Radical Humanism of M. N. Roy B. K. Mahakul

Indian Political Science Association
RADICAL HUMANISM OF M. N. ROY

Author(s): B. K. Mahakul
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 66, No. 3 (July-Sept., 2005), pp. 607-618
Published by: Indian Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856152 .
Accessed: 07/05/2014 05:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Indian Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Indian Journal of Political Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Wed, 7 May 2014 05:13:33 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Indian Journal of Political Science
Vol.
LXVI,
No.
3, July-Sept.,
2005
RADICAL HUMANISM OF M. N. ROY
B K Mahakul
Manalyendra Nath
Roy
as a
political
thinker
of
Modern India is
a Radical Humanist, by disowning
Marxism. In
evolving
the so-
cial
philosophy of
Radical Humanism, he considers
himself
as a
humanist and not an orthodox Marxist,
If
e
integrated
Radical-
ism with
Scientific
humanism or New Humanism. His
political
views are
founded
on reason and
morality
and not on
any dogma.
He believed that the crisis
of
modem civilization is due to the
lack
of integrated
view
of
human nature.
According
to
M.N.Roy,
in
any revolutionary
social
philosophy sovereignty of
man must
be
recognized.
Man must be taken as a moral
entity
and not
merely
a
biological
one.
Roy
was critical
of
the Marxian con-
cepts of
economic determinism, dictatorship of
the
proletariat,
dialectal materialism,
and
surplus
value.
According
to him,
the
economic structure
of
the
society
should be so
planned
that it
would
promote freedom
and
well-being of
the individual. He
asserts that the task
of every fighter for
a new humanistic world
would be to make
every
individual conscious
of
his innate ra-
tionality.
Thus
Roy
stresses that neither
Capitalism
nor Parlia
-
mentaiy System
can solve the
problems of
mankind. New Hu-
manism is the
only
alternative,
which reconciles social
organi-
zation and individual
freedom.
His
philosophy
c f
Radical Hu-
manism is considered as his most
important
contribution, which
may provide for
a
strong foundation
to Indian
democracy.
Manabendra Nath
Roy,
the thinker and
intellectual, passed through
three
stages.
In the first
stage,
he was a national
revolutionary engaged
in
smuggling
arms and
money
for the
revolutionary
movement in
Bengal.
In
the second
stage,
he was a Marxist active in Communist movement. In the
third and final
stage,
he
emerged
as a Radical
Humanist, by disowning
Marxism As an
intellectual, M.N.Roy
had a zest for new ideas. He
accepted
Marxism in 1919 while in
Mexico,
but he did not remain a Marxist. In
1
928, Roy developed
serious differences with the Communist
International;
in which was a member since 1918 and
breaking
off his relations he reached
India. Since that
time,
he
developed
a new Social
Philosophy
known as
Radical Humanism. In
evolving
the social
philosophy
of Radical
Humanism, Roy
was influenced
by
different thinkers like
Marx, Hobbes,
Hegel,
and Lenin etc.
Roy attempted
to unite the rational ideas of these
different
thinkers,
which were diverse even
conflicting
stands of
thought;
in one
Philosophical System.
In 1940
Roy began
a
journey away
from
The Indian Journal of Political Science 608
Marxism towards Radicalism.
Humanism- The
Concept-
The term humanism has been derived from the
Latin word 'Humanus'
meaning
a
system
of
thought primarily
concerned
with human
being
and with human affairs in
general.
There have been
several schools of
humanism, particularly
French and German
Schools,
which have contributed much in its
development
in
history. However,
all
of them have one common
thing that, they
attach
primary importance
to
man. The humanists assert that man
by
nature is
good
and
capable
of
indefinite advances towards
perfection.
M.N.Roy
considered himself as a Radical and not an orthodox in
between 1940 to 1947.
Later,
he
changed
from Radicalism to what he
called
integral
scientific humanism or New Humanism. In
August
1947 in
the manifesto of New
Humanism, Roy explained
his
political
views as
being
founded on reason and
morality
and not on
any dogma. Roy
said:
"Most
revolutionary political practice
be
guided by
the Jesuitic dictum-
the end Justifies the means. The final sanction of revolution
being
its moral
appeal-
the
appeal
for social
justice- logically
the answer to the latter
question
must be in the
negative.
It is
very
doubtful if a moral
objects
can
ever be attained
by
immoral means. In critical
movements,
when
larger
issues are involved and
greater things
are at
stake,
some
temporary
compromise
in behaviour
may
be
permissible.
But when
practices
repugnant
to ethical
principles
and traditional human values are stabilized
as the
permanent
features of the
revolutionary regime,
the means defeat
the end.
Therefore,
Communist Political Practice has not taken the
world,
not even the
working class,
anywhere
near a new order of freedom and
social
justice.
On the
contrary,
it has
plunged
the
army
of revolution-
Proletarian as well as
non-proletarian
in an intellectual
confusion,
spiritual;
chaos,
emotional
frustration,
and a
general
demoralization"
(Roy
1947:
34
-37).
These words were reminiscent of Gandhi who
Roy
had denounced
for the
greater part
of his life.
M.N.Roy
has
viewed; history
cannot be considered
merely
a
succession of events. It contains the records of man's
struggle
for freedom.
In the
past
man either submitted to the forces of nature or to a blind faith
Radical Humanism of M. N.
Roy
609
in the existence of a
supernatural agency
like God
finding
himself
helpless
against
the forces of nature he wanted deliverance and
imagined
God for
absolute
dependence
and subordination. As a result of several hundred
years
of
struggle
man
ultimately
succeeded in
casting
off the illusion of
his relation with God. Renaissance in
Europe
was a revolt of man
against
the authoritarianism of
religion.
Liberated from the
tyranny
of
theology
and the
prejudices
of
supernaturalism,
mankind marched towards what
we call modern civilization. In such a situation
Roy
felt the need of a new
philosophy
to usher in the
age
of man it had to be a
primarily
concerned
with human
life,
a
philosophy
which would set human
spirit free,
a
philosophy
which would
explain
all the
phenomena
of nature and
experiences
of human life without
any
reference to
supernatural powers-
a
philosophy
with a social
purpose.
For
Roy,
the end of humanist tradition
in the wake of modernization
through
mechanization was a
tragedy making
the start of a decend civilization
prevailing
then.
Giving
his own
appreciation
of the situation M.N.
Roy said,
"
The
eclipse
of the humanist
tradition is the course of this
degeneration
and
decay.
Modern civilization
stood at the head of the
declining plane
of
decay
the movement it broke
away
from tradition of humanism-subordinated man to the institutions
(Roy 1952:269).
Roy's
New Humanism was
cosmopolitan
in outlook. It could think
not in terms of the nation or a class but
only
in terms of man. Such a
conception
could be the foundation of New
Humanism, new,
because it is
Humanism
enriched,
reinforced and elaborated
by
scientific
knowledge
and social
experience gained during
the centuries of modern civilization
(Royl947: 34).
His New Humanism is
pledged
to the ideal of a
commonwealth and
fraternity
of freeman. He believed that a
commonwealth of
morally
and
spiritually
liberated individual is the
fundamental
requirement
for the realization of a better and healthier
society.
Such a humanistic
society
would be a
spiritual community
not limited
by
the boundaries of national states-
capitalist,
fascist,
or of
any
other kind.
As a Radical
Humanist, Roy's approach
was individualistic. Man
must be taken as a moral
entity
and not
merely
a
biological
one. Man is
moral because he is rational. The universe must be taken as a moral order
governed by
laws inherent in itself. The individual must not be subordinated
either to a nation or to a class.
Roy rejected
both the nationalism of
Congressmen
and the
theory
of class
struggle
of the Communists. He said:
"
Radicalism thinks in terms neither of nation nor of
class;
its concern is
man,
it conceives freedom as freedom of the individual"
(Roy 1947:36).
The individual should not lose his
identity
in the collective
ego
of the
nation or of the class.
"
The
Nation-State,
in
practice,
makes no
greater
concession to the
concept
of individual freedom than the class-state of the
Communists,
and also of the socialists. And no modern democratic state
has
yet outgrown
nationalist collectivism"
(Roy, 1952).
M.N.Roy
was
impressed by
the
philosophy
of Karl Marx in the
beginning
of his
political
career. He
accepted
Marxism because he believed
that Marx was a humanist and that he was
deeply
concerned about man.
Humanism in Marx had
strong
attraction for
Roy. However, 1940,
as a
Radical
Humanist, Roy
ceased to believe in the Marxian
theory
of class
struggle. Society
could not survive without some kind of social cohesive
force
and, accordingly
class
struggle
could not be the
only reality (Roy
1947).
Linked with this
theory
of social cohesiveness
Roy's emphasis
was on the role of the middle class as the most
progressive
class in modern
society.
Whereas in Marxian
theory
the
working
class has a
special place,
in later formulations of
Roy
the middle class had a
special
status.
Roy
emphasized
the individual and not the
class,
but when he
spoke
in terms
of classes he
gave pride place
to the middle class and not to the
proletariat,
whom
Roy
characterized as the most backward stratum of
society (Roy
1952).
Roy recognized
the contribution of Marx in
giving
a new social
philosophy,
but he
rejected interpretation
of Marxism
by
the
Contemporary
Communists. Communism
began
as a movement for the salvation of the
Roy
61 1
world tortured and tormented
by capitalist exploitation
but
lately
is
causing
grave misgivings
even
among
the
progressive
forces of the modern world.
According
to
Roy,
"The abolition of
private property,
state
ownership
of
the means of
production
and
planned economy
do not
by
themselves end
exploitation
of labour nor lead to an
equal
distribution of wealth"
(Roy
1 952:3 1
).
To
Roy, dictatorship
of
any
kind was inconsistent with the ideal
for freedom. The claim of Communists that Proletarian
dictatorship
with
planned economy brings greatest good
of the
greatest
number has been
tested and
proved wrong.
M.N.Roy
was critical of the Marxian
concept
of economic
determinism. Economic determinism cannot be the social
philosophy,
which is
required
to lead civilized mankind out of the
present
crisis.
Roy
viewed
that,
"we must look
beyond
the
deceptive
ideal of Communism if
the threatened
catastrophe
is to be avoided. We must have faith in human
ingenuity
and the creativeness of the human
mind,
which are far from
being
exhausted", (Roy,
1961 : 1
5).
He contended that the "new social order
must combine
planning
with freedom and should be led
by
the ideal of
collective welfare and
progress".
Roy
denounced the theories of class
struggle
and of the
dictatorship
of the Proletariat. He wanted to
emphasize
the individual more than the
class,
whether it be the
working
class or the middle class.
Roy envisaged
the conflict of the
present age
as "between totalitarianism and
democracy,
between the
all-devouring-collective ego-nation
or class and the individual
struggling
for freedom
(Roy 1947:33) Roy
asserted that Marxian
emphasis
on revolution and on the
dictatorship
of the Proletariat would lead to
totalitarianism. Revolutions could not
bring
about miracles.
Roy
did not
discard the word 'revolution' in total. As a Radical
Humanist, Roy
came
to believe that a revolution should be
brought
about not
through
class
struggle
or armed violence but
through
education. Education not in the
conventional sense of
reading
and
writing,
but education in the cultural
sense,
of a
high degree
of
general
human
development.
The method of
education that
Roy emphasized
for
bringing
about the Radical Humanist
revolution was not
very
different from the constitutional method that the
early
moderates and liberals of India had advocated.
Roy's
revolution
involved no sudden
change.
His radical humanistic revolution was to be
achieved,
not
by
violence or armed
insurrection,
but
through
the slow
process
of education.
M.N.Roy
was
very
much critical of western
democracy, especially
parliamentary democracy. Democracy, which,
means
only counting
of
heads when heads have no freedom to live in
dignity
is a mere
deception.
Modern
democracy
wants to be in
power
and for this
they
want to
keep
people
backward. Under
parliamentary system intelligence, integrity,
wisdom,
moral excellence do not count for much. Yet these are human
virtues. Unless these influence
political organization,
a democratic
way
of life can never be realized. Unless
parliamentary democracy
is based on
moral conscience of the
majority
in
power
it cannot realize the desired
end-greatest good
of the
great
number. With no
recognition
of the
importance
of individuals in social life and freedom
parliamentary
democracy
does not allow individuals to
participate
in the
regular
functioning
of
political
life. With
private monopolies
in the means of
production
the
principle
of
equality
is never realized. As a result of all
these defects under
parliamentary democracy
the
government
for the
people
can
hardly
be a
government
of the
people,
because the
majority
in
power
still rules
by
law and not
by
conscience. In order to make the common
man realize that he has a
unique place
as a
sovereign, Roy
viewed that a
foundation of
organized
local democracies must be laid.
M.N.Roy
was
very
much critical of Marxism on the
following
grounds.
As a Radical Humanist
Roy
did not
agree
with the economic
interpretation
of
history.
He was
greatly
influenced
by
Materialism and
the Marxist
theory
that existence determined
consciousness,
but he
yet
asserted that the
theory
of the economic
interpretation
of
history
did not
Roy
613
follow
necessarily
as a
corollary
from materialist
philosophy (Roy
1951:198).
The
biological struggle
for existence could not be
equated
with the economic
impulse
to earn a livelihood.
Roy
observed: "The
point
of
departure
of the Marxist
historiology
was the mistake of
confounding
physical urge
with economic motive"
(Roy 1952:217). Roy
viewed the
biological urge
of
self-preservation preceded
the economic motive of
earning
a
livelihood,
in the same manner as the idea of the means of
production preceded
the
development
of the means of
production
themselves.
Man, prior
to
becoming
a homo-economicus in search of
economic
amenities,
was
guided by biological
considerations.
Roy
criticized Marxian materialism as
dogmatic
and unscientific.
He
argued
that in Marx's dialectical
materialism,
there is an element of
contradiction. Dialectics as a
process
of
logic
or as a method of
enquiry
was
acceptable
to
Roy.
But
logic
could not be confused with
ontology
and the laws of
thought
could not be taken as a
description
of the
process
of nature or the content of
reality. Dialectics, stating
that the matter moves
through
the triad
system
of
thesis,
antithesis and
synthesis,
is
essentially
an ideal
system.
In
contrast,
materialism is
scientifically
neutral.
Roy,
therefore, pointed
out that it was
illogical
to
place
in one
equation dialectics,
which is
subjective
in nature and
materialism,
which is
objective
in nature.
Roy
critised Marxian Dialectics that the
subject
matter of a branch of
metaphysical enquiry
was
being
confounded with the instrument of
conducting
that
enquiry (Roy,
195 1 : 1
99).
Roy
was a believer in reason and an
enemy
of tradition and
theology.
He criticized Marxism as
theological.
Since
history
is made
by
the
operation
of the forces of
production,
one
may
conclude that there is
very
little that
man can do. He becomes a slave to the forces of
production. Roy
was
critical of Marx on the
ground
that the latter denied the
autonomy
and
sovereignty
of the individual. To
Marx,
the human nature is
malleable,
it
lacks
anything
stable and
permanent,
and it is determined
by
economic
forces. In
contrast, Roy argued,
there is
something
stable and
permanent
in human
nature,
which is the basis of man's
rights
and duties.
Man,
far
from
being
a
toy
in the hands of the forces of
production, possess
a creative
potential. Roy argued
that
Marx,
in
attaching sanctity
to the
existing
moral
order, negated
his earlier humanism.
Roy
also
rejected
the Marxian
principle
of
surplus
value. He did
not consider
surplus
value as a
peculiar
characteristic of
Capitalism.
No
society
could
progress
and there could be no
capital
formation unless
there was a
surplus
of
production
over
consumption
and unless this
surplus
was
employed
as
capital
for
increasing production
still further. There could
be no accumulation of
capital
without the creation of
surplus value,
and
there could be no economic
progress
without the accumulation of
capital.
Roy
asserted that a
Capitalist Society,
which
helped
in the accumulation
of
capital,
was
economically
a more advanced
type
of
society
than a feudal
one,
which
produced
for
consumption
and not for the market and which
created no
surplus
value and therefore no
capital (Roy 1947:23-26). While,
according
to
Marx,
surplus
value was the cause of social
injustice
and
degeneration, Roy
considered
surplus
value as the
only
lever for further
social
progress
and cultural
development.
According
to
Roy,
the economic structure of the new
society
would
be so
planned
that it would
promote
freedom and
well-being
of the
individual. He was
against
the state
ownership
of the means of
production.
Roy's
Radical
Democracy presupposes
economic
re-organisation
of
society
so as to eliminate the
possibility
of
exploitation
of man
by
man. It aimed
at a "economic liberation of the
masses,
and creation of essential conditions
for their advancement towards the
goals
of freedom". In
place
of state
ownership,
he recommended
cooperative ownership.
The basis of the
economic structure will be on the
principle
of
co-operative
which avoids
the extremes of
Capitalism
and Socialism. To
Roy,
the
Co-operative
economy
will be distinct from the
Capitalist
and Socialist
economy. Roy
believe in economic
planning
based on
voluntary cooperation
and
suggested
for the
organization
of
Co-operatives
at levels of social life.
Roy
615
Radicalism consists of all
positive
elements of Marxism freed from
its fallacies and clarified in the
light
of
greater
scientific
knowledge.
It
was the reaction
against
the
contemporary
socio-cultural crisis. The
manifesto of Radical Humanism laid down
that,
"the ideal of Radical
Democracy
will be attained
through
the collective efforts of
spiritually
free men and women united in a
political party
with the determination of
creating
a new order of freedom. The members of the
party
will
guides,
friends and
philosophers
of the
people
rather than as there would be rulers
consistent with the
goal
of
freedom;
Political
practice
of the
party
will be
rational and ethical
Radicalism is neither
optimistic
nor
pessimistic.
It is rather a
synthesis
of activism and rationalism. In
analyzing
the actual human
situation,
Radicalism tries to find out the various
possibilities.
This holds
out no false
hope
and without
being pessimistic
it seeks to
adjust
the
methodology
of action to the
possibility
of available resources. Radicalism
proposes
a common
struggle against
international anti-social elements.
Under Radicalism
planning
would be threefold- like
social,
democratic
and economic.
Planning
in economic
sphere, according
to Radicalism must
not
only
assure
increasing productivity
and better standard of
living
but
greater opportunity
to individuals to take initiatives.
According
to
Roy,
the new social
philosophy
must start with
reviving
faith in man
regarding
his
potentialities. Any attempt
to
promote
economic
welfare,
social
reconstruction and
political liberty
must
begin
with man.
Roy said,
humanism was the
only
alternative not
only
to communism but to all forms
of institutionalism
"Democracy
can be established
only by
the reassertion
of the humanist tradition. Man is the measure of his world.
Being inherently
rational he can
always
learn from
experience.
He
develops
his intellectual
faculties and moral values in his efforts to secure a better life for himself
(Roy, 1948).
To
Roy,
"
The basic idea of a new
revolutionary
social
philosophy
must be that the individual is
prior
to
society,
and individual
freedom must have
priority
over social
organization" (Roy, 1952:284)
There occurred
significant discontinuity
and
change
in
M.N.Roy's
career. His
political
evolution
passed
from unilitant nationalism to
Communism to New Humanism. In the end of his career
Roy
came to
believe more and more on individualism and liberalism. Unlike medieval
Indian saints and the
contemporary
social and
political leaders, M.N.Roy
built
up
the humanist
philosophy
with
flesh,
blood and brain.
Democracy
was the
base,
while rationalism its
center,
and
sovereignty
of man its
apex.
Roy thus, gave
a
philosophy
of life.
Roy's
inner
being
revolted
against
the
disappearance
of individual freedom. In the
history
of modern Indian
thought many
eminent thinkers wrote on
poverty
in India and
exploitation
of the weak
by
the
strong.
But
Roy
was the first
man,
who
analysed social,
political
and economic forces
working upon
Indian
society
from time to
time. He asserted that the task of the
fighter
for a new humanistic world
would be to make
every
individual conscious of his innate
rationality
and
to find his
unity
with others in a
Cosmopolitan
Commonwealth of free
men and women. He declared his faith
that,
"Man did not
appear
on the
earth out of nowhere. He rose out of the
background
of the
physical
universe, through
the
long process
of
biological
evolution. The Umbilical
Cord was never broken:
Man,
with his
mind, intelligence,
will remain an
integral part
of the
physical
universe. The latter is a Cosmos-a
law-governed
system. Therefore,
man's
being
and
becoming,
his
emotions, will,
ideas
are also determined" man is
essentially
rational. This reason in man is an
echo of the
harmony
of the universe.
Morality
must be referred back to
man's innate
rationality.
The innate
rationality
of man is the
only guarantee
of a harmonious
order,
which will also be a moral
order,
because
morality
is a rational function.
Therefore,
the
purpose
of all social endeavour should
be to man
increasingly
conscious of his innate
rationality
(Roy, 1947:34-47)
The
philosophy
of revolution evolved on the basis of the whole
stock of human
heritage
for
political
action and economic reconstruction
is known as New Humanism. It stress that neither
Capitalism
nor
Parliamentary system
can solve the
problems.
Socialism and Communism
Roy
617
reject
the notion of freedom. New Humanism is the
only
alternative,
which
reconciles social
organization
and individual freedom.
According
to
Roy,
"The basic idea of a new
revolutionary
social
philosophy
must be that the
individual is
prior
to
society,
and individual freedom must have
priority
over social
organization" (Roy,
1952:
284).
M.N.
Roy
had been considered
as one of the most learned of Modern Indian writers on
politics
and
philosophy.
His
philosophy
of Radical Humanism is considered as the
most
important contribution,
which could
provide
for a
strong
basis to
Indian
democracy.
REFERENCES :
Appadorai,
A : Indian Political
Thinking,
Oxford
University Press,
New
Delhi,
1971.
Ghosh,
S : Political Ideas and Movement in
India, Allied,
New
Delhi,
1975.
Mahadevan,
T.P.M :
Contemporary
Indian
Philosophy, Sterling,
New
Delhi,
1981.
Mishra,
Umesh :
History
of Indian
Philosophy,
Vol.
1,
Tirabhuki
Pub., Allahabad,
1957.
Narvan,
V.S : Modern Indian
Thought,
Asia
Publishing
House,
Bombay,
1954.
Radhakrishnan,
S.
(Ed)
:
Contemporary
Indian
Philosophy,
Allen
&
Unwin, London,
1958
Raju, P.T.(Ed)
: Idealist
Thought
in
India,
Allen and
Unwin,
London,
1953.
Ray,
B.G. :
Contemporary
Indian
Philosophers, Kitabistan,
Allahabad,
1947.
Roy,
M.N : Constitution of free India- A
Draft,
Radical Democratic
Party, Delhi,
1946.

India in
Transition,
Edition be La
Librarie,
J.B.Target, Geneva,
1922.
M.N.Roy's
Memoirs,
Allied
Publishers, Bombay,
1964.
Materialism,
Renaissance Publishers
Ltd., Calcutta,
1953.

New
Humanism;
A
Menifesto,
Renaissance
Publishers, Calcutta,
1947.
Reason,
Romanticism and
Revolution,
Renaissance
Publishers,
Calcutta,
1952 and
1955,
Voils.2.

Radical
Humanism, Calcutta,
1952.

Science and
Philosophy,
Ltd.,
Calcutta
Roy,
S.N. :
Radicalism,
Ltd., Calcutta,
1946.
Stephan,
D.J. : Studies in
Early
Indian
Thought, University Press,
Cambridge,
1941

Radical Humanism of M. N. Roy B. K. Mahakul

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radical Humanism of M. N. Roy B. K. Mahakul

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radical Humanism of M. N. Roy B. K. Mahakul

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indian Political Science Association

RADICAL HUMANISM OF M. N. ROY

You might also like