Was Dr. Ambedkar Against Hinduism?

Dr. Anjor: Dr. Ambedkar, the chief architect of our Constitution has famously said that democracy in India is only a top dressing on a soil that is essentially undemocratic. Recently a US organization called Pew Research did a survey in India. And many other Countries. They found that in India, the majority of the people believe that an authoritarian government would be more preferable. And that proportion was the highest in India among all the countries that they surveyed.

So while our Constitution gives us a democracy and that democracy has certain values aligned with it, the values of Liberty, equality, fraternity, justice, the question is that are those values aligned with our societal values? Many researchers feel that democracy in India is only superficial because at the heart of it, we are a very religious society. And many researchers have pointed out this data. If you look at the number of religious places of worship in India, that is far, far greater than the number of schools, hospitals, health centers in the country and that they use this, as a kind of argument to say that is why you don't have democratic culture, but you have the dominance of religion and culture in India.

The question is, are these actually in conflict with each other? Is democracy and the Constitution in conflict with our religion and our culture?

Is there an alignment possible between culture, democracy and religion or are they perennially in conflict with each other?

Acharya Prashant: See, at the heart of the problem statement — are Indian religion and culture incompatible with the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution? — lies the very definition of religion and culture. If we do not venture into religion deeply, then we will confuse religion for what we see it as practiced. We will think that this is what religion actually is.

Very basically speaking, culture means behavior. Culture means how you are choosing to operate in your day-to-day setup — your eating habits, the way you greet each other, the way you walk, the way you relate to each other, your values, your beliefs — all that is culture.

Now, culture doesn't necessarily have to do with the essence of religion. And when you talk of religion here, you are referring to the Hindu religion, right? That's what is in the question.

The Hindu religion itself can be divided into two — and it must be. The religion of the Shruti, which is the religion of Vedanta, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita — and the religion of the Smriti, which forms the basis of popular culture. The religion of the Smriti. And Smriti refers to all your Dharmashastras, Puranas, and Itihas-granth, Mahakavya, even Shaddarshan — all this comes under Smriti.

So the culture that you see practiced is largely based on Smriti, not Shruti. But when you say religion, you conflate these two into one, as if these two are one. No, they are not one. They are not one.

So the entire problem is because our culture is based on something that is not really central or essential to the Hindu religion — or Sanatana Dharma, whichever way you please. Our culture is based on the very, very periphery of religion — things that got added later on. Smriti itself was supposed to be a commentary on Shruti — something that would enable the masses to connect to the core of religion. Our culture is related to Smriti largely, not to Shruti . And that’s the reason why culture, as we see it, is seen in conflict with the Constitution.

Because the Constitution, as I see it, is founded more on the Shruti . Even though the framers of the Constitution — and Dr. Ambedkar, as you mentioned him — would not say that, or probably would not look at the Constitution from that angle. But if I look at the Preamble, if I look at the Fundamental Rights , if I look at the Directive Principles , if I look at the Fundamental Duties — what I see is Vedanta, which is Shruti .

So the Constitution is already based on Shruti . Let me set the equation right, in brief.

The Constitution, in some sense, is already based on religion — the core of religion — which is Shruti. But culture is based on Smriti.

So that’s why we find this perceived— actually, no, it is not perceived. It is an actual conflict. It is an actual conflict. So our Constitution is already something that resonates very, very closely with Vedanta. From where I look at it, though, our culture is not something that resonates with Vedanta. And hence, we find this conflict between culture and the Constitution.

Sir, please.

Dr. Shashtri: Thank you. I will just start with a minor point. The American Constitution was drafted in the 18th century, and it had all those grand statements — “for the people, by the people,” etc. Actually, it was for the white males, by the white males, and for the white — because the Blacks couldn't vote and the women could not vote. Now, you could have asked this question: is the American Constitution in line with the culture? So, in every country there are cultural practices — some of them need to change, some of them may not be in line with the Constitution. So, for me, yeah, I mean, that's all right.

Now just to elaborate on the point that he made — I just want to say one or two things. I'll just read out some important phrases from the Preamble. I don't want to get into too much detail, but you know, this is very inspiring for me, so I will read it out. It says: 'Justice — social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation' , etc., etc.

This is the Preamble. And it's very nice to see, in ringing tones: "We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic" — we may quibble with one or two words there.

Now, what does it do? As he pointed out, there are two aspects to our culture. One is the deepest culture — the essential culture. And that is the Shruti.

Now, what does Shruti say? So, if we have to go to the Upanishads, the Mahavakyas say all the same thing. They say:

"Amritasya Putrah" — you are the children of immortality. "Aham Brahmasmi," you know. "Tat Tvam Asi." "Ayam Atma Brahma."

It’s saying that the divine principle — whether we believe it or not, I’m just saying — it is there in each and every one sitting in the room. It is in the dogs and cats roaming around. It is everywhere. Kan-kan mein.

Therefore, if that is true, what is the first derivative of those grand statements of the Mahavakyas? It is equality and fraternity.

In one of the principal Upanishads, Yajnavalkya tells Maitreyi: the husband is dear not for the sake of the husband, but for the sake of the Atman . The wife is dear to the husband not for the sake of the wife, but for the sake of the Atman. The son, the daughter, the father, the mother — everybody is dear to us because of that. That is automatically in line with fraternity, justice, liberty, equality. I don't see any problem with that.

And just for the record — while Dr. Ambedkar, one of the great persons of modern India, had problems with Hinduism and the culture — he never had any problem with the Upanishads. He didn’t have any problem with the Upanishads.

So, coming back to your question — if you look at Indian history, because you're talking about culture, we are so rooted in our today’s life that we forget these challenges to our culture or to religion have come at least four times. This is the fourth time.

The first time it happened was when ritualistic practices dominated — and the first person to put it down was Shri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.

Five hundred years later, another great man — Gautam Buddha — found that again ritualism had taken over. He again tried to put it down.

The third time — and now he has become a bastion of orthodoxy — was Adi Shankaracharya. Buddhism was in decline and the priests were back in action with Vedic rituals. So he again wanted to negate it. In fact, Adi Shankara was a heretic , and he was bitterly criticized by the pandits of that time because they were saying, “Yeah, don’t waste your time in all these Vedic rituals.”

Now, this is happening all over again today.

So, this will happen in the course of history — things will go up and down. But the essence of Hinduism — it was revived by Krishna, it was revived by Buddha.

According to me, Advaita . Vivekananda says that Gautam Buddha revived true Advaita , and Shankara. And maybe, people like Him (pointing towards Acharya Prashant) or somebody else will revive it again.

So I would not worry too much about whether there is a fundamental difference. But the point is correct — that today, as culture is practiced, there is a problem. And we need to correct it.

But the intellectual or spiritual basis for correcting it is already there. It’s not something we have to rediscover. And we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater and say 'religion is bad — it will never go." Religion will not go from this country.

We have to go back to the purer forms of religion.

Dr. Anjor: Thank you. As a student of these two professors and gurus, I'm trying to summarize what I've learned. The basic point that I guess you're trying to make is that there is no conflict between at least Hinduism and the Constitution. The values and the essence of both are the same. There may be a conflict between culture and the Constitution, but there's also a conflict between culture and religion—because culture, as you said, has emerged from Smriti, which is not the true, essential form of Hinduism, at least.

Acharya Prashant: So what you're seeing as a conflict between culture and the Constitution is, in fact, a conflict between culture and actual religion—culture and actual religion. So if Constitutional values are being seen as threatened, maybe a way to defend them is to revive actual religion. The more actual religion is revived, the more we'll see that our own Constitution is already in harmony with real religious values. Otherwise, we'll say, no, we don't want this Constitution—or there will be all kinds of conflicts and problems.

Dr. Anjor: This is a new way of thinking. Thank you. I'll come down to a specific issue. Professor Shastri just read out the Preamble. And one of the first things in the Preamble is the message of equality—it says that everyone is equal. But when we grow up in this country, we are taught that everyone has a place—often decided by their caste. Some people are meant to do manual, demeaning work. Some are meant to do intellectual work. And so, some are meant to be looked down on, and others to be respected.

This categorization also happens on the basis of gender. Some are meant to do outdoor work, to be strong, to be the caretakers of the family. Others are meant to be caregivers only—limited to certain kinds of work: teaching, nursing, caregiving roles like ASHA worker, anganwadi worker, tailoring, boutique work.

There is a categorization our culture tells us to do—based on gender, class, caste. We’re told that the rich or well-to-do are there because of their hard work and dedication, and therefore deserve respect. So if a rich person in a suit comes to your door, you don’t know them but you ask them to sit. If someone looks poor, you make them stand.

There’s also categorization based on religion. Some people you’re allowed to marry, others you’re not—based on religion. Some you can share your plate with, some you can’t—again, based on religion.

So we see everyone in these categories. Yet the Constitution says everyone is equal. How do we come to terms with this? Where is this coming from? What is the root of this stereotyping, this discrimination? Is it in religion? Is it in culture? And what can we do to address it?

Acharya Prashant: See, discrimination is one of the most fundamental human tendencies, right? Because we are born unfulfilled. That's the ego—ahankār . That's what takes birth as the body or along with the body. It seeks fulfilment through association with objects in the world. Now, certain objects have to be taken as more valuable than others—based on your experience, conditioning, or assessment. And that is discrimination. There is diversity in the world, and you cannot hold everything as equal. So something has to be put above something else, right?

Now the question is: do you actually know how to evaluate? Do you actually know what is valuable ? So if you're going to the very root of discrimination— why do I like this more? Why don't I like that equally? —that is something we're born with. And it's displayed even in the animal kingdom. But as human beings, when we do that, it often comes from the wrong center.

We need to have a center that takes us beyond our animal nature. And it's not a moral imperative—it’s a necessity. Otherwise, we remain unfulfilled.

We do need to discriminate, definitely. If you go to the Shruti , if you go to the Upanishads , they too talk of Vivek . And that's not discrimination—it’s discretion. And what is that? The ability to differentiate between what is really useful to you and what is not. Between sār and asār, nitya and anitya —that’s the discrimination we need. Why?

Because we are born unfulfilled . I have a hollow in my heart, so I need something to fill it up—or some realization. I cannot randomly associate with everything and value everything equally. So that Vivek , that discretion, is definitely needed. It’s a part of Adi Shankaracharya’s Sādhana Chatuṣṭaya , and it’s a hallowed value.

But instead of discretion, what we usually have is random attribution of value .

For example: - If you're born in a particular family, you're considered higher. - If you're born in a particular gender, you're considered higher. - If you have material status, you're considered better.

Now this is not discretion .

Discretion means: I must know what is truly useful to me. Here are two books—I must know which one gives me what I deeply need. That is discretion. Discrimination, on the other hand, is based on preordained values, cultural or physical conditioning, or blind desires.

I just want to exploit or favor something randomly. So I say, 'this is better than that' , even though it may be harmful to me. And I’ll continue in my blind ways. That is the stupid kind of discrimination we practice.

And please remember: cultures are like this everywhere, as Dr. Shastri rightly said. They are popular cultures— lok-sanskriti —they belong to the ground level, to the masses. So cultures are flawed everywhere.

And that is why Constitutions are needed .

If culture were benign or divine , you wouldn't need: - A most elaborate written Constitution - A succinct, clear, sublime Preamble - Articles 15 to 31: Fundamental Rights - Directive Principles: Articles 38 to 51 - Fundamental Duties: Article 51A

Why are all these needed? Because culture is insufficient and flawed . That’s how it has always been, historically and globally.

You cannot run a place just on culture, because culture includes blind conditioning. And if you start running a place on culture, there will be conflict and suffering. So, you need the Constitution.

And the Constitution we have—it’s a beautiful, detailed one, and it is based on deeply spiritual values .

Dr. Shastri: Actually, I don’t have much to add there. But going back to your question—what is the root of discrimination? I don’t know the exact answer, but I have a response. It is human nature. And within that, it’s basically selfishness that makes us discriminate against another.

Now, whether this is part of religion or not—that’s debatable. Some forms of discrimination, like caste, are very peculiar to India. But other forms exist across the world. So we have to deal with that.

To put all discrimination at the door of religion—you can do that in the case of popular religion, I have no objection. But to put it at the door of essential religion or spirituality—that’s not true. I just quoted from the Upanishads —'everybody is the same'.

So yes, all these issues are there. But What I feel is,

The root of discrimination is human nature and selfishness.

Acharya Prashant: You see, when Sir was quoting the Preamble—what is fraternity for? For the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. Have I quoted it right, Sir? That’s what the Preamble reads.

Now, what is unity? When you speak against discrimination, you are essentially rallying for unity. You want integrity, not fragments. And Shruti tells us—the only point where unity is possible is Atman .

There is Prakriti , the world of sensual experience, and it is full of vividhta —diversity. Unity is not possible here. No two things appear the same. Even if two objects are manufactured identically, time will shape them apart. Scientifically too, no two objects can ever be exactly alike.

So, diversity in the physical world is inevitable—and it’s a source of great suffering for the ego, the jeeva. Because he doesn’t know what to choose. He randomly picks one thing over another, and his life just keeps wandering, suffering—door to door, post to pillar—getting knocked around in the process.

The real unity we need, instead of discrimination, is possible only in the Atman —the true self.

That’s the point where you are no longer entangled with the world and can see clearly. You begin to see that, in terms of my fulfilment, everything in the world stands at the same level—level zero . None of them will truly satisfy me.

So if you want unity—not a superficial one, but a real, lasting unity—you’ll have to bring people to the Self. That’s the goal of Shruti: Atma-Sakshatkar, bringing you back to your essence.

That’s why the Constitution and true religiosity, or self-knowledge (Atmagyan) , go together. Let me say this—

Our Constitution is a deeply spiritual one, because it calls for unity. Superficial unity is easy to obtain, but real unity can only be spiritual.

show_less