Former Congress MLA Syed Azeempeer Khadri stirred a row by claiming Dr B.R. Ambedkar had considered converting to Islam before finally embracing Buddhism. While Khadri’s election speech during the Adi Jambava (SC) convention at Shiggaon was a bid to woo the Dalit voters towards the Congress candidate Yasir Pathan, it triggered a political slugfest and also a debate over Ambedkar’s reasons for his conversion to Buddhism.
Referring to Dr Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, Syed Khadri said, “Ambedkar had considered converting to Islam. But he embraced Buddhism. If he had converted to Islam, today (our Dalit leaders) Thimmapur would have been Rahim Saab, Parameshwar Peer Saab, Hanumanthaiah Hasan Saab and Manjunath would be Mehboob Saab. But Babasaheb converted to Buddhism. The Dalit settlements too have always remained in the vicinity of Muslim dargahs.”
BJP MLA C.T. Ravi slammed Khadri saying he had displayed his ignorance by saying Dr Ambedkar was ready to convert to Islam. “Khadri has insulted the personality of Dr Ambedkar. When Ambedkar said he was born a Hindu but would not die a Hindu, many people tried to convert them. The Nizam of Hyderabad had tried to bribe Dr Ambedkar with money and power. But Ambedkar had rejected the Nizam’s offer saying Islam did not have equality and was intolerant,” said Ravi.
Leader of opposition R Ashok said, “Muslims should check their DNA if it is from Iran. Even (Congress leader) Ghulam Nabi Azad has said his ancestors were all Hindus who converted to Islam.”
Sensing trouble on the eve of polling Khadri withdrew his statement and sought an apology saying, “I got carried away during my speech and remembered reading that Dr Ambedkar has considered Islam as an option. I regret my remarks if it has hurt anybody.”
If the political voices speak half-truths about Dr Ambedkar’s decision to convert, his essays and excerpts from the books he authored throw light on the stalwart’s long research and understanding of the different religions that influenced his choice.
Dr Ambedkar, who was born into a Mahar (Dalit) family, who were treated as untouchables, fought a long battle against the caste system in Hinduism before finally announcing his decision (in his ‘Annihilation of Caste’ speech) to renounce the faith in 1936. But he converted to Buddhism only in 1956, after two decades of studying prominent religions.
In his essay titled ‘Buddha and Future of his Religion’ published in the monthly magazine of Kolkata’s Mahabodhi Society in 1950, Ambedkar compares the founders of the four religions - Buddha, Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammed, and Lord Krishna.
“All throughout the Bible, Jesus insist(s) he is the Son of God and that those who wish to enter the kingdom of God will fail, if they do not recognise him as the Son of God. Mohammed went a step further. Like Jesus he also claimed he was the messenger of God and further insisted he was the last messenger. Krishna went a step beyond and claimed he was ‘Parameswar‘ or as his followers describe him ”Devadhideva,” God of Gods. But Buddha never arrogated to himself any such status. He was born as a son of man and was content to remain a common man. Buddha made a clear distinction between a ‘Margadata’ (guide) and a ‘Mokshadata’ (saviour) and was satisfied playing the role of a Margadata,” wrote Ambedkar.
“Unlike other religions, in Buddhism there is no God. In place of God, there is morality and equality,” said Ambedkar.
On October 14,1956, Babasaheb renounced Hinduism and embraced Buddhism at Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur. He had chosen Buddhism over Islam and Christianity as he did not want to embrace either of Abrahamic religions as he considered them as “foreign”.
“Converson to Islam or Christianity will denationalise the Depressed classes,” stated Ambedkar.
In his book - ‘Pakistan Or The Partition Of India‘ (1940), Dr Ambedkar has stated “Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For, Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defeat of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.”
