बहुजन समता प्रबोधिनी संस्था, विरार

शिक्षणातून प्रगतीकडे...

Foundations of Ethical Nation Building

The Welfare Economics of Lord Buddha

Shankarrao Ingale – Vasai
Right Livelihood is an essential part of Lord Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path. From this, it becomes clear that a concept similar to “Buddhist economics” must have existed since the time of the Buddha.
What is Right Livelihood? In the book The Buddha and His Dhamma, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar explains:
“Every person must earn a living. There are many ways to do so. Any means that harms others or causes injustice is wrong. The means of earning that do not harm or exploit others and are sufficient for living are right. That is called Right Livelihood.”
Right Livelihood must be based on necessity, not desire. Human beings need food, shelter, clothing, and affection to survive. These must be earned through right effort  without injustice, immorality, or violence.
Right Livelihood should be constructive, not destructive. It must be entirely based on morality; otherwise, it cannot be called right. Livelihood should fulfill genuine needs, not endless desires. Desires are often unattainable. Desire and greed create complications in life. Buddha taught contentment:
“Santutthi Parama Dhanam”
(Contentment is the greatest wealth.)
If desires are not fulfilled, craving increases and causes suffering. Therefore, livelihood must be based on need, not on craving.
Buddha says in the Dhammapada that even a rain of gold coins cannot satisfy human desires. Sensual pleasures bring little satisfaction and much suffering. The wise do not delight even in heavenly pleasures. A true disciple seeks the end of craving.
Earning livelihood through violence, killing, cheating, lying, exploitation, or immoral wealth accumulation is against Dhamma. Such means contradict Buddhist teachings. The Buddha emphasized that life should be simple and straightforward, not complicated.
In the Digha Nikaya, particularly the Sigalovada Sutta (often called the householder’s code), Buddha explained how to earn wealth ethically, protect it, use it wisely, and support one’s family responsibly. This shows that Buddha had a rational and moral economic framework that promotes happiness, peace, and stability in society.
Modern welfare economics is associated with Arthur Cecil Pigou. He argued that economics is not just about wealth but about human welfare. Welfare economics studies how limited resources should be distributed for maximum social benefit.
However, nearly 2,500 years ago, Buddha expressed a similar principle through the idea of “Bahujan Hitaya, Bahujan Sukhaya” (for the welfare and happiness of the many). Buddha emphasized both material and spiritual well-being. Though Pigou is considered the founder of welfare economics, Buddha articulated its essence centuries earlier.
Some question whether Buddhism can have an economic system, as Buddha emphasized detachment from material wealth. Yet, Buddha did not promote poverty. He did not oppose wealth itself —only unethical acquisition of wealth. Wealth must be earned morally.
Many wealthy followers supported Buddha, such as King Bimbisara, Anathapindika, Migaramata, and King Pasenadi.
Buddhist monasteries had an economic structure based on donations (Dana). The Sangha functioned on voluntary contributions. Donation was considered a meritorious act producing positive karmic results. In this sense, Dana functioned as a moral exchange system.
In countries like China and Japan, Buddhist institutions have also developed sustainable income models. The Japanese company Kongo Gumi, known for building Buddhist temples, is one of the oldest continuously operating companies in the world, with a history of over 1,400 years.
In recent decades, Buddhist-influenced economies have grown significantly. Countries like China, Japan, and South Korea have become major global economic powers. Even in advanced nations such as United States, United Kingdom, and France, many multinational companies adopt ideas aligned with Buddhist thought, such as simplicity and limited desires (similar to “Small is Beautiful”).
All eight components of the Noble Eightfold Path can be applied to business:
Right View and Right Intention help in strategic vision.
Right Speech improves communication in meetings and management.
Right Effort ensures dedication and persistence.
Right Livelihood ensures ethical business practices.
Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration enhance awareness and decision-making.
Thus, Buddha’s teachings are not only for spiritual liberation but also for material well-being and social welfare.

Constitution Day Special

Prof. Sanjay Suryavanshi
Summary of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s final speech in the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, one day before the Constitution was adopted
In my view, no matter how good a Constitution may be, if the people responsible for implementing it are dishonest, it will turn out to be bad. Likewise, no matter how bad a Constitution may be, if those implementing it are honest, it can turn out to be good. The working of a Constitution does not depend entirely on its form. A Constitution only creates organs of the State such as the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. How these organs function ultimately depends on the people and the political parties they create to pursue their aspirations.
If we truly wish democracy to exist not merely in form but in reality, what must we do? First, we must hold fast to constitutional methods for achieving our social and economic objectives. This means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It also means we must set aside methods like civil disobedience, non-cooperation, and satyagraha when constitutional avenues are available. When no constitutional methods existed, such extra-constitutional methods were justified. But when constitutional methods are available, there is no justification for using unconstitutional ones. These methods are nothing but the grammar of anarchy. The sooner we abandon them, the better for us.
Second, all who care for democracy must heed the warning given by John Stuart Mill. He said that people must not lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, nor trust him with power in such a way that he may use it to destroy democratic institutions. Gratitude toward great leaders who served the nation is appropriate, but gratitude must have limits. As the Irish patriot Daniel O’Connell said: No man can be grateful at the cost of his self-respect; no woman can be grateful at the cost of her virtue; and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.
India needs this warning more than any other country because devotion or hero-worship plays a significant role in Indian politics. In religion, devotion may lead to salvation. But in politics, devotion or personality worship leads inevitably to degradation and ultimately to dictatorship.
Third, we must not be content with political democracy alone. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless it rests on the foundation of social democracy. Social democracy is a way of life that recognizes liberty, equality, and fraternity as principles of life. These three cannot be separated. They form a union. To separate one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.
Liberty cannot be divorced from equality. Without equality, liberty would mean the supremacy of a few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality cannot become natural; they would require a police force for enforcement.
Indian society lacks two essential things: equality and fraternity. Socially, it is based on graded inequality some are at the top, while others remain degraded. Economically, a few possess immense wealth while many live in abject poverty. On 26 January 1950, we will enter a life of contradictions. In politics, we will have equality—one person, one vote, one value. But in social and economic life, inequality will continue.
How long shall we continue to live this contradictory life? If we continue to deny equality in social and economic spheres, those who suffer from inequality may one day destroy the political democracy that this Assembly has so carefully built.
Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood among all Indians. It gives unity and cohesion to society. Achieving this is difficult. As James Bryce noted in The American Commonwealth, even in the United States there was hesitation in using the word “nation” because unity was not fully realized. If even Americans once struggled to feel they were a nation, how much more difficult is it for Indians, divided into thousands of castes?
We must recognize that we are not yet a nation in the social and psychological sense. Caste divides society and creates jealousy and hostility. Castes are anti-national. If we wish to become a true nation, we must overcome these barriers. Without fraternity, liberty and equality will remain only superficial.
Freedom is indeed a matter of joy. But it brings great responsibility. After independence, we can no longer blame the British for our failures. If something goes wrong, we alone will be responsible.
There is also a danger that people may grow tired of government “of the people” and prefer government “for the people,” regardless of whether it is elected by them or not. If we wish to preserve the principle of government by the people, we must guard against tendencies that favor benevolent authoritarianism over democratic governance.
This vigilance and commitment to constitutional democracy is the only true way to serve the nation. I know of no better path.

Ambedkarism is True Nationalism

Prof. Dr. Suresh Gotapagar
Although many ideologies exist in India, in the modern era two major ideologies claim that they alone can determine the nation’s future: Hindutva and Ambedkarism. Proponents of Hindutva argue that “Hindutva is nationalism” and that only Hindutva can build India into one nation. In contrast, supporters of Ambedkarism and progressive thinkers argue that Ambedkarism alone is capable of creating and preserving unity and integrity in India.
To understand this debate, we must first clarify the concept of nationalism. Thinkers such as James Wilford Garner, Ramsay Muir, and Harold Laski explained that a nation is formed when a group of people develop a feeling that “we are one.” This collective feeling of unity is nationalism. According to Laski, this feeling may arise from common race, language, territory, history, traditions, or political aspirations.
However, India is home to diverse races, languages, religions, castes, sub-castes, cultures, and traditions. With such diversity, how can a unified national feeling arise? Recognizing this reality, B. R. Ambedkar frankly admitted that India was not yet a nation in the social and psychological sense. Yet he was optimistic that India could become a united nation in the future if the right outlook was developed. The ideas and principles he proposed for achieving this unity form what we call Ambedkarism, reflected strongly in the Indian Constitution.
Dr. Ambedkar dedicated his life to achieving national unity through social integration. He believed that caste discrimination, social inequality, and gender injustice must be dismantled to build true national unity. He emphasized liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice as core human values. Therefore, Ambedkarism can be defined as an ideology centered on human values expressed through thought and action. It is inclusive and capable of achieving national integration.
One major obstacle to national unity in India has been the historical oppression of the majority (Bahujan) population. Social, religious, psychological, and economic exploitation created deep inequality. Ambedkarism emerged as a path to liberation. His famous call — “Educate, Agitate, Organize” — empowered the oppressed to fight injustice. It teaches that liberation must be achieved by people themselves; no divine force or prophet will rescue them. The creation of an equal and exploitation-free society is the core of Ambedkarism.
Secularism — meaning equal respect for all religions — is central to Ambedkarism. It accepts India’s vast religious and cultural diversity. The Indian Constitution reflects this principle. India has multiple religions, sects, castes, tribes, and traditions. Each has distinct practices and beliefs. This diversity enriches Indian culture. To unite such diversity, a unifying thread is required — that thread is secularism.
Secularism means no religion is superior or inferior, the State has no official religion, and no religion receives state patronage. Every individual has the right to practice, propagate, change, or even reject religion. This principle alone can bind diverse communities into a common Indian identity and nurture national feeling. Ambedkarism, essentially humanism, supports this view.
Humanism — another name for Ambedkarism — goes beyond mere equality. It advocates for the welfare, development, and inner growth of every individual. It demands freedom from exploitation. It respects personal faith but opposes religious fanaticism. It supports morality, secularism, scientific temper, and democracy. It rejects superstition and blind faith. These characteristics of humanism are clearly reflected in Ambedkarism.
Tolerance is another essential element. Although Dr. Ambedkar embraced Buddhism, he upheld religious tolerance. Excessive pride in one’s own religion and hatred for others lead to communal tension and violence. For national unity, religion must remain a personal matter, and people must cultivate the feeling: “I am Indian first and last.” Ambedkarism promotes such a spirit.
Ambedkarism also strongly supports scientific temper and opposes superstition. Many forms of exploitation are rooted in blind belief and fatalism. By promoting rationality and critical thinking, Ambedkarism seeks to free people from passive acceptance of injustice.
In contrast, the text argues that while Ambedkarism is progressive and transformative, Hindutva is portrayed as regressive, rooted in ancient traditions, ritualism, and resistance to modernity.
In essence, Ambedkarism encourages individuals to think about the upliftment of society and the nation. It demands transformation in thought and action toward welfare and justice. Change is its core principle. It is described as the driving force behind modern India’s transformation.
Finally, Ambedkarism is presented as a universal ideology. Wherever discrimination, inequality, or exploitation exists in the world, Ambedkarism offers a path to liberation. Only when inequality and exploitation end can people truly feel “we are one.” From that feeling arises nationalism and national integration. Therefore, the article concludes that there is no alternative to Ambedkarism — indeed, Ambedkarism itself is true nationalism.