 |
| Dr Ambedkar addressing the Deeksha gathering |
Anil Teltumbde, 2018 (as quoted by Mihir Shah)
The 1956 mass conversion to Buddhism by Dr Ambedkar has generally been generally looked upon as an
exercise on the part of the Dalits to mark their ceremonial exit from the
iniquitous Hindu caste system. While there is little doubt that the
freedom from the caste system, however symbolic, was the most prominent object
of the 1956 conversion, its spiritual aspect was no less significant. Had it
not been so, Ambedkar would not have burnt midnight oil to study the religion
in depth and present it again for his followers in a new form. The traditional
Buddhism had already rejected the Hindu caste system, and had freedom from the
caste system been the sole object of the conversion, it would have sufficed for
Ambedkar to direct his followers to merely convert to Buddhism in its received
form. That he did not do so and went ahead to found the Navyana school of Buddhism
indicated that he deeply intended to see post conversion an inner transformation
in the new entrants to the faith.
The conversion to Buddhism thus asked the
new entrants not only to abandon once for all the caste iniquities that had utterly
ruined their inner spirit and self-respect; it also asked them to embark upon
a
new journey of spiritual growth in their own life. The conversion to Buddhism offered them an
opportunity to open their mind to an era of spiritual and personal development based
on the new tenets of Buddhism as set forth by Ambedkar. In his numerous
discourses to his followers, Ambedkar had tirelessly exhorted them to adopt new
norms for their personal betterment and development in matters of personal
hygiene, appearance and choice of occupation. The conversion to Buddhism
however made demands on their abilities for spiritual development as well. It
was this intense urge of his for the creation of a new human being post
conversion that impelled him to embark upon reforms in the ancient religion.
 |
| Dr Ambedkar and Dr Savita accepting the Deeksha |
Ambedkar had a deep faith in the power of
the religion to persuade people to look beyond their self-interest. They are
not as willing to do so with secular values however moral and dignified they
may be. He therefore was of a firm opinion that an ethical society can rest only
on the firm foundations of a religion.
Yet it was important for him that a
religion did not create in its followers a fatalistic attitude toward their life
and a longing for the supernatural. He wanted therefore a religion that respected
the spirit of scientific enquiry and promoted the well-being of the individual
here on this earth. For the millions of his Dalit brethren, he needed a
religion that was consistent with a milieu of equal opportunities and that
motivated them to strive for a better standard of life, materialistic as well
as spiritual- a religion that promoted the values of fraternity, equality and liberty
that were conducive to the wholesome development of an individual.
 |
| Dr Ambedkar with Dr Savita holding a Buddha image |
The criteria for
reinterpretation
Ambedkar’s
reinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings may be said to be based on three
broad criteria. These were:
1. Rationality: Since Buddha’s
teachings have been known to be rational, anything that did not meet this
criterion was not a part of the Buddhist ideology. The non-rational additions, Ambedkar
said, were mostly added later by the Buddha’s disciples and need to be discarded.
2. Social Morality: Social morality is very crucial Buddhist thought and
any view that does not relate to social well-being should not be accepted as a
part of Buddhist thought.
3. Adaptability: While Buddha was
definite and clear on certain matters, he was flexible on others. These can be
adapted and interpreted in the context of changing times.
Dharma and Dhamma
Ambedkar traces the origin of religion
(Dharma) to attempts by the primitive man to explain the mystery of natural
phenomena like lightening, rain and flood. This effort to uncover the mystery
of these natural phenomena and bring them under human control has gone in his
view through different stages. These can be identified as four broad stages in
the evolution of religion. In this, the first stage was the magic performed to
curb the disastrous consequences of the natural phenomena. The stage of magic
evolved into a belief- the second stage- that there exists some power
–malevolent as well as benevolent-which causes these phenomena to occur. In the
third stage this power came to be known as God who was believed to have created
the world. The fourth stage was characterised by a belief in soul which is
eternal and answerable to God. Thus a religion at its final stage is essentially
characterised by a belief in God and soul.
If so, Buddhism is not a religion in the
conventional sense in that it believes neither in God nor in soul. There is no
element of supernatural in what Buddha called Dhamma. Dhamma is different from religion
(Dharma) and therefore must not be translated as religion. Dhamma, the second of
the three jewels of Buddhism the others being the Buddha and the Sangha, holds
a prominent place in Ambedkar’s interpretation of Buddhism. Some of the
distinguishing features of Dhamma as viewed by Ambedkar may be summed up as
follows:
a. Dhamma is devoid of the
element of supernatural: Unlike most
religions, Dhamma reckons with no supernatural elements. Thus while most
religions recognise the concepts of God and soul, Dhamma does not. Dhamma also
does not accept the supernatural ideas of rebirth and moksha as recognised by Hinduism. The concept of nirvana in Buddhism has no supernatural
element in it since it refers to a state of mind achieved by an individual
right in his present life. In other words, a person reaches the state of nirvana while he is still living. Nirvana refers to the control over
passion by following the path of righteousness. Nirvana can be said to be another name for righteous life.
b. Dhamma is a way of life
based on morality: The religion of Buddha, Ambedkar
says, is morality. In Buddhism in place of God, there is morality. In other
words Buddhism regards God as subordinate to morality. It means that unlike in
other religions actions are to be performed or not performed not in accordance
with whether they are sanctioned or not sanctioned by God but according to
whether they are right (moral) or wrong (immoral).
c. Dhamma is social: In view of Ambedkar, religion can be practised by
an individual all alone. But Dhamma cannot be practised independent of society.
This is because in Dhamma actions are judged moral or immoral in relation to
their potential to benefit other human beings. They do not require divine
sanction to be judged moral or otherwise. In Dhamma, a person has to be moral
not in order to please God but to enhance his own well-being. It is in their own interest for men to love
other men and be compassionate towards them. This explains why love and
compassion between people are central to the concept of Dhamma.
Dhamma, Adhamma and Saddhamma
Ambedkar has further elaborated the
concept of Dhamma distinguishing it
from Addhamma and Saddhama. Dhamma refers to the way of life of an individual which is free
from the supernatural, is based on morality and is practised in relation to
other men. It shows an individual a way to attain nirvana. In the sense that Dhamma
cannot be practised alone by an individual, Dhamma
is social but Dhamma gets social
perspective only when it becomes Saddhamma.
Till then Dhamma remains limited to a
personal pursuit of spiritual and moral values as in the case of attainment of nirvana.
The
purpose of Saddhamma is to clear the
mind of all impurities (negative feelings) and create on this very earth what
Ambedkar calls ‘a kingdom of righteousness’ through righteous behaviour by
following the Panchsheela, the Ashtanga Marga and the Paramitas.
The Saddhamma
as against the Dhamma takes a macro
view of social well-being and exhorts the laity not to be bothered about the
imaginary heaven after death. It appeals them to create a heaven right here on
this earth. Similarly Dhamma becomes Saddhamma when learning is not confined
to a certain sections of society but opens it to all. In the same vein,
Ambedkar underlines in Saddhamma the
significance of Pradnya (insight as
against mere knowledge), Panchsheela
(character), Karuna (compassion
toward the poor, aged and unprotected) and finally the Maitri (love for all living beings, toward the whole living
environment).
Ambedkar further makes annihilation of the
Chaturvarnya system, the application
of the doctrine of worth rather than birth as a measure of a person’s abilities
and acceptance of social equality as a goal of human efforts to be the part of Saddhamma.
Adhamma
consists of beliefs in the supernatural, in the ideas of God and soul, in the
ability of rituals like sacrifices to yield the desired results, in views based
on speculation (as the origin of the universe) rather than facts, in mere
reading of books without understanding them and in the infallibility of books.
Buddhism: The New Form
In his preface to Buddha and His Dhamma, Ambedkar has identified four areas where he
has departed from the traditional interpretation of the Buddha’s views. These
have been:
1. Siddharth’s acceptance of
the life of a Parivrajaka: As the Buddhist
tradition has it, Siddharth, a prince by birth living a life of utmost luxury,
took to the life of the Parivrajaka (wandering religious mendicant), as a
result of a deep and saddening impact on his mind following the sights for the
first time in his life, of an old person, a sick man, a corpse, and a wandering
ascetic. The sights led Siddharth into a state of deep depression and to enter
upon a life of Parivrajaka later.
Ambedkar wholly dismisses the possibility
of Siddhartha not having ever encountered these sights upto that age of 29 when
he took the Parivraja. He finds the traditional explanation utterly ‘absurd’
and relates Siddharth’s Parivraja to the conflict between the Sakyas and Kolias
happening then over the sharing of water of the river Rohini. As Ambedkar
relates in The Buddha and His Dhamma,
Siddharth who belonged to the clan of Shakyas advised against going to the war
with the Kolias. However the Sakya Sangh passed a resolution in favour of the
war and asked Siddharth i. to participate in the war by joining the forces or
ii. face exile or death penalty or iii. accept condemnation and social boycott
of his family as also the confiscation of its property. Of these the first and
the third were obviously unacceptable to Siddharth since the first went against
his principle of non-violence and peace and the third for no fault of theirs
caused pain and harassment to his family. Siddharth accepted the second
punishment which however required the permission from the king of the Kosalas.
Siddharth however avoided this step by volunteering to take Parivraja thus
exiling himself rather than being ordered exiled from Kapilvastu by the king of
Kosalas.
Ambedkar thus states that Siddharth took
Parivraja not out of a depressed state of mind resulting from the saddening
sights he encountered but out of his deep commitment to peace and opposition to
the impending war. This interpretation by Ambedkar of Buddha’s Parivraja was in
keeping with his own anti-pessimistic view of life upholding the cause of the
spiritual development of his Dalit brethren.
2. The Four Aryan Truths: The Four Aryan Truths represent the second area of
Buddhism where Ambedkar has departed from the conventional viewpoint. The four
truths have been a very sacrosanct part of the established Buddhist thought and
are regarded as an essence of Buddha’s teachings.
■
The first truth –dukkha or the world
is full of suffering – highlights the fact of the all-pervading presence of
suffering in human life on this earth. The depressing sights that Siddharth saw
were all depictions of different kinds of sufferings. The suffering may result
from outward causes like illness or bereavement or it may result from within- a
lack of fulfilment within. (Diagnosis of the problem)
■
The second truth- samudaya or this suffering is caused by the
continuing craving - identifies the cause of this suffering which is our
craving, desire or attachment (tanha).
At the root of this constant craving are Three Poisons or Three Fires, namely,
a. greed or desire for material or sensual pleasure, b. ignorance or delusion
and c. hatred or destructive urges. The three poisons in turn cause the dukkha. The craving or tanha is ever increasing and can never
be satisfied fully. Its satisfaction is never permanent as a result of which it
leads to more suffering. Thus birth, death. oldage, disease, deprivation all
lead to human suffering. (Identification
of the cause of the problem)
■
The third truth- nirodh or the
suffering can be brought to an end – is the realisation that the elimination of
desire and attachment (tanha) is possible which finally results in the
cessation of suffering. The elimination of the desire and attachment is
possible through nirvana or
enlightenment. Nirvana means extinguishing the
three fires of greed, delusion and hatred. The state of Nirvana does not
have to be achieved after death. It is a state of mind that a person can reach
while still living. ‘It is a state of
profound spiritual joy, without negative emotions and fears.’ Someone who has attained the state of nirvana or enlightenment
is filled with compassion for all living things. (Realisation of the
cure for the problem).
■
The fourth truth- marga or there is a
path to end the suffering- points out to the existence of the Noble Eightfold
Path (Ashtangmarga) toward the elimination
of desire or attachment, and the attainment of the Nirvana. (Prescription for the solution to the problem)
The
Eightfold Path is a set of eight principles that prescribe avoidance of both
excess indulgence and severe asceticism since neither of them Buddha had found
to be helpful for attainment of the Nirvana.
The Path is also therefore known as the Middle Way. It consists of right
understanding, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.
Despite the central place that the Four Noble
Truths hold in Buddhism, Ambedkar feels that they are ‘a great stumbling block
for non-Buddhists in accepting the gospel of Buddhism.’ Probably because of
their overemphasis on the suffering in human life, Ambedkar feels that the four
truths deny any hope to man and are therefore in his words ‘a gospel of
pessimism’. As he says, if life, death and rebirth are all regarded as sorrow,
‘then there is an end of everything and neither religion, nor philosophy can
help a man achieve happiness in the world’. He wonders if the Four Truths were
a part of the original gospel or were added later by the monks. Ambedkar has
however accepted the Eightfold Path in the Fourth Truth that leads to
attainment of the nirvana which
however according to him is a wholly worldly non-supernatural phenomenon.
In Ambedkar’s inter-personal social
relations are central to the Buddhist thought. The human poverty and suffering
in the world in Buddha’s view owed its existence to the man-made as against the
natural factors. It was the social injustice, economic inequalities and human
conflict that led to the human suffering. These were not supernatural factors
and the Buddha has shown the way to overcome them.
According to the tradition the Four Truths
were related by the Buddha to his first five disciples (Parivrajakas) as a part of his first sermon after the Enlightenment
delivered at the Deer Park at Sarnath near Banares.
Ambedkar departs from this version and presents
the teachings of the Buddha contained in the sermon in terms of the Path of
Purity, the Path of Righteousness and the Path of Virtue which respectively
consist of the Five Precepts (Panchsheel),
the Eightfold Path (Ashtangmarga) and
the States of Perfection (the ten Paramitas).
This was the new Dhamma essential for the spiritual development of a Buddhist.
Going through the contents of these three prescriptions, one is left with little
doubt that it is indeed so. The new Dhamma was consistent with modern values of
science, has no element of supernatural in it and underlines morality in
inter-personal relationships. It held out a solution to end human suffering.
3. Doctrines of soul, karma and rebirth: The ideas of soul, karma and rebirth came into being during the times of Upanishads
(between 800 BC and 500 BC) and as such have predated Buddhism. The theory of
Karma in Hinduism states that a person is responsible for his or her own
action. Good or bad actions on a person’s part will accordingly lead to pleasant
or painful consequences in his life. If a person does not live in his present
life to enjoy or suffer these consequences, these will be carried to his next
life where he will do so. Since Hinduism accepts the concept of soul, its karma
theory has an acceptable logic of its own. This logic states that after the
death of a person while his physical body is no more, his soul enters a new
body (transmigration) through rebirth and thus experiences pleasure or pain in
the new life resulting from his actions in previous life. The traditional
Buddhism accepts the theory sans the concept of soul.
Ambedkar however feels that the
traditional karma theory to be valid requires acceptance of the concept of
soul. However since Buddhism does not approve of the idea of soul, it cannot
accept the theory and the idea of rebirth contained therein as expounded in
Hinduism. He therefore offers a new explanation of the concept of rebirth.
The traditional karma theory in Ambedkar’s
view is embedded in social injustice. The theory assumes that a person is
responsible for the pleasant and painful experiences in his life since these
were caused by the person’s own actions either in his present or previous life.
If accepted this would mean that a person afflicted with poverty and misery in
his present life is responsible for his own suffering, and that the state or
the wealthy sections of society need make no efforts to ameliorate the
conditions of people like him. Worse, the theory encourages fatalism since it
assumes even the poor and the unhappy can do little to improve their own state.
The unfortunate themselves, it assumes, are responsible for their woes and can
do little but to suffer them. With his profound emphasis on compassion or karuna as a prominent element of Buddhism,
the Buddha was least likely to accept the logic of the traditional karma theory, Ambedkar felt.
Thus Ambedkar did not believe as was
expounded in Hinduism in the inheritance of the past karma or rebirth and its
being carried into the future life. He believed the ‘Hindu doctrine of the past
karma as the regulator of future life’ to be an wholly unjust in that it was
propounded ‘to enable the state or the society to escape the responsibility for
the condition of the poor and the lowly’.
Ambedkar therefore offers his own explanation
of the idea of rebirth consistent with the absence of soul. He interprets the
Buddha saying that the human body is composed of four elements, namely, Prithvi (earth), Apa (water), Tej (fire) and Vayu (air). When the human body dies, these four elements join the
similar elements floating in the space. When these four elements floating in
the space join together, a new birth takes place. In Ambedkar’s view this is
what Buddha meant by rebirth. The elements, he says, need not be from one body;
they may be from different dead bodies. Thus in his view while the body dies,
the elements survive giving rise to new births. Thus it is just a new birth,
not necessarily the rebirth of the person who has died. It is not rebirth of
the soul or rebirth of the same person. This explanation of rebirth has no
element of supernatural in it and is in keeping with the tenets of science. It
does not require transmigration of soul and is in consonance with the law of
conservation of energy in physics and chemistry which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it
can only be transformed from one form to another. And this is what happens,
Ambedkar believed, in the wake of the death of the physical body.
4.
Bhikkhu Sangh: The fourth area of problem in
Ambedkar’s view is the institution of the Bhikkhus created by the Buddha. Ambedkar
here raises the moot question as to the purpose of the Buddha behind creating
this institution. He wonders whether the Buddha’s objective behind creating the
Bhikkhu was to create a ‘perfect man’ or whether it was to create a ‘social
servant’. Ambedkar answers the question saying that the Buddha would certainly
prefer the Bhikkhu to be a social servant rather than a perfect man. Ambedkar visualised
the Bhikkhu to be a person wholly dedicated to the service of the people and to
his role as their friend, philosopher and guide. On the other hand a Bhikkhu
who was a perfect man but kept to himself was he felt a ‘selfish’ person and
one who was of little use for the propagation of the Buddhism. A Bhikkhu,
Ambedkar said, ‘who is indifferent to the woes of mankind, however perfect in
self-culture, is not at all a Bhikkhu’.
It is thus clear
that Ambedkar did not want the Bhikkhu to work for his own personal spiritual
development alone. A Bhikkhu was not supposed to be a mere preacher of Dhamma;
he was expected to set an example of himself for the upasakas or laity as a
person of a high moral character of Buddha’s vision. That was why the Buddha
asked the Bhikkhus to abide by the strict rules of moral and ethical behaviour.
The Sangh was supposed to be a model for the society to emulate- a model that
was practicable and within reach of the common people. For this reason for Ambedkar the social
connection of the Bhikkhus with the laity was of supreme importance; it was the
strength of this social connection with the laity that decided the ability of
the Bhikkhus to spread Buddha’s social message among the common people and
create eventually a society based on strong moral values. In this way ideally a
Bhikkhu laboured hard not only to accomplish his own moral and spiritual growth
but also to mitigate the suffering of the poor and the helpless. It was for
this reason that he was called upon to give up the bonds of his family and home
and dedicate himself fully to the service of the people. ‘But he does not
retire from the world. He leaves home so that he may have the freedom and
opportunity to serve those who are attached to their homes but whose life is
full of sorrow and misery and who cannot help themselves’.
Concluding
remarks
A few
thoughts that come to mind with regard to Ambedkar’s reinterpretation of
Buddhism may be summed up as under:
■ The twin
objectives of conversion
The 1956
mass conversion to Buddhism had twin objectives of the rejection of and thus
freedom from the Hindu caste system on the one hand, and post conversion, the
personal spiritual growth of the convert on the other. Thus Ambedkar did not merely
want his Dalit brethren to quit passively the caste system and assert they were
no longer a part of it. Though this inner change that the new identity brought in
them was very important, he wanted them to wear the identity and practise the
new religion in a way that could help them in their own personal spiritual
development. In his numerous speeches to his Dalit audience, Ambedkar is too
often seen urging them to strive for their own personal growth rather than
blame their fate for their condition. Thus he expected the conversion to usher
in a new spirit of confidence and personal aspirations in his following.
■ A new
philosophy of living for the socially relegated
Even in
its received form, Buddhism, Ambedkar felt, held out a prospect for a new
philosophy of living for India’s Dalits and other socially relegated groups of
the Hindu society. Buddhism, even in its traditional form, not only rejected
the caste system of which the Dalits were victims for centuries; it also
preached love and peace, and discounted a belief in the supernatural that
included the ideas of God, soul and rebirth. It was a religion that went
closest to the spirit of science, something that was urgently needed for
India’s vast population afflicted with ignorance and superstition. Had Ambedkar not reinterpreted Buddhism and
asked his followers merely to convert to the new religion, they still stood to
benefit from these fine traits of Buddhism.
It is
thus clear that Ambedkar undertook the reinterpretation of Buddhism with
India’s Dalits and socially backward in mind. The traditional version of the
Four Truths is probably a factor that attracts many an affluent section of
people all over the world who have had a surfeit of materialism and are looking
for an alternative means to lead a happier life. Ambedkar did not have these
people in mind. He had India’s Dalits and the socially backward in mind who
needed a philosophy that woke them up to a life of hope and confidence. They
needed a philosophy that helped them realise their aspirations based on their
own efforts, not on the supernatural. Buddhism based on the principles of
equality, fraternity and liberty, devoid of fatalism and a belief in
supernatural, he felt, provided a way out.
■ Social
message and ‘morality’
Ambedkar regarded
social message and ‘morality’ as an integral part of a religion. For him the
social message of a religious faith held great significance. He looked at
Buddhism as an instrument of social change and transformation. That was why as seen above Ambedkar visualised the Bhikkhu to be a
person wholly dedicated to the service of the people and to his role as their
friend, philosopher and guide. He had no love lost for a religion that
is personal and practised all alone as against Dhamma which he said was social
and concerned with ‘right relations between man and man in all spheres of
life’. In other words, he says ‘one man if he is alone does not need Dhamma.
But when there are two men living in relation to each other, they must find a place
for Dhamma whether they like it or not’.
Morality
understood as moral relations between people, Ambedkar felt, should be the base
of a religious faith. But in most religions, he felt, morality is understood in
relation to God who must decide an action to be moral or immoral, right or
wrong. On the other hand in Ambedkar’s view, an action should be judged moral
or immoral in relation to its contribution to the social well-being. He
maintained that Dhamma as distinct from religion was nothing but morality, and
that Dhamma, if practised by everyone, will lead to a society free of
exploitation and based on fraternity, equality and liberty.
■ Gospel of
Buddhism with a difference
Ambedkar
went beyond mere criticism of the received form of Buddhism and created a
Gospel of Buddhism that played down fatalism in life and underlined optimism
based on human effort. Ambedkar’s
version of the Four Truths should be regarded as the crux of his exercise of
reinterpreting the received form of Buddhism. It respected the aspirations of
the poor and the downtrodden for a decent life devoid of want and misery, and yet exhorted them to
refrain from a life of indulgence by following the Noble Eightfold Path that
stressed morality in life.
■ Ambedkar:
An astonishingly religious radical
Reading
Ambedkar’s Buddha and His Dhamma, one
often feels that he was more of a religious than a political radical. Yet he
did not advocate a theocratic state and chose a religious philosophy that was
consistent with the values of democracy and liberalism. Ambedkar’s religious radicalism was
astonishing and his courage of conviction total as we find him having no qualms
about questioning the most basic tenets of Buddhism like The Four Noble Truths,
which he dubbed ‘a gospel of pessimism’. In fact the right of criticism that
the Buddha had bestowed upon his disciples probably appealed him the most and
gave him courage to found a whole new body of thought in Buddhism, the Navayana
School.
Ambedkar
invested his last few years to an in-depth study of Buddhism. The Gospel of
Buddhism that he created in the form of his ‘Buddha and His Dhamma’ was his
last gift to his followers. Had he lived longer he would have chalked out a
plan for the systematic propagation of Buddhism in India. His successors have probably
not proved equal to the task. The policy of reservation that precludes
religion-based benefits may also have been a stumbling block. Buddhism in India, as a result, has largely
remained confined to the Mahar community. The Buddhist population in the
country numbers more than 8 million, less than 1 per cent of India’s total
poulation. Yet in absolute terms, the size is not small. While conversion may
not have brought them much economic benefit, it did bring in them a
psychological change. It brought them closer to a life of self-respect and
confidence and made them heir to the vast intellectual heritage of Buddhism. As
Eleanor Zelliot says ‘The convert himself feels a release from the concept of
pollution, a new freedom and self-respect’. For this reason alone, they can be
ever grateful to Dr Ambedkar.
References:
1. Ambedkar B. R., The Buddha and His Dhamma (Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and
Speeches, 1992)
2.
Ambedkar B. R. Buddha and Future of His
Religion (Mahabodhi Society Journal May 1950)
3. Pandit Nalini, Ambedkar
(Granthali, 1996) (Marathi)
4. Pradeep Gokhale, Dr. Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Buddhism in The Philosophy of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (IPQ Publication, Pune (2008).
Available online.
5. Sangharakshita,
Ambedkar and Buddhism (Samyak
Prakashan, 2017;Windhorse Publications, UK)
6. Gore M. S., The
Social Context of an Ideology (Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1993)
7.
Mihir Shah, Ambedkar’s Most Radical, Most
Forgotten Legacy (The Beacon Webzine, April 2019)
8. Zelliot Eleanor, From Untouchable to Dalit (Manohar, 1996)
