He didn’t know Sanskrit, yet somehow earned a PhD in Vedic outrage. Ambedkar was proving that you can critique an entire civilization without reading its original texts.
Here’s a thread exposing the colonial and Christian roots of Ambedkar’s “Hindu criticism” :
(0/n)
Dr. Ambedkar’s entire understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism came not from authentic Sanskrit and Pali sources, but from colonial translators and Christian missionaries.
Hence, almost his entire understanding and criticism of Hindu religion falls flat on it's face. His ideology is just a product of British - Christian colonialism. Presently, Missionaries along with the Leftists are using Ambedkarism as a tool to divide the Hindu society and destroy Bharatiya Civilisation.
Here’s a thread exposing the colonial and Christian roots of Ambedkar’s “Hindu criticism” :
(0/n)
Dr. Ambedkar’s entire understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism came not from authentic Sanskrit and Pali sources, but from colonial translators and Christian missionaries.
Hence, almost his entire understanding and criticism of Hindu religion falls flat on it's face. His ideology is just a product of British - Christian colonialism. Presently, Missionaries along with the Leftists are using Ambedkarism as a tool to divide the Hindu society and destroy Bharatiya Civilisation.
(1/n):
Sources of Ambedkar’s textual knowledge.
Ambedkar almost never worked directly from Sanskrit or Pali manuscripts. In his own prefaces he thanks or cites:
•G. Bühler’s The Laws of Manu (Oxford, 1886)
•Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East series
•T. W. Rhys Davids and other members of the Pāli Text Society
•Monier-Williams, P. V. Kane, and Colebrooke
These Indologists were trained in the British Orientalist tradition; their editions were produced to serve colonial legal and missionary purposes.
Sources of Ambedkar’s textual knowledge.
Ambedkar almost never worked directly from Sanskrit or Pali manuscripts. In his own prefaces he thanks or cites:
•G. Bühler’s The Laws of Manu (Oxford, 1886)
•Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East series
•T. W. Rhys Davids and other members of the Pāli Text Society
•Monier-Williams, P. V. Kane, and Colebrooke
These Indologists were trained in the British Orientalist tradition; their editions were produced to serve colonial legal and missionary purposes.
(2/n):
The outlook of those translators
British Indology in the late 1800s tended to:
•Treat Indian texts as evidence of moral or racial backwardness.
•Divide Indian history into a “golden Buddhist age” and a “decadent Brahminical age.”
•Use scripture to justify the “civilizing mission” of the Raj.
So the English versions Ambedkar read already carried a story-line:
“Brahminism = oppression; Buddhism = rational reform.”
Ambedkar’s later historical narrative mirrors this structure almost exactly.
The outlook of those translators
British Indology in the late 1800s tended to:
•Treat Indian texts as evidence of moral or racial backwardness.
•Divide Indian history into a “golden Buddhist age” and a “decadent Brahminical age.”
•Use scripture to justify the “civilizing mission” of the Raj.
So the English versions Ambedkar read already carried a story-line:
“Brahminism = oppression; Buddhism = rational reform.”
Ambedkar’s later historical narrative mirrors this structure almost exactly.
(3/n):
Echoes in Ambedkar’s writings
In Who Were the Shudras? (preface) he notes that “the authorities I have followed are the English translators.”
His descriptions of ancient India: “priest-ridden,” “anti-woman,” “anti-labour”. These were parallel colonial judgments found in Max Müller or Rhys Davids.
This suggests that his intellectual vocabulary for India was shaped by the same colonial moral categories that British and missionary sponsored scholars used.
Echoes in Ambedkar’s writings
In Who Were the Shudras? (preface) he notes that “the authorities I have followed are the English translators.”
His descriptions of ancient India: “priest-ridden,” “anti-woman,” “anti-labour”. These were parallel colonial judgments found in Max Müller or Rhys Davids.
This suggests that his intellectual vocabulary for India was shaped by the same colonial moral categories that British and missionary sponsored scholars used.
(4/n):
Documented Christian or missionary exposure
•During his studies at Columbia University, Ambedkar read comparative religion with Prof. James Shotwell and John Dewey; both used Christian-liberal frameworks to discuss ethics and democracy.
•In London, he interacted with the Fabian Society, many of whose members were Christian socialists.
•Missionary figures such as Rev. John Massey corresponded with him during his early reform campaigns.
Documented Christian or missionary exposure
•During his studies at Columbia University, Ambedkar read comparative religion with Prof. James Shotwell and John Dewey; both used Christian-liberal frameworks to discuss ethics and democracy.
•In London, he interacted with the Fabian Society, many of whose members were Christian socialists.
•Missionary figures such as Rev. John Massey corresponded with him during his early reform campaigns.
(5/n):
Colonial Filters, Not Sanskrit Texts
Ambedkar openly admitted: “I do not know Sanskrit.”
Yet, he interpreted Hinduism through English translations by British orientalists; the same men who called Hindu society “barbaric.” His view was second-hand colonial sociology, not authentic understanding of Hindu religion and scriptures.
Colonial Filters, Not Sanskrit Texts
Ambedkar openly admitted: “I do not know Sanskrit.”
Yet, he interpreted Hinduism through English translations by British orientalists; the same men who called Hindu society “barbaric.” His view was second-hand colonial sociology, not authentic understanding of Hindu religion and scriptures.
(6/ n):
He relied on writers like John Muir, Rhys Davids, Monier Williams, Max Müller, and Vincent Smith; all products of the colonial academic establishment.
These men viewed India through the lens of Christian moral superiority and imperial justification.
He relied on writers like John Muir, Rhys Davids, Monier Williams, Max Müller, and Vincent Smith; all products of the colonial academic establishment.
These men viewed India through the lens of Christian moral superiority and imperial justification.
(7/n):
Colonial Purpose Behind Those Sources
British “Indology” wasn’t scholarship; it was strategy.
By depicting Hinduism as backward and oppressive, they justified British and Christian rule as “moral governance.”
Ambedkar unknowingly echoed the rhetoric of empire; not of reform, but of reinforcement.
Colonial Purpose Behind Those Sources
British “Indology” wasn’t scholarship; it was strategy.
By depicting Hinduism as backward and oppressive, they justified British and Christian rule as “moral governance.”
Ambedkar unknowingly echoed the rhetoric of empire; not of reform, but of reinforcement.
(8/n):
Zero Engagement with Śāstras
Ambedkar never studied Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta, or Dharmaśāstra commentaries firsthand.
His readings were summaries of summaries, filtered through Western moral judgment.
How can Amebdkar's criticism of Hinduism be valid when it’s three layers removed from the original thought?
Zero Engagement with Śāstras
Ambedkar never studied Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta, or Dharmaśāstra commentaries firsthand.
His readings were summaries of summaries, filtered through Western moral judgment.
How can Amebdkar's criticism of Hinduism be valid when it’s three layers removed from the original thought?
(9/n):
Buddhism Through Western Eyes
Even his understanding of Buddhism came through Rhys Davids and Thomas William Rhys Davids’ wife Caroline, who cast the Buddha as a Western-style reformer rebelling against Brahminism; a completely colonial framing.
Ambedkar simply adopted it wholesale.
Buddhism Through Western Eyes
Even his understanding of Buddhism came through Rhys Davids and Thomas William Rhys Davids’ wife Caroline, who cast the Buddha as a Western-style reformer rebelling against Brahminism; a completely colonial framing.
Ambedkar simply adopted it wholesale.
(10/n):
Vedic vs. Victorian Values
His moral framework wasn’t Indian.
It was Benthamite utilitarianism and Protestant morality, dressed in Buddhist robes.
So his rejection of Hindu ethics wasn’t a “revolution” . It was Victorian morality judging Vedic philosophy.
Vedic vs. Victorian Values
His moral framework wasn’t Indian.
It was Benthamite utilitarianism and Protestant morality, dressed in Buddhist robes.
So his rejection of Hindu ethics wasn’t a “revolution” . It was Victorian morality judging Vedic philosophy.
(11/n):
Echo Chamber
Almost every “source” Ambedkar cited to attack caste or religion was produced by the very empire that ruled over his people.
Instead of decolonizing thought, he internalized colonial prejudice and reproduced it in Indian language.
Echo Chamber
Almost every “source” Ambedkar cited to attack caste or religion was produced by the very empire that ruled over his people.
Instead of decolonizing thought, he internalized colonial prejudice and reproduced it in Indian language.
(12/n):
The Irony of ‘Liberation’
He claimed to liberate India from Brahminism, yet his tools were those of colonial anthropology, missionary theology, and British sociology.
In the name of emancipation, he reintroduced intellectual slavery to colonial frameworks.
The Irony of ‘Liberation’
He claimed to liberate India from Brahminism, yet his tools were those of colonial anthropology, missionary theology, and British sociology.
In the name of emancipation, he reintroduced intellectual slavery to colonial frameworks.
(13/n):
No Vedic, Only Victorian Critique
Ambedkar’s attacks on Vedas mirror Victorian missionary pamphlets calling Hindu texts “superstitious,” “inhuman,” “anti-woman.”
Ironically, these were the exact colonial tropes used to justify British and Christian rule over “heathens.”
No Vedic, Only Victorian Critique
Ambedkar’s attacks on Vedas mirror Victorian missionary pamphlets calling Hindu texts “superstitious,” “inhuman,” “anti-woman.”
Ironically, these were the exact colonial tropes used to justify British and Christian rule over “heathens.”
(14/n):
What the record shows about Ambedkar’s reading
Ambedkar’s notes and bibliographies list mainly:
Colonial-era Indological works: Bühler’s Laws of Manu (Oxford 1886), Max Müller’s and Rhys Davids’s Sacred Books of the East, Monier-Williams’s Hinduism (1877), Jolly’s Hindu Law and Custom, etc.
Modernist social philosophy: John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, Herbert Spencer, Dewey, and British utilitarian jurists.
These shaped his methods (historicism, comparative law, social-contract reasoning).
The Indological books he used had been produced by scholars who were also Anglican clergymen or who worked in a missionary publishing environment.
What the record shows about Ambedkar’s reading
Ambedkar’s notes and bibliographies list mainly:
Colonial-era Indological works: Bühler’s Laws of Manu (Oxford 1886), Max Müller’s and Rhys Davids’s Sacred Books of the East, Monier-Williams’s Hinduism (1877), Jolly’s Hindu Law and Custom, etc.
Modernist social philosophy: John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, Herbert Spencer, Dewey, and British utilitarian jurists.
These shaped his methods (historicism, comparative law, social-contract reasoning).
The Indological books he used had been produced by scholars who were also Anglican clergymen or who worked in a missionary publishing environment.
(15: n):
Modern Indologists such as Sheldon Pollock, Richard King, and B. N. Sarkar write that Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism must be read as a response within a colonial epistemic field: he reversed the value-signs (Buddhism good / Brahminism bad) but accepted the British analytical frame that divided Indian culture along those lines.
Modern Indologists such as Sheldon Pollock, Richard King, and B. N. Sarkar write that Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism must be read as a response within a colonial epistemic field: he reversed the value-signs (Buddhism good / Brahminism bad) but accepted the British analytical frame that divided Indian culture along those lines.
Image Quote reference:-
“I do not know Sanskrit.”- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, “Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah,” in Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, page 223 (Education Department, Government of Maharashtra edition)
“I do not know Sanskrit.”- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, “Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah,” in Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, page 223 (Education Department, Government of Maharashtra edition)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
