understand why the genuineness of the conversion of the Untouchables should be doubted by anybody.
The third objection is an ill-considered objection. What political gain will accrue to the Untouchables from their conversion has been defined by nobody. If there is a political gain, nobody has proved that it is a direct inducement to conversion.
The opponents of conversion do not even seem to know that a distinction has to be made between a gain being a direct inducement to conversion and its being only an incidental advantage. This distinction cannot be said to be a distinction without a difference. Conversion may result in a political gain to the Untouchables. It is only where a gain is a direct inducement that conversion could be condemned as immoral or criminal. Unless, therefore, the opponents of conversion prove that the conversion desired by the Untouchables is for political gain and for nothing else, their accusation is baseless. If political gain is only an incidental gain then there is nothing criminal in conversion. The fact, however, is that conversion can bring no new political gain to the Untouchables. Under the constitutional law of India, every religious community has got the right to separate political safeguards. The Untouchables in their present condition enjoy political rights similar to those which are enjoyed by the Muslims and the Christians. If they change their faith the change is not to bring into existence political rights which did not exist before. If they do not change they will retain the political rights which they have. Political gain has no connection with conversion. The charge is a wild charge made without understanding.
The second objection rests on the premise that all religions teach the same thing. It is from the premise that a conclusion is drawn that since all religions
teach the same thing there is no reason to prefer one religion to other. It may be conceded that all religions agree in holding that the meaning of life is to be found in the pursuit of ‘good’. Up to this point the validity of the premise may be conceded. But when the premise goes beyond and asserts that because of this there is no reason to prefer one religion to another, it becomes a false premise.
Religions may be alike in that they all teach that the meaning of life is to be found in the pursuit of ‘good’. But religions are not alike in their answers to the question ‘What is good?’ In this they certainly differ. One religion holds that brotherhood is good, another, caste and untouchability is good.
There is another respect in which all religions are not alike. Besides being an authority which defines what is good, religion is a motive force for the
promotion and spread of the ‘good’. Are all religions agreed in the means and methods they advocate for the promotion and spread of good? (BAWS, Vol.5, pp. 404–06)
Apart from these oscillations there are permanent differences in the methods of promoting good as they conceive it. Are there not religions which advocate violence? Are there not religions which advocate non-violence? Given these facts, how can it be said that all religions are the same and there is no reason to prefer one to the other?
In raising the second objection the Hindu is merely trying to avoid an examination of Hinduism on its merits. It is an extraordinary thing that in the
controversy over conversion, not a single Hindu has had the courage to challenge the Untouchables to say what is wrong with Hinduism. The Hindu is merely taking shelter under the attitude generated by the science of comparative religion. The science of comparative religion has broken down the arrogant claims of all revealed religions that they alone are true and all others which are not the results of revelation are false. That revelation was too arbitrary, too capricious a test to be accepted for distinguishing a true religion from a false [It] was undoubtedly a great service which the science of comparative religion has rendered to the cause of religion. But it must be said to the discredit of that science that it has created the general impression that all religions are good and there is no use and purpose in discriminating them.
The first objection is the only objection which is worthy of serious consideration. The objection proceeds on the assumption that religion is a purely
personal matter between man and God. It is supernatural. It has nothing to do with social. The argument is no doubt sensible. But its foundations are quite false. At any rate, it is a one-sided view of religion and that too based on aspects of religion which are purely historical and not fundamental.
Equally necessary it is not to think of religion as though it was supernatural. To overlook the fact that the primary content of religion is social is to make
nonsense of religion. The savage society was concerned with life and the preservation of life and it is these life processes which constitute the substance
and source of the religion of the savage society. So great was the concern of the savage society for life and the preservation of life that it made them the basis of its religion. So central were the life processes in the religion of the savage society that everything which affected them became part of its religion. The ceremonies of the savage society were not only concerned with the events of birth, attaining of manhood, puberty, marriage, sickness, death and war but they were also concerned with food. (BAWS, Vol. 5, pp. 406–07)
No comments:
Post a Comment