User:Shawnhua8888/Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Criticism of the movement

Critics have argued that Neo-Buddhism does not have a very strong influence, especially after the death of Ambedkar, and the political force still does not have the power to bargain with dominant political parties. Besides, even though the movement focuses on Dalits, it still lacks enough force to raise the awareness of the general public, to alleviate poverty and to make significant transformation of the society. Even if people converted to Neo-Buddhism in their village, it was not reflective by the census in 2011. Such failure questioned Navayana’s ability to match people’s religious aspirations, and showed a lack of strength in the movement. The movement also ignores other identities of the Dalits, and only takes caste identity as its main source of fighting, so it is still restricted in the Brahminical ideology even as that is what they try to fight against.

Some critics also argue that Neo-Buddhism deviates too much from traditional Buddhism. Even though traditional Buddhism emphasizes equality among people, it does not outright deny caste system. What's more, despite its emphasis on people's liberation in the religious sense, it does not deny social distinctions as the norm of organizations in society, as the Buddha himself was the founder of a monastic order. A number of critics also argue that there is no moral foundation for the political practices that are based on Neo-Buddhist notions, since religion is totally voluntary, and Neo-Buddhism may thus violate democracy principles by restricting its followers to abide to certain non-religious rules.