Internationale Kommunikationskulturen
mailto: payer@hdm-stuttgart.de
Zitierweise / cite as:
Payer, Margarete <1942 - >: Internationale Kommunikationskulturen. -- 13. Kulturelle Faktoren: "Aberglauben" und Religion. -- 4. Zum Beispiel: Religionen in Indien. -- 2. Teil 2: Religionen gegeneinander. -- 4. Dalit-Konvertiten. -- Fassung vom 2002-03-15. -- URL: http://www.payer.de/kommkulturen/kultur13424.htm. -- [Stichwort].
Erstmals publiziert: 2002-03-15
Überarbeitungen:
Anlass: Lehrveranstaltung, HBI Stuttgart, 2000/2001
Unterrichtsmaterialien (gemäß § 46 (1) UrhG)
©opyright: Dieser Text steht der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung. Eine Verwertung in Publikationen, die über übliche Zitate hinausgeht, bedarf der ausdrücklichen Genehmigung der Herausgeberin.
Dieser Text ist Teil der Abteilung Länder und Kulturen von Tüpfli's Global Village Library
Die unglaubliche Diskriminierung, Verachtung und Gewalttätigkeit, die Niedrigkastige in Indien von Hochkastigen -- nicht nur Hindus, sondern Angehörigen aller Religionen! -- erdulden müssen, hat bei den Niedrigkastigen (Dalit, Harijan, Untouchable) zu verschiedenen Reaktionen gegen den Hinduismus geführt, dem sie die Hauptverantwortung für die Diskriminierung geben.
Diese Konversionen führen "natürlich" bei Hindus, die ihren Einflussbereich beschnitten sehen, zu Reaktionen gegen diese Konversionen, die bis zur Forderung des Verbots von Missionierung und Konversion führen.
Während Christentum und Islam Religionen sind, die außerhalb Indiens entstanden sind, ist der Buddhismus eine originär indische Religion. Deshalb wird im Folgenden vor allem die Ambedkar-Bewegung (Konversion zum Buddhismus nach Amedkars Verständnis) behandelt.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar -- selbst ein Unberührbarer -- sah innerhalb des Hinduismus keine Zukunft für die Niedrigstkastigen. Er war damit der stärkste Gegner Gandhi's, der selbst ein Vaishaya, d.h. ein höherkastiger Hindu war und an die Überwindung der Kastenschranken innerhalb des Hinduismus glaubte.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, genannt Mahatma [S¡®³«²©´ »¤¥³³¥® S¥¥¬¥ §²¯ß ©³´«] (1869 - 1948) versuchte in Wort und Tat -- dadurch, dass er z.B. Klos putzte -- seine Mithindus zu einer Verhaltensänderung gegenüber den Niedrigkastigen anzuleiten.
Die folgenden Zitate charakterisieren Gandhis -- in den Augen Dr. Ambedkars illusionistisch sozialromantische -- Einstellung sehr gut:
Die Unberührbaren sind Kinder Gottes (Harijan)
| "Harijan bedeutet »ein Kind Gottes«. Alle Religionen der Welt beschreiben Gott vornehmlich als Freund der Freundlosen, Hilfe der Hilflosen und Schützer der Schwachen. Ich sehe von der übrigen Welt ab - wer kann in Indien freundloser, hilfloser und schwächer sein als die vierzig oder mehr Millionen indischer Hindus, die als »Unberührbare« bezeichnet werden? Wenn daher irgendein Volksteil passend als Gotteskinder beschrieben werden
kann, so sicherlich diese hilflosen, freundlosen und verachteten Leute . . . Wenn die Kasten-Hindus aus eigener innerer
Überzeugung und daher freiwillig sich von der heutigen Vorstellung von Unberührbarkeit befreit haben, können wir alle
Harijans genannt werden; denn dann werden nach meiner bescheidenen Auffassung die
Kasten-Hindus Gnade bei Gott gefunden haben und können also passend als seine Kinder bezeichnet werden." [Harijan. -- 1933 -02-11] |
Es gibt keine Unberührbarkeit aufgrund von Geburt
| "Ich glaube nicht, dass alle Klassenunterschiede vernichtet werden können. Ich glaube an die Lehre der Gleichheit, wie sie von Krishna dem Herrn in der
Gita
[Bhagavadgita] verkündet wird. Die Gita lehrt uns, dass die Mitglieder aller vier Kasten auf gleichem Fuße behandelt werden sollen. Sie schreibt für den Brahmanen und für den
Bhangi [Straßenkehrer] nicht denselben Dharma [Berufspflichten] vor. Doch sie besteht darauf,
dass dieser auf das gleiche Maß von Achtung Anspruch hat wie jener bei all seiner höheren Gelehrtheit. Es ist also unsere Pflicht, dafür zu sorgen,
dass die »Unberührbaren« nicht das Gefühl haben, man verachte sie und sehe auf sie herunter. Man soll ihnen zu ihrem Unterhalt nicht die
Überreste von unserem Tisch anbieten. Wie kann ich der verschiedenen Behandlung irgendeines Menschen, sei er Brahmane oder
Bhangi, zustimmen, der denselben Gott verehrt und seinen Körper und seine Seele rein und sauber hält? Ich
müsste mich meinerseits für einen Sünder halten, wenn ich einem Bhangi unreine Speise aus den Küchenabfällen gäbe oder mich weigerte, ihm persönlich Beistand zu leisten, wenn er dessen bedarf. Ich will meinen Standpunkt ganz klar machen. Während ich glaube, dass die Einrichtung der Unberührbarkeit, wie sie heute besteht, im Hinduismus keine Stütze hat, anerkennt der Hinduismus Unberührbarkeit in einem begrenzten Sinne und unter bestimmten Umständen. Meine Mutter zum Beispiel wurde jedesmal, wenn sie mit unreinen Dingen zu tun bekam, solange »unberührbar«, bis sie sich durch ein Bad gereinigt hatte. Als Vaishnava [Verehrer Vishnus] weigere ich mich zu glauben, jemand könne auf Grund seiner Geburt als unberührbar gelten. Unberührbarkeit, wie sie von der Religion anerkannt wird, ist von Natur aus vorübergehend - leicht zu beseitigen und auf die Tat, nicht den Täter bezogen. Und nicht nur das. Wie ich meine Mutter verehre, weil sie uns, solange wir klein waren, Gesundheitspflege erwies und je sorgfältiger ihre Pflege war, umso größer ist unsere Verehrung für sie -, so ähnlich haben die Bhangis Anrecht auf unsere höchste Verehrung um des Gesundheitsdienstes willen, den sie der Gesellschaft leisten." [Young India. -- 1925-01-22] |
Kaste hat nichts mit Religion zu tun
| "Kaste hat nichts mit Religion zu tun. Sie ist ein Brauch, dessen Ursprung ich nicht kenne und nicht zu kennen brauche zur Befriedigung meines geistigen
Hungers. Aber ich weiß, dass sie schädlich ist sowohl für das spirituelle wie das nationale Wachstum. Varna
[Stände: Lehrstand, Wehrstand, Nährstand] und Ashrama [die vier individuellen Lebensstufen: Schüler, Hausvater, meditierender Waldbewohner, Bettelasket] sind Einrichtungen, die nichts mit Kasten zu tun haben. Das
Varna-Gesetz lehrt uns, dass jedermann seinen Lebensunterhalt im Beruf seiner Vorfahren erwerben soll. Es bestimmt nicht unsere Rechte, sondern unsere Pflichten. Es hat eine notwendige Beziehung auf Berufe, die zur Wohlfahrt der Menschheit und nichts anderem führen. Es ergibt sich daraus die Folgerung,
dass kein Beruf zu niedrig und keiner zu hoch ist. Alle sind gut, rechtmäßig und durchaus wertgleich. Die Berufe eines Brahmanen -- geistlichen Lehrers -- und eines Straßenkehrers sind gleich, und ihre gehörige Erfüllung verschafft gleiches Verdienst vor Gott und scheint gleichzeitig gleichen Lohn vor den Menschen eingetragen zu haben. Beide hatten Anspruch auf ihren Lebensunterhalt und nicht mehr. Man findet in der Tat heute noch in den Dörfern schwache Spuren dieser gesunden Gesetzgebung. Wenn ich in Segaon mit seinen sechshundert Einwohnern lebe, finde ich keinen großen Unterschied im Einkommen der verschiedenen Berufe, einschließlich der Brahmanen. Ich finde ferner, dass auch in diesen entarteten Tagen echte Brahmanen zu finden sind, die von ihnen freiwillig gespendeten Almosen leben und frei austeilen, was sie an spirituellen Schätzen besitzen . . . Die Anmaßung einer höheren Stellung eines Standes über einen anderen ist Verstoß gegen das Gesetz. Und es gibt nichts im Varna-Gesetz, was den Glauben an Unberührbarkeit rechtfertigte." [Harijan. -- 1936-07-18] |
Religionswechsel ist Verrat
| "Religion ist eine Sache von Leben und Tod. Ein Mensch wechselt seine Religion nicht wie seine Kleider. Er trägt sie mit sich bis zum Grabe. Auch bekennt ein Mensch seine Religion nicht, um andere zu verpflichten. Er bekennt eine Religion, weil er nicht anders kann . . . Das Band der Religion ist, wenn es etwas taugt, enger als Blutsverwandtschaft. Es ist eine Sache des Herzens. Ein »Unberührbarer«, der seinen Hinduismus angesichts der Verfolgung von der Hand solcher Hindus vorlebt, die sich selbst eine höhere Stellung anmaßen, ist ein besserer Hindu als der »höhere« Hindu von eigenen Gnaden, der eben dadurch,
dass er Überlegenheit beansprucht, seinen Hinduismus verleugnet. Daher sind jene, die auf den
Hinduismus zu verzichten drohen, nach meiner Meinung Verräter an ihrem Glauben." [Young India. -- 1925-06-04] |
Missionierung der Harijans schadet der Religion
| "Wenn die Führer der verschiedenen Religionen in Indien aufhörten, wetteifernd die Harijans in ihr Garn zu locken, wäre das gut für dieses unglückliche Land. Ich bin tief von der
Überzeugung durchdrungen, dass jene, die sich auf diesen Wettstreit einlassen, der Sache der Religion
keinen Dienst erweisen. Indem sie aus der politischen und ökonomischen Perspektive darauf blicken, setzen sie die religiösen Werte herab, während die eigentliche
Aufgabe darin bestünde, die Politik und alles andere unter dem Blickpunkt der Religion zu bewerten. Religion
befasst sich mit der Wissenschaft der Seele. Wie groß auch die anderen Kräfte der Welt sind -- wenn es so etwas wie Gott gibt, ist Seelenkraft die größte von allen. Wir wissen als Tatsache,
dass, je größer die Kraft ist, sie um so feiner ist. Daher steht die Elektrizität voran unter den feineren physischen Kräften. Und doch hat noch niemand sie gesehen, außer an ihren wundersamen Wirkungen. Aber kein von Menschen erfundenes Gerät kann irgendwelche positiven Messungen der Seelenkraft
oder spirituellen Kraft vornehmen. Auf diese Kraft hat sich der echte religiöse Reformer bisher stets verlassen und nie, ohne
dass seine Hoffnung erfüllt worden wäre. Es ist diese Kraft, die schließlich die Wohlfahrt der Harijans
und aller anderen entscheiden und die Berechnungen der Menschen zuschanden machen wird, mögen sie geistig euch noch so begabt sein. Der Reformer, der die Pflicht übernommen hat, den Hinduismus dem Unheil der Unberührbarkeit zu entreißen, darf bei allem, was er tut, nur von dieser Kraft abhängen und von nichts weiter." [Harijan. -- 1936-08-22] |
Konversion nützt den Harijan nichts
| "Ob der Harijan sich einen Christen, Moslem, Hindu oder auch Sikh nennt -- er bleibt doch ein Harijan. Er kann seinen vom sogenannten Hinduismus vererbten Makel nicht ändern. Er mag seine Tracht ändern und sich selbst einen katholischen, einen mohammedanischen oder Neo-Sikh-Harijan nennen -- seine Unberührbarkeit wird ihn verfolgen, solange er lebt. Es ist ein und dasselbe, ob man die Zahl nach der Fünf ein halbes Dutzend oder sechs nennt. Nicht eher, als bis die Unberührbarkeit aus dem Hinduismus ausgerottet ist, wird der Schandfleck von den Harijans verschwinden, einerlei, welches Etikett sie tragen." [Harijan. -- 1936-12-26] |
[Alle Zitate und Übersetzung aus: Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand <1869-
1948>: Vom Geist des Mahatma : Ein Gandhi-Brevier / Mohanda
Karamchand Gandhi. Hrsg. von Fritz Kraus. -- Baden-Baden : Holle, [1958]. --
(Geist des Morgenlandes). -- S. 207 - 210, 216f.]
| "For for the first time since Mahatma Gandhi's assassination 46 years
ago, his role as the revered and saintly «father of the nation» is being
challenged by leaders of the people he called Harijans or Children of God -- the
Untouchables. Now calling themselves Dalits -- the Oppressed -- the leaders of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) [Webpräsenz: http://www.dalitstan.org/bahujan/. -- Zugriff am 2001-07-23], which was swept to power in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh last year, have denounced Gandhi as «the biggest enemy of Dalits». The upper castes who dominate the media, the bureaucracy and the armed forces have reacted with outrage. But conscious of the new-found voting power of the Dalits, India's Brahmin prime minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao, went to Bombay yesterday to unveil a statue of their hero, the late Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar.
«Ambedkar carried out the daunting task of demanding rights for the lowest people, but the still more daunting task of implementing his ideals remains,» Mr Rao said. «Only when caste discrimination stops and political parties stop getting mileage out of these divisions can we say his dream has come true.» Mr Rao was not the only one to cash in on the 103rd anniversary of the birth of Ambedkar, the Untouchable who beat the system by going to the United States and Britain, becoming a brilliant lawyer and drafting India's constitution. The leaders of many states and political parties attended public meetings, to be seen garlanding his statues or unveiling new ones. The day emphasised what last November's elections had shown -- that Dalits are at last demanding their own rights. Gandhi, whose trader caste is a subgroup of Vaishya, third on the overall scale, grew up as an orthodox Hindu, although he opposed the denigration of Untouchables. For much of his life he believed in caste as an orderly system of doing one's duty and «following one's father's calling» which could protect India from the greed and venality of the West. But as a result of his long dispute with Ambedkar, he gradually accepted that the rigid caste system was unjust, and he even advocated inter-caste marriage. To modern Dalit leaders this change was too little and too late. «Our society is still dominated by upper castes who are chelas (disciples) of Gandhi,» said Ms Mayawait, deputy leader of the BSP. «These people treat Gandhi as their god. I don't.» She accused him of «gestures smacking of tokenism» when he helped Untouchables to clean latrines and shared meals with them -- practices which caste Hindus regard as intolerably polluting. «There is a new awakening among the Dalit masses who realise that they were
misled all these years,» she declared. «This awakening is bound to result in
them becoming more assertive in demanding their rights. If they don't get them,
they'll fight.» «Mayawati and others are causing great harm to the Dalits because they'll lose the sympathy of millions of Dalits who respect Gandhi,» he said. While Gandhi has certainly been idolised in the past, even by Dalits, the independent country he forged has done little for the overwhelming majority of Dalits. The BSP is the engine of their impatience, but whether it can be the vehicle that will solve their problems, is another matter. Mr Limaye thinks not. He accused the BSP leader, Kanshi Ram, of dismissing questions about his economic policies by saying: «Just give us power, the rest will follow.» «A party with no policy for production and creating jobs has no future,» Mr Limaye declared. «It may not last for more than three years.»" [Rettle, John: Oppressed of India turn on Gandhi. -- In: The Guardian. -- 1994-04-15] |
Abb.: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (1891 - 1956) (Bildquelle: http://www.ambedkar.org/.
-- Zugriff am 2001-07-24)
Webpräsenz: http://www.ambedkar.org/.
-- Zugriff am 2001-07-23
Webportal: http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/India/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/20th_Century/People/Ambedkar__Babasaheb/.
-- Zugriff am 2001-07-28
|
"Ambedkar, Bhimrao Rhamji(1891-1956), indischer Rechtsanwalt und Sozialreformer, der in Indien für die Rechte der Kaste der „Unberührbaren" kämpfte. Ambedkar wurde in Mahu als 14. Kind einer armen Hindufamilie der untersten Kaste der Unberührbaren geboren, studierte in den USA und in England Wirtschaftswissenschaften und Jura und war ab 1924 am Obersten Gericht in Bombay tätig. Wenige Jahre später wurde der erfolgreiche Anwalt als Professor an das staatliche Institut der Rechtswissenschaften in Bombay berufen. Daneben setzte sich Ambedkar aktiv für die Belange der Unberührbaren ein. Er gründete verschiedene Organisationen, die für die soziale Gleichheit sowie für Eheschließungen zwischen den verschiedenen Kasten kämpften. Er gab außerdem Zeitschriften heraus, die sich mit diesem Themenkomplex befassten, u. a. das Magazin Mooknayak („Führer der Stummen"). Und schließlich richtete er in Bombay mehrere Wohnheime für Studenten der Kaste der Unberührbaren ein. Mit den Ergebnissen seiner Aktionen unzufrieden, begann Ambedkar 1927 mit gezielten Kampagnen, z. B. organisierte er Satyagrahas (friedliche Proteste), um die Diskriminierung der Unberührbaren anzuprangern. Als anerkannter Führer der unterdrückten Klassen wurde Ambedkar als Delegierter nach London zu den Round-table-Konferenzen über die Zukunft Indiens (1930-1933) entsandt. 1935 erklärte er, dass die Unberührbaren innerhalb des Hinduismus keine Hoffnung auf Gleichheit hätten und forderte sie auf, zum Buddhismus überzutreten. Es kam zu Massenkonversionen, die sich allerdings in den meisten Fällen als oberflächlich erwiesen. Ambedkar stand in Opposition zum Indian National Congress, der seiner Ansicht nach von Hindus höherer Kasten beherrscht wurde. Seine Führungsrolle innerhalb der Harijans („Kinder Gottes") wurde jedoch vom Kongress anerkannt, und er wurde vom Kongress für die verfassunggebende Versammlung nominiert. Nach der Unabhängigkeit Indiens wurde Ambedkar im Kabinett von Jawaharlal Nehru Justizminister. Er war maßgeblich an der Ausarbeitung der indischen Verfassung beteiligt und setzte in der Verfassung die soziale Gleichstellung der Unberührbaren durch. 1951 schied er aus Gesundheitsgründen aus der Regierung aus und zog sich aus dem öffentlichen Leben zurück. Ambedkar war auch ein produktiver Publizist; er veröffentlichte mehrere Studien über das Phänomen der Kasten, u. a. Castes in India – Their Mechanism, Genesis, and Development (1916) sowie politische Kommentare wie Ranade, Gandhi, and Jinnah (1943)."[Microsoft Encarta Enzyklopädie Plus 2001 [Elektronische Ressource] : [Unterschleißheim] : Microsoft, ©2000. -- 3 CD-ROMs. -- Art. "Ambedkar"] |
| "In 1935 at Nasik district, Maharashtra, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had declared his
firm resolve to change his religion. He had declared that he was born as a Hindu
but will not die as Hindu. About a year later, a massive Mahar conference was
held on May 30 and 31, 1936, in Mumbai, to access the impact of that declaration
on Mahar masses. In his address to the conference, Dr. Ambedkar expressed his
views on conversion in an elaborate, well- prepared and written speech in
Marathi. Here is an English translation of that speech by Mr.Vasant Moon, OSD to
the committee of Govt. of Maharashtra for publication of Writings & speeches
of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
"Conversion is not a game of children. It is not a subject of entertainment. It deals with how to make man's life successful. Just as a boatman has to make all necessary preparations before he starts for voyage, so also we have to make preparations. Unless I get an idea as to how many persons are willing to leave the Hindu fold, I cannot start preparations for conversion. For a common man this subject of conversion is very important but also very difficult to understand. Class Struggle There are two aspects of conversion; social as well as religious; material as well as spiritual. Whatever may be the aspect, or line of thinking, it is necessary to understand the beginning, the nature of Untouchability and how it is practiced. Without this understanding, you will not be able to realize the real meaning underlying my declaration of conversion. In order to have a clear understanding of untouchability and its practice in real life, I want you to recall the stories of the atrocities perpetrated against you. But very few of you might have realized as to why all this happens! What is at the root cause of their tyranny? To me it is very necessary, that we understand it. This is not a feud between rival men. The problem of untouchability is a matter of class struggle. It is the struggle between caste Hindus and the Untouchables. That is not a matter of doing injustice against one man. This is a matter of injustice being done by one class against another. This "class struggle" has a relation with the social status. This struggle indicates, how one class should keep its relation with another class. This struggle starts as soon as you start claiming equal treatment with others... Conversion not for slaves The reason for their anger is very simple. Your behaving on par with them insults them. The untouchability is not a short or temporary feature; it is a permanent one .To put it straight, it can be said that the struggle between the Hindus and the Untouchables is a permanent phenomena. It is eternal, because the religion which has placed you at the lowest level of the society is itself eternal, according to the belief of the Hindu caste people. No change, according to time and circumstances is possible. You are at the lowest rung of the ladder today. You shall remain lowest forever. This means the struggle between Hindus and Untouchables shall continue forever. How will you survive through this struggle is the main question. And unless you think over it, there is no way out. Those who desire to live in obedience to the dictates of the Hindus, those who wish to remain their slaves, they do not need to think over this problem. But those who wish to live a life of self-respect, and equality, will have to think over this. How should we survive through this struggle? For me, it is not difficult to answer this question. Those who have assembled here will have to agree that in any struggle one who holds strength becomes the victor. One, who has no strength, need not expect success. This has been proved by experience, and I do not need to cite illustration to prove it. Three types of Strength The question that follows, which you must now consider, is whether you have enough strength to survive through this struggle? Three types of strength are known to man:
Which of these, you think that you possess? So far as manpower is concerned, it is clear, that you are in a minority. In Mumbai Presidency, the untouchables are only one-eighth of the total population. That too unorganized. The castes within themselves do not allow them to organize. They are not even compact. They are scattered through the villages. Under these circumstances, this small population is of no use as a fighting force to the untouchables at their critical moments. Financial strength is also just the same. It is an undisputed fact that you at least have a little bit of manpower, but finances you have none. You have no trade, no business, no service, no land. The piece of bread thrown out by the higher castes, are your means of livelihood. You have no food, no clothes. What financial strength can you have? You have no capacity to get redress from the law courts. Thousands of untouchables tolerate insult, tyranny and oppression at the hands of Hindus without a sigh of complaint, because they have no capacity to bear the expenses of the courts. As regards mental strength, the condition is still worst. The tolerance of insults and tyranny without grudge and complaint has killed the sense of retort and revolt. Confidence, vigour and ambition have been completely vanished from you. All of you have been become helpless, unenergetic and pale. Everywhere, there is an atmosphere of defeatism and pessimism. Even the slight idea, that you can do something does not enter your mind. Muslim Example If, whatever I have described above is correct then you will have to agree with the conclusion that follows. The conclusion is, if you depend only upon your own strength, you will never be able to face the tyranny of the Hindus. I have no doubt that you are oppressed because you have no strength. It is not that you alone are in minority. The Muslims are equally small in number. Like Mahar- Mangs, they too have few houses in the village. But no one dares to trouble the Muslims while you are always a victim of tyranny. Why is this so? Though there may be two houses of Muslims in the village, nobody dares to harm them, while the whole village practices tyranny against you though you have ten houses. Why does this happen? This is a very pertinent question and you will have to find out a suitable answer to this. In my opinion, there is only one answer to this question. The Hindus realize that the strength of the whole of the Muslim population in India stands behind those two houses of Muslims living in a village and, therefore, they do not dare to touch them. Those two houses also enjoy free and fearless life because they are aware that if any Hindu commits aggression against them, the whole Muslim community from Punjab to Madras will rush to their protection at any cost. On the other hand, the Hindus are sure that none will come to your rescue, nobody will help you, no financial help will reach you. Tahsildar and police belong to caste Hindus and in case of disputes between Hindus and Untouchables, they are more faithful to their caste than to their duty. The Hindus practice injustice and tyranny against you only because you are helpless. Outside Support From the above discussion, two facts are very clear. Firstly, you can not face tyranny without strength. And secondly, you do not possess enough strength to face the tyranny. With these two conclusions, a third one automatically follows. That is, the strength required to face this tyranny needs to be secured from outside. How are you to gain this strength is really an important question? And you will have to think over this with an unbiased mind. From this, you will realize one thing, that unless you establish close relations with some other society, unless you join some other religion, you cannot get the strength from outside. It clearly means, you must leave your present religion and assimilate yourselves with some other society. Without that, you cannot gain the strength of that society. So long as you do not have strength, you and your future generations will have to lead your lives in the same pitiable condition. Spiritual Aspect of Conversion Uptil now, we have discussed why conversion is necessary for material gains. Now, I propose to put forth my thoughts as to why conversion is as much necessary for spiritual wellbeing. What is Religion? Why is it necessary? ... 'That which govern people is religion'. That is the true definition of Religion. There is no place for an individual in Hindu society. The Hindu religion is constituted on a class-concept. Hindu religion does not teach how an individual should behave with another individual. A religion, which does not recognize the individual, is not personally acceptable to me. Three factors are required for the uplift of an individual. They are: Sympathy, Equality and Liberty. Can you say by experience that any of these factors exist for you in Hinduism? No Equality in Hinduism Such a living example of inequality is not to be found anywhere in the world. Not at anytime in the history of mankind can we find such inequality, which is more intense than untouchability... I think, you have been thrust into this condition because you have continued to be Hindus. Those of you who have become Muslims, are treated by the Hindus neither as Untouchables nor as unequals. The same can be said of those who have become Christians... That God is all pervading is a principle of science and not of religion, because religion has a direct relation with the behaviour of man. Hindus can be ranked among those cruel people whose utterances and acts are two poles apart. They have this Ram on their tongues and a knife under their armpits. They speak like saints but act like butchers... Thus we are not low in the eyes of the Hindus alone, but we are the lowest in the whole of India, because of the treatment given to us by the Hindus. If you have to get rid of this same shameful condition, if you have to cleanse this filth and make use of this precious life; there is only one way and that is to throw off the shackles of Hindu religion and the Hindu society in which you are bound. The taste of a thing can be changed. But the poison cannot be made amrit. To talk of annihilating castes is like talking of changing the poison into amrit. In short, so long as we remain in a religion, which teaches a man to treat another man like a leper, the sense of discrimination on account of caste, which is deeply rooted in our minds, can not go. For annihilating caste and untouchables, change of religion is the only antidote. Untouchables are not Hindus What is there in conversion, which can be called novel? Really speaking what sort of social relations have you with the caste Hindus at present? You are as separate from the Hindus as Muslims and Christians are. So is their relation with you. Your society and that of the Hindus are two distinct groups. By conversion, nobody can say or feel that one society has been split up. You will remain as separate from the Hindus as you are today. Nothing new will happen on account of this conversion. If this is true, then why should people be afraid of conversion? At least, I do not find any reason for such a fear... Revolution - Not Reform Changing a religion is like changing a name. Change of religion followed by the change of name will be more beneficial to you. To call oneself a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist or a Sikh is not merely a change of religion but also a change of name.. Since the beginning of this movement of conversion, various people have raised various objections to it. Let us now examine the truth, if any, in such objections... A congenital idiot alone will say that one has to adhere to one's religion because it is that of our ancestors. No sane man will accept such a proposition. Those who advocate such an argument, seem not to have read the history at all. The ancient Aryan religion was called Vedic religion. It has three distinct characteristic (features). Beef-eating, drinking and merry-making was part of the religion of the day. Thousands of people followed it in India and even now some people dream of going back to it. If the ancient religion alone is to be adhered to why did the people of India leave Hinduism and accept Buddhism? Why did they divorce themselves from the Vedic religion?... Thus this Hindu religion is not the religion of our ancestors, but it was a slavery forced upon them... To reform the Hindu society is neither our aim nor our field of action. Our aim is to gain freedom. We have nothing to do with anything else. If we can gain freedom by conversion, why should we shoulder the responsibility of reforming the Hindu religion? And why should we sacrifice our strength and property for that? None should misunderstand the object of our movement as being Hindu social reform. The object of our movement is to achieve social freedom for the untouchables. It is equally true that this freedom cannot be secured without conversion. Caste can't be destroyed I do accept that the untouchables need equality as well. And to secure equality is also one of our objectives. But nobody can say that this equality can be achieved only by remaining as Hindu and not otherwise. There are two ways of achieving equality. One, by remaining in the Hindu fold and another by leaving it by conversion. If equality is to be achieved by remaining in the Hindu fold, mere removal of the sense of being a touchable or an untouchable will not serve the purpose. Equality can be achieved only when inter-caste dinners and marriages take place. This means that the Chaturvarnya must be abolished and the Brahminic religion must be uprooted. Is it possible? And if not, will it be wise to expect equality of treatment by remaining in the Hindu religion? And can you be successful in your efforts to bring equality? Of course not. The path of conversion is far simpler than this. The Hindu society does not give equality of treatment, but the same is easily achieved by conversion. If this is true, then why should you not adopt this simple path of conversion? Conversion is a simplest path According to me, this conversion of religion will bring happiness to both the Untouchables as well as the Hindus. So long as you remain Hindus, you will have to struggle for social intercourse, for food and water, and for inter-caste marriages. And so long as this quarrel continues, relations between you and the Hindus will be of perpetual enemies. By conversion, the roots of all the quarrels will vanish... thus by conversion, if equality of treatment can be achieved and the affinity between the Hindus and the Untouchables can be brought about then why should the Untouchables not adopt the simple and happy path of securing equality? Looking at this problem through this angle, it will be seen that this path of conversion is the only right path of freedom, which ultimately leads to equality. It is neither cowardice nor escapism. Sanctified Racism Although the castes exist in Muslims and the Christians alike, it will be meanness to liken it to that of the Hindus. There is a great distinction between the caste-system of the Hindus and that of the Muslims and Christians. Firstly, it must be noted that though the castes exist amongst the Christians and the Muslims, it is not the chief characteristic of their body social. There is one more difference between the caste system of the Hindus and that of the Muslims and Christians. The caste system in the Hindus has the foundation of religion. The castes in other religions have no sanction in their religion ...Hindus cannot destroy their castes without destroying their religion. Muslims and Christians need not destroy their religions for eradication of their castes. Rather their religion will support such movements to a great extent. Conversion alone liberates us I am simply surprised by the question, which some Hindus ask us as to what can be achieved by conversion alone? Most of the present day Sikhs, Muslims and Christians were formerly Hindus, majority of them being from the Shudras and Untouchables. Do these critics mean to say that those, who left the Hindu fold and embraced Sikhism or Christianity, have made no progress at all? And if this is not true, and if it is admitted that the conversion has brought a distinct improvement in their condition, then to say that the untouchables will not be benefited by conversion, carries no meaning... After giving deep thought to the problem, everybody will have to admit that conversion is necessary to the Untouchables as self-government is to India. The ultimate object of both is the same. There is not the slightest difference in their ultimate goal. This ultimate aim is to attain freedom. And if the freedom is necessary for the life of mankind, conversion of Untouchables which brings them complete freedom cannot be called worthless by any stretch of imagination... Economic Progress or Social Changes? I think it necessary here to discuss the question as to what should be initiated first, whether economic progress or conversion? I do not agree with the view that economic progress should precede... Untouchability is a permanent handicap on your path of progress. And unless you remove it, your path cannot be safe. Without conversion, this hurdle cannot be removed... So, if you sincerely desire that your qualifications should be valued, your education should be of some use to you, you must throw away the shackles of untouchability, which means that you must change your religion... However, for those who need this Mahar Watan, I can assure them that their Mahar Watan will not be jeopardized by their conversion. In this regard, the Act of 1850 can be referred. Under the provisions of this Act, no rights of person or his successors with respect to his property are affected by virtue of his conversion... Poona Pact A second doubt is about political rights. Some people express fear as to what will happen to our political safeguards if we convert... But I feel, it is not proper to depend solely on political rights. These political safeguards are not granted on the condition that they shall be ever lasting. They are bound to cease sometime. According to the communal Award of the British Government, our political safeguards were limited for 20 years. Although no such limitation has been fixed by the Poona Pact, nobody can say that they are everlasting. Those, who depend upon the political safeguards, must think as to what will happen after these safeguards are withdrawn on the day on which our rights cease to exist. We will have to depend on our social strength. I have already told you that this social strength is wanting in us. So also I have proved in the beginning that this strength cannot be achieved without conversion... Political Rights Under these circumstances, one must think of what is permanently beneficial. In my opinion, conversion is the only way to eternal bliss. Nobody should hesitate even if the political rights are required to be sacrificed for this purpose. Conversion brings no harm to the political safeguards. I do not understand why the political safeguards should at all be jeopardized by conversion. Wherever you may go, your political rights and safeguards will accompany you. I have no doubt about it. If you become Muslims, you will get the political rights as Muslims. If you become Christians, you will get the political rights as Christians, if you become Sikhs, you will have your political rights as Sikhs. In short, our political rights will accompany us. So nobody should be afraid of it. On the other hand, if we remain Hindus and do not convert, will our rights be safe? You must think carefully on this. Suppose the Hindus pass a law whereby the untouchability is prohibited and its practice is made punishable, then they may ask you, 'We have abolished untouchability by law and you are no longer untouchables... Looking through this perspective, conversion becomes a path for strengthening the political safeguards rather than becoming a hindrance. If you remain Hindus, you are sure to lose your political safeguards. If you want to save them, leave this religion. The political safeguards will be permanent only by conversion. The Hindu religion does not appeal to my conscience. It does not appeal to my self-respect. However, your conversion will be for material as well as for spiritual gains. Some persons mock and laugh at the idea of conversion for material gains. I do not feel hesitant in calling such persons as stupid. Conversion brings Happiness I tell you all very specifically, religion is for man and not man for religion. To get human treatment, convert yourselves.
I consider him as leader who without fear or favour tells the people what is good and what is bad for them. It is my duty to tell you, what is good for you, even if you don't like it, I must do my duty. And now I have done it. It is now for you to decide and discharge your responsibility." [Quelle. http://www.angelfire.com/ak/ambedkar/BRwhyconversion.html. -- Zugriff am 2001-07-23] |
Dr. Ambedkar sah in vier Punkten den Vorzug des Buddhismus -- wie er ihn verstand -- gegenüber allen übrigen Religionen:
Die einzige Religion, die diese vier Postulate erfüllt, ist nach Dr. Ambedkar der Buddhismus.
| "... He taught as a part of religion, social freedom, intellectual freedom, economic freedom and political freedom. He taught equality, equality between man and man but between man and woman. It would be difficult to find a religious teacher to compare with Buddha whose teachings embrace so many aspects of the social life of a people whose doctrines are so modern and whose main concern was to give salvation to man in his life on earth and not to promise it to him in heaven after he is dead." | "[Buddha] lehrte als Bestandteil seiner
Religion
Es wäre schwer, einen religiösen Lehrer zu finden, der sich mit Buddha messen könnte,
|
| Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji <1892 - 1956>: Buddha and future of his religion. -- In: The Journal of the Mahabodhi Society. -- 1950 | |
| "I prefer Buddhism because it gives three principles in combination, which no other religion does. Buddhism teaches prajna (understanding as against superstition and supernaturalism), karuna (love), and samata (equality). This is what man wants for a good and happy life. Neither god nor soul can save society." | "Ich bevorzuge den Buddhismus, weil der
Buddhismus drei Prinzipien miteinander gibt, die keine andere Religion
hat. Buddhismus lehrt
Das ist, was der Mensch für ein gutes und glückliches Leben braucht. Weder Gott noch die Seele kann die Gesellschaft retten." |
| Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji <1892 - 1956>: Why I like Buddhism and how it is useful to the world in its present circumstances. -- BBC, London. -- 1956 | |
| "Hinduism believes in God. Buddhism has no God. Hinduism believes in soul. According to Buddhism, there is no soul. Hinduism believes in Chaturvarnya and the caste system. Buddhism has no place for the caste system and Chaturvarnya." |
|
| Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji <1892 - 1956>: Ambedkar's letzte Rede. -- Bombay. -- 1956-05-24 | |
| Dr. B.R. Ambedkar prescribed 22 vows to his followers during the historic
religious conversion to Buddhism on 15 October 1956 at Deeksha Bhoomi, Nagpur in
India. The conversion to Buddhism by 800,000 people was historic because it was
the largest religious conversion, the world has ever witnessed. He prescribed
these oaths so that there may be complete severance of bond with Hinduism. These
22 vows struck a blow at the roots of Hindu beliefs and practices. These vows
could serve as a bulwark to protect Buddhism from confusion and contradictions.
These vows could liberate converts from superstitions, wasteful and meaningless
rituals, which have led to pauperisation of masses and enrichment of upper
castes of Hindus.
The famous 22 vows are:
[Quelle: http://www.ambedkar.org/. -- Zugriff am 2001-07-23] |
Zu Kapitel 14
