Indian Political Thinkers
Indian Political Thinkers
Indian Political Thinkers
SYLLABUS
1. Maulana Azad:
a) Views on Religion & Politics b) Views on Hindu-Muslim Unity c) Idea of
Nationalism & ‘Synthesis Nationalism’.
2. Jawaharlal Nehru:
a) Views on Nationalism, Democracy & Socialism b) Idea of Secularism
c) Views on Internationalism.
3. M. N. Roy:
a) Critique of Marxism b) Radical Humanism or New Humanism c) Radical
Democracy.
2) Maulana Azad was born in a family of , an Islamic religious title given to Muslim
religious scholars.
Ans: Maulana Azad was born in a family of Mawlawi, an Islamic religious title given to Muslim
religious scholars.
7) The theory advocated by the All India Muslim League is the founding principle of
the Pakistan Movement through the partition of India in 1947.
Ans: The two-nation theory advocated by All India Muslim League is the founding principle of
the Pakistan Movement through the partition of India in 1947.
9) Azad has shown his intense ideological opposition to the of Muslim extremists and
fundamentalist leaders.
Ans: Azad has shown his intense ideological opposition to the fanaticism of Muslim extremists
and fundamentalist leaders.
1|Page
Indian Political Thinkers┃Maulana Azad
1) Views on religion.
Ans: Maulana Azad’s religious thoughts, as propounded in Tarjuman ul-Quran, was that din
(essence, values) of all religion was the same. God in Quran is described as creating, balancing,
destining and guiding. The din that Quran provides is the universal guidance of divine revelation
which is present in the world from the beginning and without difference or distinction. Azad
thus develops his argument of whadat-e-din – oneness of religion. Quran states that Allah has
sent 1,24,000 prophets in every place and every age but their message was always the same.
However, the shari’a (laws) has been different, necessitated by differing intellectual and social
conditions. Quran emphasises submission to God and righteous living. Quran counsels tolerance
and guides that there is no compulsion in faith. Religious sectarianism develops on account of
constant deviations from true din. According to Azad, the threefold message of Quran is:
1) Salvation depends on faith and good works, not on ritual or custom or group affiliation.
2) Revealed religion is one for all mankind and therefore there should not be sectarianism and,
3) Worship of God should be direct, without any intermediary.
Secularism for Azad rested on the principle of wahadat-e-din on the one hand and
disregarding the intermediaries – the priestly class and institutionalization of religion. Every
human has to struggle to live righteous life – enjoining the good and forbidding evil. There can
be numerous guides to learn from in this struggle, but not intermediaries. Azad was not for
competition in proving which religion is superior. In Quran it is stated, “And each one hath a
goal toward which he turneth; so vie with one another in good works. Wheresoever ye may be,
2|Page
Indian Political Thinkers┃Maulana Azad
Allah will bring you all together. Lo! Allah is able to do all things”. Universe is permeated with
mercy. The spiritual life of human beings, their beliefs and actions must also be based on mercy
and love.
According to Maulana Azad, mankind was divided into two – friends of God and friends of
Satan. He derived support from the Qur’anic verse 41:33 “And who is better in speech than him
who prayeth unto his Lord and doeth right, and saith: Lo! I am of those who are Muslims”. The
friends of God were not any special group but included every true believer who has separated
from satanic powers and obeys God and his Prophet.
Secularism, according to Azad was not in confining religion to observances of certain rituals
within home, but in religion inspiring followers to live righteous path and seeking guidance of
almighty in understanding what that right path is. Therefore, every human being has to struggle
to become a better follower of their respective religions. Maulana Azad wanted to codify Islamic
law and reform of Islamic law, but he breathed his last on 22 February 1958 without undertaking
the task.
2) Synthesis nationalism.
Ans: Azad believed in the concept of synthesis nationalism and tried to convince the Muslim
community to merge them into the main stream Indian nation. Synthesis nationalism is a concept
that argues that the Indian nation is made of up people of diverse cultures, castes, communities,
and faiths. The idea teaches that nationalism cannot be defined by religion in India. While Indian
citizens maintain their distinctive religious traditions, they are members of one united Indian
nation. Synthesis nationalism maintains that prior to the arrival of the British to the Indian
subcontinent, no enmity between people of different religious faiths existed; and as such these
artificial divisions can be overcome by Indian society. In the 1940s when the Muslim League,
after adopting the ‘two-nation theory’ in March 1940, went to town declaring that the Muslims
of India constituted a district nation, it was left to Azad to mobilize those Muslims and their
political formations, who were still committed to the cause of the synthesis Indian nationalism.
Arguing in favour of synthesis nationalism, Azad cited the example of the first state
established by Prophet Mohammed in Medina wherein all the people of Medina entered into a
covenant called as ‘Covenant of Medina’. Under the covenant, if Medina was attacked by
outsiders, all would join forces to defend the city. However, the Jews and Christians were free
to practice their religion. Azad said, “I am proud of being an Indian. I am a part of the indivisible
unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice, and without me this
splendid structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to build
India. I can never surrender this claim”. For Azad, Hindu-Muslim unity was more fundamental
than independence if it was to be achieved by partitioning India. In his address to the special
session of INC in 1923 Azad said, “If today an angel descending from the clouds were to declare
from the top of the Qutub Minar in Delhi, ‘discard Hindu-Muslim unity and within twenty-four
hours swaraj is yours’, I would prefer to sacrifice swaraj rather than Hindu-Muslim unity, for
delay in the attainment of swaraj will be a loss to India alone, but if our unity disappears it will
be a loss to the whole world of humanity”. He considered the unity and brotherhood of Indian
people as supreme, which contributed to build up a composite Indian culture since distant past.
The synthesis nationalism of Azad was based on three ingredients; swaraj, communal
harmony and non-violence. He called people in the struggle to devastate the remnants of
imperialism under the banner of Indian National Congress. In 1940, when Azad takes over as
the President of Indian National Congress, he remarked that, “Today we need neither any Hindu
organization nor any Muslim organization. What we need is a singular and unique organization
that is Indian National Congress”. Throughout his life he stood for the cordial relationship
between people of diverse religions and the composite culture of India. He stood for modern
India with secular credentials, a cosmopolitan character and international outlook.
3|Page
Indian Political Thinkers┃Maulana Azad
theologians. According to Koran, salvation depends not upon one’s desire but faith in God and
right conduct. In the spiritual world, everyone must reap as he sows. It is clear, thus, that Azad’s
interpretation of the Koran is similar in some aspects to the moral and religious philosophy of
Vivekananda and Gandhi.
Islam demands acceptance of truth and action. Sovereignty in Islam, therefore, means
sovereignty of those who in their thought, word and action have completely surrendered
themselves to the God. Islam, thus, according to Azad, is a new religious creed but it is a call to
the path of following God.
5|Page
Indian Political Thinkers┃Maulana Azad
salt laws as part of Gandhiji's Salt Satyagraha. He was put in Meerut jail for a year and a half.
Maulana Azad became the president of Congress in 1940 (Ramgarh) and remained in the post
till 1946. He was a staunch opponent of partition and supported a confederation of autonomous
provinces with their own constitutions but common defence and economy. Partition hurt him
great. His dream of a unified nation where Hindus and Muslims can co-exist and prosper together
were shattered.
Azad served as the Minister of Education (the first education minister in independent India)
in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's cabinet from 1947 to 1958. He died of a stroke on February 22,
1958 in Delhi. For his invaluable contribution to the nation, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was
posthumously awarded India's highest civilian honour, Bharat Ratna in 1992. His birthday is
celebrated as National Education Day.
Azad will have a place in the history of Muslim political ideas in India. He appeared as a
great cementing force between Hindus and Muslims. He became recipient of respect and regard
from several important members of the Hindu community. His counsel and advice were sought
on important political problems after India’s independence. He was not only one of the great
scholars of the Koran in modern times but due to his commend over Arabic and Persian he was
held in high esteem as a Koranic interpreter in the countries of the Middle East and Africa. After
independence, he helped in the formulation of India’s foreign policy with regard to these
countries. As an Education Minister, Azad showed theoretical wisdom and he sponsored the
writing of a two-volume treatise on the history of Eastern and Western philosophy. Such an
endeavour is needed to bring the East and West together.
Maulana Azad was not an academic political philosopher. He does not analyse the
theoretical foundations of sovereignty, liberty, justice or property. Unlike Green, Bosanque and
Laski, he is not concerned with the theoretical bases of political obligation. Like the other leaders
of the Gandhian era, he was primarily concerned with the technics of liberation. His commentary
on the Koran is, however, a learned treatise. Like Tilak, Narendra Deva and Sampurnananda,
Maulana Azad tried to combine deep oriental scholarship and political dynamism.
kind of political philosophy. Although the British imperial system was fully armed with all the
engines and techniques of repression, still Azad pronounced his faith on God and the power of
sacrifice.
To the defence of the political movement of democracy, Maulana Azad brought support and
theoretical foundations of Islamic religion. He firmly declared that liberty is the natural right of
man given by God and no power on earth could deny his right. Political liberation, hence, was
not only a political duty but also a religious act. Azad’s statement, thus, is a contribution to the
political theory of Islam thoroughly to the forefront.
Although Maulana Azad proclaimed his full faith in the non-cooperation movement which
was being waged for the vindication of wounded rights and denied freedom, he proclaimed that
he differed from Mahatma Gandhi on the question of violence.
(1) Azad’s views on Hindu-Muslim unity: While addressing the Congress in 1923 Azad
spoke: “if Swaraj is delayed, it will be a loss for India but if Hindu-Muslim unity is lost, it will
be a loss for the whole of mankind”. Again in 1940, he proclaimed: “I am a Muslim and proud
of the fact; Islam’s splendid tradition of 1300 years are my inheritance, I am part of the
indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. Everything bears the stamp of our joint endeavour.
Our language was different but we grew to use a common language (Hindustani); our manners
and customs were different, dissimilar but they produced a new synthesis. No fantasy or artificial
scheming to separate and divide can break this unity”.
Maulana Azad was a champion of unity between the Hindus and the Muslims. He wanted
the Muslims to imbibe a reformist attitude. He was opposed to the separatism and sectarian
nationalism which was preached by the Muslim League. He pointed out that the ancestors of
most of the Hindus and Muslims were common. Mankind is one race. Hence Hindus and
Muslims who have been living together for nearly a thousand years should renounce the
conception of a superior and inferior race and should live in peace.
(2) Views on nationalism: Azad was one with Gandhi on the question of relating politics
with religion and he did not favour separation between the two. He said: “There will be nothing
left with us, if one separates politics from religion”. Religious to the core though he was, he
would not countenance nationalism based on religion, especially in the Indian context of
multiplicity, as it would be a force for division rather than unity in the wider sense. On another
occasion he said: “It is a fraud on the people to suggest that religion can unite areas which are
economically, culturally and linguistically different”. He was, therefore, opposed to sectarian
nationalism preached by the Muslim League. He challenged the concept of Islamic nationality
in the Indian context, as propounded by Sir Syed and the Aligarh School.
(3) Views on non-violence: Regarding the techniques of revolution, Azad was not guided
by Islam, but by Gandhi. Though Islam did sanction the meeting of violence with violence, he
disapproved the idea of jihad in the Islamic tradition. Taking in view the political situation of
the day, Azad declared that he was committed to non-violence as the only course available.
Nonviolence, for Azad, was not a creed but a policy. He believed that “means should be
appropriate and effective not necessarily non-violent”.
He advocated a nonviolent and non-exploitative economic and social order where the
underlying principles would be based on humanism, religious tolerance and interreligious unity,
social progress, educational reforms and spread of scientific knowledge.
(4) Views on democracy: As regards his views on the political system, he did not take
inspiration from Islam alone but also from the West. He said: “Ours is essentially a democratic
age and the spirit of equality, fraternity and liberty is sweeping over all the people of the world”.
In his broad spirit of synthesis, Azad could even reconcile the seemingly opposed concepts of
aristocracy and democracy. According to Azad, “Aristocracy develops a width of vision and a
far-reaching imagination and thus enriches democracy”.
(5) Azad’s views on partition of India: Azad was a strong opponent of the idea of partition.
According to him, “the scheme of partition is harmful not only for India as a whole, but also for
8|Page
Indian Political Thinkers┃Maulana Azad
Muslims in particular, and in fact it creates more problems than it solves”. As President of the
Congress, Azad had warned against partition.
However, even after the partition, Azad thought that the two countries would be united once
again. He said: “the division is only on the map of the country and not in the hearts of the people,
and I am sure it is going to be a short-lived partition”.
According to V. N. Dutta, “Azad’s was a complex personality. Taciturn and reserved, he
was a staunchly private person who would not easily reveal his thoughts. He was aloof, cold and
detached like arch rival, Jinnah”. He was rather ‘a curious silent bird’ to quote Wavell. Maulana
Azad was an apostle of national unity and communal harmony. He was a symbol of Hindu-
Muslim unity and ‘composite culture’. He was opposed to the partition of India until the end.
He stood like a rock for a united India. The best epitaph for Azad was written by himself: “I am
proud of being an Indian; I am part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality and without
me this splendid structure of India is incomplete”. Azad was an outstanding Muslim intellectual
of modern India. The range of his mind was encyclopaedic. He was a great literary artist. Azad
had a many-sided personality. He was a literally giant and possessed excellent taste and rare
aesthetic sensibility. He was an embodiment of synthesis of the East and the West. According
to Jawaharlal Nehru, “He was a strange mixture of medieval scholasticism, eighteen century
rationalism and modern outlook”.
within the domain of its racial nationalism and the grievous passions of pride were deeply strong
in their minds. The chauvinism which was first based on Arabism, i.e. the Arabs are superior to
non-Arabs and among themselves each tribe had the pride of racial superiority over the other.
Islam denied all these racial superiority and affiliations which were created by the limitations of
human knowledge and perceptions. It called human beings towards humanism and natural bonds
of brotherhood. The mankind which divided into different areas and groups, scattered all over
the world was for the introduction to make them distinct from another. These units were meant
for introduction like, he is an African, he is an Arab, he is an Aryan and he is Mongolian etc.
was only to recognized the distinct groups. But there were no distinctions in this classification;
the real distinction was one’s deeds and endeavours. The Quranic teaching clearly declares the
unity of mankind, however, the differences which prevailed is the result of negligence and
spinning away from the righteous path of Islam.
Azad states that the main four hurdles in the path of universalism and human brotherhood;
race, colour, country and language where if not completely vanished but restricted by Islam. It
leaves no room to these affiliations and proclaimed that all belong to one race; no Arabi has any
superiority over Ajami; and the different languages and colours are the signs of God’s wisdom
and power. The protection and prejudices of race and nation are the two aspects of chauvinism
and Islam is opposed to prejudices not to protection. In the beginning a group of people created
their own orbit of patriotism and nationalism for protect themselves from external invasion, i.e.
the defensive nationalism. When this kind of nationalism continued for period of time gave birth
to national superiority and pride and suddenly turned into jingoism. This transformation results
the violence between the different nations and the humanism becomes dormant. But Islam
dejected this emergence of narrow orbits.
The idea of nationalism existed since ages but emerged in the era of European civilization
which was for the defence of human rights and liberty. Azad believed that the nationalism of
Europe turned a great threat to human rights and liberty in the times of colonial era and Europe
took a new turn. On one side the knowledge and liberty spread all over Europe but on the other
their despotism and tyranny over the foreign dominations. The national organizations which
were formed on the basis of equality and liberty become itself its hindrances. The concern of
human liberty and mankind became as far away from them as it was before. The capitalism
forced and dominated over people through money power and intercession of world peace, thus,
the destination of the countries falls in their hands. The reorganization of the world social order
and unfettered human brotherhood became the significant and interesting areas of thought. So
far as to establish peace and reform nationalism is concerned, it is essential to act according to
the teachings of Islam.
Azad believed nationalism in India is of recent origin, formulated to revive and reform the
attitude of Indian minds. It is the collective consciousness and recognition of the socio-cultural
unity and operated as a device to letting out the British colonialism. Due to the formation of
Indian National Congress in 1885, proved a milestone in the history of the growth of nationalism
in India. As being the part of Indian National Congress, Azad’s political thought was dominated
by synthesis Indian nationalism. The synthesis nationalism of Azad was based on three
ingredients; swaraj, communal harmony and non-violence. He called people in the struggle to
devastate the remnants of imperialism under the banner of Indian National Congress. In 1940,
when Azad takes over as the President of Indian National Congress, he remarked that, “Today
we need neither any Hindu organization nor any Muslim organization. What we need is a
singular and unique organization that is Indian National Congress”.
Azad is clear in his stand about the Indian nationalism that has been framed naturally and
bears the stamp of fortune. While pursuing his true faith, Maulana adhered to the path of
nationalism, which he had chosen and, at every dark turn, gained wisdom from the Quran. He
pursued this path with great faith and confidence until his very end.
10 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Maulana Azad
4) “Maulana Azad was a champion of Hindu-Muslim unity”. Examine the statement with
reference to the writings of Maulana Azad.
Ans: Azad was one of the greatest champions of unity between the Hindus and the Muslims. He
was a consistent champion of communal peace and amity. He wanted his own co-religionists to
follow a policy of give and take and not to be rigid. Having succeeded in mobilizing the Muslims
into Independence movement, Azad’s efforts were to consolidate this Hindu-Muslim unity on
firm foundations of faith of Muslims as well as on the shared culture of both the communities.
In his 1940 Presidential address to the Indian National Congress in Rampur, Azad said: This
(immigration of Muslims onto Indian soil) led to a meeting of the culture-currents of two
different races. Like the Ganga and Jumna, they flowed for a while through separate courses,
but nature’s immutable law brought them together and joined them in a sangam. This fusion was
a notable event in history. Eleven hundred years of common history have enriched India with
our common achievement. Our languages, our poetry, our literature, our culture, our art, our
dress, our manners and customs, the innumerable happenings of our daily life, everything bears
the stamp of our joint endeavour. Our languages were different, but we grew to use a common
language; our manners and customs were dissimilar, but they acted and reacted on each other,
and thus produced a new synthesis. This joint wealth is the heritage of our common nationality,
and we do not want to leave it and go back to the times when this joint life had not begun. This
thousand year of our joint life has moulded us into a common nationality. Whether we like it or
not, we have now become an Indian nation, united and indivisible. No fantasy or artificial
scheming to separate and divide can break this unity. We must accept the logic of fact and
history, and engage ourselves in the fashioning of our future destiny.
Azad argued in favour of synthesis nationalism. He cited the example of the first state
established by Prophet Mohammed in Medina wherein all the people of Medina entered into a
covenant called as ‘Covenant of Medina’. Under the covenant, if Medina was attacked by
outsiders, all would join forces to defend the city. However, the Jews and Christians were free
to practice their religion. Azad said, “I am proud of being an Indian. I am a part of the indivisible
unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice, and without me this
splendid structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to build
India. I can never surrender this claim”. For Azad, Hindu-Muslim unity was more fundamental
than independence if it was to be achieved by partitioning India. In his address to the special
session of INC in 1923 Azad said, “If today an angel descending from the clouds were to declare
from the top of the Qutub Minar in Delhi, ‘discard Hindu-Muslim unity and within twenty-four
hours swaraj is yours’, I would prefer to sacrifice swaraj rather than Hindu-Muslim unity, for
delay in the attainment of swaraj will be a loss to India alone, but if our unity disappears it will
be a loss to the whole world of humanity”.
When the Muslim League leaders were scaring the Muslims that in united India, Hindu
majority would dominate and oppress them, Azad wrote in al-Hilal, “The fact that Hindus are a
majority is of no significance. It is the condition to which you have brought yourselves that will
insure your destruction. There is no need to fear Hindus. You must fear God. You are the army
of God. But you have cast off the uniform he gave you. Put it on again and the whole world will
tremble. You have to live in India, so embrace your neighbours. You must realize your position
among the peoples of the world. Like God himself, look at everyone from a lofty position. If
other communities do not treat you well, you should still treat them well. The greater forgive the
faults of lesser”.
Azad had opposed Pakistan to the best of the ability he commanded. “God’s earth cannot
be divided into pak (pure) and impure” he wrote. Azad was most pained by the partition and was
never reconciled to the fact. Azad and Gandhiji were marginalized within the Congress Working
Committee. “Two states in conflict with one another did not offer solution to the problems of
minorities”, Azad opined, “as minorities would be vulnerable to retributions and reprisals for
acts of their co-religionists in the state where they were in majority”. Azad had staked his entire
11 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Maulana Azad
political career on united India and lost. When the All India Congress Committee voted in favour
of partition on 14th June 1947, Azad’s final plea was that even if the political defeat had to be
accepted, the INC should try to ensure that the culture was not divided. He pleaded that even if
a stick is placed in the water and it divides the water temporarily, water remains undivided.
Azad was the first Education Minister of India the Union Government headed by Jawaharlal
Nehru. After independence, he dedicated himself to promoting peace and laying the foundation
of educational infrastructure. Amongst other things Azad desired that religious education be
imparted along with secular education as the serious business of religious education cannot be
left to the respective religious leadership of the communities – they tend to take supremacist and
communal stand. Azad desired that common values of all the religions should be taught to the
students so that they do not develop prejudices against each other. He writes, “Today India is
free. She can have any kind of mental mould she pleases. Will it be exclusive or will it be all-
inclusive, which has been the characteristic of Indian culture throughout the ages? In the
advancement of nations there is no greater hindrance than narrow mindedness. It is our duty to
keep ourselves free from this disease in the new era of independence”.
12 | P a g e
2. Jawaharlal Nehru
1) Jawaharlal Nehru was born on in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh into an aristocratic family.
Ans: Jawaharlal Nehru was born on 14 November, 1889 in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh into an
aristocratic family.
2) Jawaharlal Nehru was elected the President of the Lahore Session of the Indian National
Congress in .
Ans: Jawaharlal Nehru was elected the President of the Lahore Session of the Indian National
Congress in 1929.
4) Indian cultural traditions and historical experience under the British rule helped Nehru to
support the democracy instead of presidential system of the USA.
Ans: Indian cultural traditions and historical experience under the British rule helped Nehru to
support the parliamentary democracy instead of presidential system of the USA.
4) Name the political leader who is known as the architect of India's foreign policy.
Ans: Pandit Nehru is known as the architect of India's foreign policy.
1) Democracy.
Ans: Nehru was a great champion of democracy, throughout his life, he laid emphasis on the
importance of democracy and desired passionately that independent India would go along the
full democratic process. He had a great passion for freedom. Grown in the Western democratic
traditions, Nehru absorbed, since childhood, many of the dominant concepts of modern
democratic thought. He had read extensively philosophers such as Rousseau, Montesquieu, Mill
and made reference of their works in the writings. He conferred and wrote in his An
Autobiography, "My roots are still perhaps partly in the 19th century and I have been too much
influenced by the humanist liberal tradition to get out of it completely".
For Nehru, democracy was an intellectual condition, based on the hypothesis that the
freedom was integral to the being of man. He was also aware that freedom required a set of
conditions. He writes: "Self-discipline, tolerance, and a taste of peace - these were the basic
conditions for living a life of freedom". He did not subscribe to the view that unrestrained
freedom made any sense. He held, M. N. Jha says, "that the state was born to make a reality of
the freedom of its citizens, for, it served to counteract the evil influences of the lower instincts
of the individual man in the social process". The state, Nehru held, was a spiritual necessity for
man to clear the particularistic convictions that the religions promote.
14 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jawaharlal Nehru
Nehru was a true democrat, for he never doubted the soundness of democracy as a spiritual
proposition. In his view, the spiritualisation of a social process was, ‘synonymous with the
maximisation of democracy within it, and the latter called for the objectivization of not merely
the guarantees of rights but also of rights themselves’.
Nehru's concept of democracy had specific implications. In the early years of liberation
struggle, democracy, for Nehru, meant the ideal of self-rule or responsible government. Later,
with the socialist ideas altering his world-view, he came to see democracy as one that
emphasised an equality of opportunity to all in the economic and political field and freedom for
the individual to grow and develop to the best of his personality.
2) Nationalism.
Ans: Nehru was a great nationalist, though he had no theory of nationalism. He did believe in
the objectivity of the fundamental unity of India nurtured on cultural foundations which was,
according to him, ‘not religious in the narrow sense of the term’. He did accept the narrow
diversities, but, at the same time, he admired the unity running throughout the Indian history.
Nehru’s nationalism rejected any notion of ethnic or religious superiority. He was, indeed,
inspired by the concept of cultural pluralism and synthesis. To him, nationalism was a noble
phase of self-magnification. He writes: "Nationalism is essentially a group memory of past
achievements, traditions, and experiences, and nationalism is stronger today than it has ever
been. Wherever a crisis has arisen, nationalism has emerged again and dominated the scene, and
people have sought comfort and strength in their old, traditions. One of the remarkable
developments of the present age has been the rediscovery of the past and/or the nation". But
nationalism has also solid - social, political and economic - foundations.
By nature, Nehru was a nationalist and was a rebel against authoritarianism. He did not like
the politics of talks, of too much submission and appeal to authorities and that was why he
always found himself akin to Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He says: "So far as political matters were
concerned, I was, if I may say so, an Indian nationalist desiring India's freedom, and rather,
inclined, in the context of Indian politics to the more extreme wing of it, as represented then by
Mr. Tilak". But he was in the way in agreement with Tilak's, deep religious motivations.
Nehru's nationalism had its clear distinctive features. It was a composite and a living force
and as such could make the strongest appeal to the spirit of man. Only such a type of socialism
could be a driving force for freedom, and it alone could give a certain degree of unity, vigour
and vitality to many people all over the world. But Nehru did not appreciate the narrow and
fanatical type of nationalism. R. C. Pillai writes about Nehru's views on narrow nationalism:
"Nationalism would be harmful, if it ever made the people conscious of their own superiority. It
would be most undesirable if the spirit of nationalism pushed up any people towards aggressive
expansionism", Nehru himself says of the Indian nationalism as liberal and tolerant:
"Nationalism is essentially an anti-feeling and it feeds and fattens on hatred and anger against
other national groups".
Translated into action, Nehru's nationalism was patriotism and independence of the country.
In fact, Nehru's nationalism was a firm commitment to the idea of complete independence of the
country. In his sharply worded rejoinder to all those who still advocated dominion states, Nehru
most emphatically stated, way back in 1928, "If India has a message to give to the world, it is
clear that she can do so more effectively as an independent country than as a member of the
British group". And in 1928, he presided over the Lahore Congress session and got the Purna
Swaraj resolution passed.
15 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jawaharlal Nehru
contains Panchasheel. Panchasheel refers to the 5 principle that would govern the relationship
between the two nations.
The fundamental concepts of Nehru’s internationalism were curved as the five tenets of
Panchasheel or the international amity and concord. In June 1, 1954, the fundamental concepts
of Panchasheel were laid down in the course of joint declaration by Nehru and Chou-En-Lai.
They are:
(1) Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty;
(2) Non-aggression;
(3) Non-interference in each other’s internal affairs;
(4) Equality and mutual advantage; and
(5) Peaceful co-existence and economic co-operation.
These principles of Panchasheel were strongly pleaded by Nehru for solving many Indian
problems and reducing international tension. Nehru insisted on a policy of constructive
cooperation and peaceful co-existence both for India and the world. He believed that each nation
should cooperate with others in the task of establishing world peace and human betterment. The
concept of Panchasheel was a unique contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru to the world politics and
a message of tolerance and peaceful co-existence and cooperation, which India has believed
since ages.
4) Non-alignment.
Ans: Nehru was an internationalist in his outlook. He developed his international outlook by
keeping himself interested in the international problems. In his ideas he always cherished to have
a world free of wars and nuclear threats, a world of oneness, of growth and development to better
the lot of masses or humanity.
Speaking in Constituent Assembly on December 4, 1947 he said, “We have proclaimed
during this past year that we will not attach ourselves to any particular group. This has nothing
to do with neutrality or passivity or anything else”. Nehru favoured the polarisation of power
and an increase in the number of non-aligned countries resulting in the isolation of super powers.
In such an atmosphere of international relations, Nehru believed that there could be a possibility
of replacement of mutual fear, suspicion, hostility and cold war by mutual good will, tolerance
and peaceful coexistence.
Nehru's policy of non-alignment was not a negative policy. Some people regarded it as
negative policy which meant India would remain neutral at all the time and in every situation.
Nehru's doctrine of non-alignment was also positive and dynamic in its nature. In positive term
it charted out an independent foreign policy posture for the nation which object to lining up for
war purposes, to military blocs, to military alliances and the like and wanted to work in the
pursuit of peace.
India would try her best to have friendly relations with the countries of both the blocs and
would extend all co-operation for ensuring peace among the family of the nations of the world.
It will also be helpful for new independent countries of Asia and Africa. Thus, according to
Nehru, the policy of non-alignment on the part of a big state like India was conducive to her own
ultimate national interests as well as to the interests of peace in the world.
Nehru also defended the policy of non-alignment on economic grounds. Nehru believed that
economic exploitation and economic backwardness also undermine the cause of peace. He
contended that non-alignment policy was an absolute necessity for newly emerging and
underdeveloped countries. The primary aim of these countries was economic development,
without economic development political stability was not possible. Political instability could
become a hurdle in the way of world peace. Thus, according to Nehru, the maintenance of
universal peace was an economic as well as political necessity for these countries.
16 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jawaharlal Nehru
dedicated to India, that he gave up his son Jawaharlal and his whole family to the cause of India's
freedom. Nehru was being moulded by his thoughts. He was so much moved by his father's
personality that he followed his father's strength of character, his devotion to his principles with
blind faith.
Nehru was also much attracted to the leadership of Gandhi. He was taken away by Gandhi's
principle of fighting for the Indian society, by peaceful means. He was so much moved by
Gandhi and his teachings that the whole of the Nehru family transformed themselves to the
Gandhian lines.
Among his tutors, Ferdinand T. Brooks, touched Nehru's life in a significant way. He took
charge of Nehru when he was only eleven years of age. Since Brooks was an ardent theosophist
and his spiritual set up affected Nehru's young mind. Under his guidance, Nehru was drawn
towards Bhagwat Gita and Upanishads. He even attended the meetings of the theosophists and
even took part in metaphysical discussions and arguments and karma and re-incarnations. He
also admitted that he was deeply influenced by Buddhism, especially its ethical and scientific,
side and which was in later years more deeply rooted with his close association with Gandhi.
Nehru appreciate the political methods which defied and challenged the British powers. He
felt attraction towards the political systems which viewed people with an equal eye, giving every
individual and equal base. He was therefore drawn towards the policies of the Indian extremists
and towards the principles of Fabian Socialism. His respect for Indian extremism however took
a backseat, but at the same time, his fondness for this particular ideology increased with his visit
to Ireland and the Sinn Fein Movement which was a new kind of Irish Nationalism. It was
believed here that the salvation of Ireland should be achieved in the Irish soil, by Irishmen
themselves. Here he found similar corners of India and Ireland. From Ireland he gathered the
experience of boycott methods as a political weapon i.e. to boycott England and ignore England.
In the Glimpses of World History, Nehru mentions that he was attracted to socialism in his
days at Cambridge. Marx had left a mark on his mind with his writings on socialism. Nehru
studied capitalism from the Marxist-Leninist point of view and agreed with Lenin when he said
that imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism. Nehru wrote in his autobiography that "the
theory and philosophy of Marxism lightened up many of dark corner of my mind. History comes
to have a new meaning for me. The Marxist interpretation threw a flood of light on it". The
materialistic interpretation of history attracted him and for him it was scientific and logical. This
interpretation of history was free of superstition and religious back up towards history and life.
'It was the essential freedom from dogma and the scientific outlook of Marxism that appealed to
me'.
Taking this view into consideration he studied capitalism in the context of the British Raj
in India. The world he viewed was divided between two camps - capitalism and socialism, and
there can never be a compromise between the two. This was not only a national view, but had
also taken shape internationally. He had studied socialism in minute details that he was of the
view that if socialism was to succeed, then it has to take the shape of International World
Socialism.
2) State the evolution of Nehru's concept of socialism. What are the characteristics of his
theory of socialism?
Ans: Nehru's interest in socialism can be traced to pre-independence era when the Fabianism of
George Bernard Shaw and the Webbs attracted him. He was, during those days, attending the
lectures of John Maynard Keynes and Bertrand Russell, which influenced his ideas. The fast
changing political, social and economic ideas taking place throughout the world sharpened his
socialistic influences. India's millions living in poverty made Nehru a socialist, notwithstanding
the Marxist ideology of Marx and Lenin which had its profound impact on him. Socialism, with
Nehru, was not merely an economic doctrine; 'it is a vital creed', Nehru spoke at the 1936
Congress session, "which I hold with all my head and heart". He was convinced that there was
18 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jawaharlal Nehru
no other way of ending the appalling mass poverty and sufferings in India except through
socialism.
Nehru was of the opinion that no ideology other than socialism could fit in the democratic
pattern as that of India. He was convinced that no democracy could succeed without imbibing
socialist pattern. The essence of socialism, Nehru used to say, lies in "the control by the state of
the means of production", and the idea inspiring socialism was the prevention of the exploitation
of the poor by the rich. The socialist way, to Nehru, was that of the ending of poverty, the vast
unemployment, the degradation and the subjection. He laughed off Gandhi’s claim to being a
socialist and rejected the Marxian thesis of the dictatorship of proletariat. Under India's peculiar
conditions, Nehru came to advocate the socialistic, if not socialism, pattern of society.
Nehru's concept of socialism was not the abolition of private property, but the replacement
of the present profit system by the higher ideal of cooperative service. His socialism was not the
state ownership of the means of production, but was their societal and cooperative ownership.
Nehru brought socialism close to democracy.
Nehru's socialism has the distinctive characteristic of progressive industrialisation through
which alone the Indian economic problems (poverty, backwardness, low rate of production)
could be solved and through which alone the modern India could be built. He strongly believed
that in industrialisation, "the only solution for this lay in utilising modern science and technology
for accelerating the progress of industrialisation on which depended also the prospects of
agricultural development". For industrialisation, Nehru ruled out the capitalistic model and
pleaded the socialist model by limiting the same to nationalisation of certain key industries and
cooperative approach in agriculture while allowing the private sector to participate in industry
and agriculture. That was what one may say the essence of socialistic pattern of society the
model which was made to work through (i) economic planning, (ii) mixed economy, (iii) five
years plans. Nehru knew that the socialistic pattern of society was not socialism in its pure form
but this form would, he was convinced, lead the country in the direction of socialism.
Nehru's concept of socialism had a vision of future India and of modernising India. He
wrote: ‘For we have to build India on a scientific foundation to develop her industries, to change
that feudal character of her land system and bring her agriculture in time with modern methods
to develop the social services which she lacks so utterly today’. If India has to modernise itself,
it must, Nehru said, ‘lessen her religiosity and turn to science. She must get rid of her
exclusiveness in thought and social habit which has become like a prison to her, stunting her
spirit and preventing growth’.
19 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jawaharlal Nehru
20 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jawaharlal Nehru
21 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jawaharlal Nehru
‘fact of subsequent conversion to other faiths did not deprive them of their heritage, just as the
Greeks, after their conversion to Christianity did not lose their pride in the mighty achievements
of their ancestors, or the Italians in the great days of the Roman republic and early empire’.
Nehru’s understanding of secularism has been strengthened due to his liberal cultural
upbringing.
The concept of secularism as perceived and defined by Nehru constitutes the bedrock of
Indian nationalism, which was subsequently incorporated into the Indian constitution. Nehru’s
understanding of secularism is primarily rooted in his emphasis on political and social equality.
His exposition of secularism emphasises the following dimensions.
1. The State does not either encourage or discourage religion. It means freedom of religion and
conscience, including freedom for those who have no religion.
2. It conveys the idea of social and political equality;
3. Nehru promoted secularism through social transformation and development. It means
eradicating inequality and backwardness.
Despite his liberal approach towards religion, it is not easy to declare Nehru irreligious; he
was not opposed to religion. He frankly recognised that religion supplied a deeper craving of
human beings. His major concern was that the state should not intervene in religious matters. It
is beyond dispute that Nehru was sincere in his advocacy of secularism as a political and cultural
value. Due to his secular approach, he succeeded in solving intra party and interstate politics.
22 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jawaharlal Nehru
(3) Equality with justice: Nehruvian model of socialism was not just an economic doctrine
and it is deeply related to lives of the individuals and whole of society. D. K. Mohanty explains
that he equated socialism with philosophy of life because he was convinced that individuals need
to bring changes in their behaviours, attitude, instincts, habits and desires along with changes in
social and political spheres. These changes would help to tackle exploitation, hunger and
joblessness in the country. He envisioned new society in which cooperation, equality and justice
would prevail instead of competition and conflict among individuals. He wanted each individual
to develop socialist outlook i.e. ‘to live and to let others live’.
(4) Rapid industrialisation: Jawaharlal Nehru was an economic modernist. He believed
that rapid industrialisation was the most effective way to win the battle against mass poverty.
This was in stark contrast with the medieval Gandhian economic vision centred on household
production.
(5) Mixed economic model: Nehruvian model of economic development is based on a
mixed ideology i.e. socialism and capitalism. Therefore, it is blend of mixed economy. In the
mixed economy system of Nehru, the state provides such environment in which both public and
private industries can exist and equally flourish. The state keeps under its control important and
big industries such as Railways and means of economic distribution like cooperatives and banks.
He advocated keeping under state controls the main industries of the economy and leaving rest
industries for the private sector. It strives to provide economic growth with social justice i.e.
benefits of growth reach everyone on fair basis.
(6) Planning: For ensuring development for everyone and effective utilisation of resources
of the country, Nehru adopted planning system. D. K. Mohanty argues that he believed that
peaceful method of development through planning was very useful to realise democratic
socialism on the country. Instead of class war and violence of Marxian traditions and monopoly
and competition of capitalist system, Nehru chose planning as a method to bring about change.
Planning is very important process in socialist economy which helps to develop a classless
society based on cooperative lines.
To one who was so intimate with the masses as Jawaharlal Nehru was, his economic
philosophy could not but be intensely human, a living thing of the present, and practical. In the
ultimate analysis the central point and goal of all economic philosophy is the elimination of
poverty and want, and Nehru's was no different.
4) In the light of the statement ‘internationalism as the bedrock of international peace and
welfare of all the countries’ discuss various beliefs of Nehru pertaining to internationalism.
Ans: Nehru had a strong faith in internationalism. He considered internationalism as the bedrock
of international peace and welfare of all the countries. He was a realist as far as international
relations were concerned. He envisioned development of cooperation and interdependence
among countries for their economic, scientific and technological progress. According to D. K.
Mohanty, he was hopeful of survival of humankind through internationalism.
(1) Development of international outlook: Nehru was the first Congress leader who tried
to give the Congress party an international outlook. He did not want the party to become narrow
and egocentric in its approach and functioning. He was of the opinion that after achieving
independence, country should strive for internationalism instead of nationalism. His nationalism
was opposed to imperialism and colonialism and he believed in equality of nations. His ideas
about democratic nationalism were truly reflective of his orientation for internationalism. Nehru
tried to see and understand national events from international perspective. He put forward
argument that no country can remain isolated from international events.
(2) Internationalism and industrial development: Nehru linked development of the
country with international factors. Nehru believed that growth and development of the country
is dependent on prevalence of international peace, goodwill and mutual cooperation among
23 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jawaharlal Nehru
24 | P a g e
3. M. N. Roy
5) Roy concedes the right of the people to resist tyranny and oppression, but he rules out the use
of methods.
Ans: Roy concedes the right of the people to resist tyranny and oppression, but he rules out the
use of violent methods.
8) Roy is of the opinion that, considering the communist experiment in Soviet Russia, as
a philosophy has proven to be false.
Ans: Roy is of the opinion that, considering the communist experiment in Soviet Russia,
marxism as a philosophy has proven to be false.
9) M. N. Roy began his political life as a , believing in the cult of the bomb and the
pistol and the necessity of armed insurrection.
Ans: M. N. Roy began his political life as a militant nationalist, believing in the cult of the
bomb and the pistol and the necessity of armed insurrection.
25 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
2) Under whose guidance did Roy study Marxism during his stay in the United States?
Ans: During his stay in the United States, M. N. Roy studied Marxism under the guidance of
Lala Lajpat Rai.
5) Which party did Manabendra Nath Roy leave due to the disagreements with Gandhiji?
Ans: Manabendra Nath Roy left the Congress party due to the disagreements with Gandhiji.
1) M. N. Roy on nationalism.
Ans: Roy was critical of the fundamentals of Indian nationalism and the ideology of nationalism
in general, particularly in light of the rise of Fascism and Nazism and the outbreak of the Second
World War. Roy left India during the earlier part of the First World War as a full-blooded
nationalist, but changed his views after much reflection and new political experiences.
In Roy’s view, nationalism was representative of the desires and ambitions of a group of
people within a certain geographical area, as opposed to people uniting on the basis of class.
Nationalism thus emphasised the placing of one’s country’s interest over the interest of the rest
of the world. There was a time in the 19th century, when countries were still isolated from each
other, when nationalism was a historic necessity, under whose banner people came together and
humanity progressed. However, he believed, it had now become a selfish, narrow-minded
‘antiquated cult’, and the world should progress towards internationalism and international
cooperation. The ambitions of different nations began to conflict with each other, contributing
to an exaggerated and irrational form of nationalism, which manifest itself in the rise of Fascism
and Nazism, eventually leading to the Second World War. “A parochial, selfish, narrow minded
nationalism has caused so much misfortune and misery to the world. A mad and exaggerated
form of this cult of nationalism is today running rampant”. This statement made by M. N. Roy,
as far back as 1942, may resonate with many even today. Nationalism, in Roy’s eyes, had thus
become a synonym for revivalism, whose advocates were consigned to glorify the past and
advocate for a return to the bliss of the middle ages and a simpler life.
26 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
He also ridiculed the demand of national government as fashionable but fraudulent. The
slogan of nationality he regarded a mythical and a dangerous fiction. It was mythical because
there were two Indians- the India of the exploiters, financers and landlords, and the proletarian
working-class India. To support his thesis that the concept of national unity was a myth in the
context of India, Roy referred to the separatist demands of Jinnah and the Muslim League. If
India were one, there could be no necessity of raising the cry for Pakistan. While discussing the
declaration made by the President of the Hindu Maha Sabha that “the majority is the nation”,
Roy said that it sounds quite in “tune with formal democracy”, but in reality “particularly in the
prevailing atmosphere of Indian politics, it means that in a nationally free India the Muslims,
constituting nearly 1/3rd of the population, will have no freedom”. He was thus against removing
an imperialist regime and replacing it with a nationalist regime, which would continue to deny
real freedom to most of the Indian people.
Nationalism, for Roy, is based on racial animosity and is reactionary to the extent that it
seeks to neglect social questions. Hence, in place of nationalism, world brotherhood is needed.
He stated, “The defeat of nationalism is the condition of Indian freedom”.
2) Materialism.
Ans: M. N. Roy was a strong supporter of materialist philosophy. According to Roy, strictly
speaking, materialism is “the only philosophy possible”, because it represents the knowledge of
nature as it really exists—knowledge acquired through the contemplation, observation and
investigation of nature itself.
Roy points out that materialism is not the ‘monstrosity’ it is generally supposed to be. It is
not the cult of ‘eat, drink and be merry’, as it has been depicted by its ignorant or malicious
adversaries. It simply maintains that “the origin of everything that really exists is matter, that
there does not exist anything but matter, all other appearances being transformations of matter,
and these transformations are governed necessarily by laws inherent in nature”.
Thus, broadly speaking, Roy’s philosophy is in the tradition of materialism. However, there
are some important differences between Roy’s materialism and traditional materialism. In fact,
Roy’s materialism is a restatement of traditional materialism in the light of contemporary
scientific knowledge. According to Roy, the substratum of the universe is not matter as
traditionally conceived, but it is “physical as against mental or spiritual”. It is, in other words,
‘a measurable entity’. Therefore, says Roy, to prevent prejudice, materialism could be renamed
‘physical realism’.
Roy was of the view that materialism must be dissociated from certain notions, which have
been rendered untenable by the discoveries of science. His revision and restatement of
materialism embraces both the basic tenets of materialism: the concept of matter as well as the
doctrine of physical determinism.
3) Critique of communism.
Ans: Roy’s criticism of communism is based mainly on the experience of the former Soviet
Union, particularly the ‘discrepancy between the ideal and the reality of the socialist
order’. According to Roy, freedom does not necessarily follow from the capture of political
power in the name of the oppressed and the exploited classes and abolition of private property
in the means of production. For creating a new world of freedom, revolution must go beyond an
economic reorganization of society. A political system and an economic experiment which
subordinate the man of flesh and blood to an imaginary collective ego, be it the nation or class,
cannot possibly be, in Roy’s view, the suitable means for the attainment of the goal of freedom.
The Marxian doctrine of state, according to which the state is an instrument of exploitation
of one class by another, is clearly rejected by Roy. According to Roy, the state is the political
organization of society and it’s withering away under communism is a utopia which has been
27 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
28 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
being. It stands for decentralization of political and economic power, and suggests party-less
democracy for purifying politics.
(1) Criticism of existing political ideologies: Through his experiences with communist
states, Roy found that in communism, man had been reduced to the position of a helpless pawn
in the hands of blind economic forces. He was denied independence as well as sovereignty.
Instead of liberating man, he was made a slave of an almighty state run by a party under the
dictatorship of the party leader. He suffered the same way under capitalism as well. It was
therefore necessary to go beyond both capitalism and communism and think of political and
economic institutions that would guarantee freedom and progress to man as man and not as a
member of a nation or class. Roy thought that organised democracy and co-operative economy
was the solution and attempted to give these a philosophical foundation through his philosophy
of radical humanism.
(2) Emphasis on freedom: Freedom is the basic value in radical humanism. It is the source
of all human values. Roy believed that everything that man has done from cultural progress to
scientific achievements to artistic creation has been motivated by man’s endless struggle for
freedom. In fact, the amount of freedom available to the individuals is the measure of social
progress.
(3) Emphasis on the individual: According to Radical humanism, the individual is an end
in itself and every other organization in the society is simply the means to that end. Roy pleads
that everything else is below individual freedom which should not be subordinated to anything
else. He is not ready to subordinate individual freedom even to religion or morality or to any
other super-natural power. This is why he criticizes communism. In his view, the communist
political system and its economic experiments subordinate the man of flesh and blood to an
imaginary collective ego, be it the nation or class, and thus it cannot possibly be the suitable
means for the attainment of the goal of freedom.
(4) Criticism of contemporary democracies: In addition to communism, Roy has
discussed the shortcomings of formal parliamentary democracy too in his writings. These flaws,
according to Roy, are outcome of the delegation of power. Atomized individual citizens are, in
Roy's view, powerless for all practical purposes. They have no means to exercise their
sovereignty and to wield a standing control of the state machinery. The alternative Roy gives is
the ideal of radical democracy, consisting of a highly decentralized democracy based on a
network of people's committees through which citizens wield a standing democratic control over
the state.
To conclude, Roy’s philosophy of radical humanism implies a secular ideology which
espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious
dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. His philosophy aims at establishing ‘a social
order in which the best in man could be manifest’.
29 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
30 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
a local newspaper published a report headlined, ‘Mysterious Alien Reaches America, Famous
Brahmin Revolutionary or Dangerous German Spy’. This forced him to flee south to Palo Alto,
California. It was here that he changed his name from Narendranath Bhattacharya and became
Manabendra Nath Roy. When the United States participated in WWI, Roy was arrested for his
anti-colonial leanings. He jumped bail and escaped to Mexico. In Mexico, he became a vocal
advocate of the socialist state and founded the Mexican Communist Party in 1917. Roy was a
restless spirit always on the move. Inspired by his experiences in Mexico, Roy founded the
Communist Party of India in 1920 along with six other leaders at Tashkent now in Uzbekistan.
He also travelled to Moscow to attend the second conference of the Communist International.
There he formed a favourable impression of Vladimir Lenin, met Joseph Stalin and became a
part of the Communist International. By 1926, he was serving the policy-making bodies of the
Communist International and in 1927, he visited China. Roy’s mission to make Chinese
Communist Party implement guidelines by the Communist International failed. Following this,
he was expelled from the Communist International in September 1929.
Roy returned to India in 1930 and was sentenced to six years imprisonment in 1931 for his
involvement in 1924 Kanpur Bolshevik Conspiracy case. Roy and other senior communist
leaders, including S. A. Dange and Shaukat Usmani, were arrested for trying “to deprive the
King Emperor of his sovereignty of British India, by complete separation of India from
imperialistic Britain by a violent revolution”. While in jail, Roy wrote Prison Manuscripts, a set
of nine thick volumes. These have not been published in totality. They are preserved at Nehru
Memorial Museum and National Archives of India, New Delhi. After his release in 1936, Roy
joined the Indian National Congress. He left the party later in 1940 as a result of Congress’
reluctance to aid the British in World War II. In 1946, Roy established the Indian Renaissance
Institute at Dehradun in order to develop the Indian Renaissance Movement. Roy died of a heart
attack on 25 January 1954.
Roy will have an important place in the history of Indian political thought as in interpreter
and historian. He certainly has been one of the most learned of modern Indian writers on politics
and philosophy. He was also a great speaker and had a lucid and vigorous style. His writings
were very voluminous. He has written a six-thousand-page book, The Philosophical
Consequences of Modern Science. His book, Reason, Romanticism and Revolution written in
1952 is a significant contribution to political thought by an Indian writer. Roy’s other notable
publications are: The Communist International (1920), India in Transition (1922), The Russian
revolution (1937), Scientific Politics (1942) and Beyond Communism (1947). He was an ethical
revisionist in the history of socialist thought. He began his academic pursuits as a Marxist, but
gradually almost completely restated all the prepositions of Marx. He gave a moral restatement
of Marxism. Roy's application of the Marxist concepts arid generalisations to the structure and
processes of the Indian economy and society was seen thought provoking and enlightening.
31 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
simplicity, and the joy of satisfying one’s desires. Actually, Roy’s concept of materialism is a
revised concept of traditional materialism in the light of contemporary scientific knowledge.
(2) Radical view: In the last years of his life, he became severely inclined towards radical
humanism and was of the view that the progress of science and technology had liberated man’s
creative energies. He believed that politics was much more than elections and more about
upholding democracy. According to him, democracy would be successful only when spiritually
free individuals assume the conduct of public affairs. He strongly believed that greatest good of
the greatest number that can be attained only when members of the government are accountable
in the first place to their respective consciences.
(3) Organised or party-less democracy: Roy believed in the idea of party-less democracy.
He attacked the goal of power to be the main priority of politics. He also believed that the party
system is an inadequate medium to represent the people. He said that political participation is
not simply limited within casting of votes; political parties eventually lead to corruption and
dishonesty. He formulated the notion of organised democracy and participant citizenship to
overcome the defects of parliamentary democracy. For this purpose, he visioned a new social
order: radical democracy, where the power would flow from the people. The people would
exercise their sovereign power through the local people's committees. He suggested that there
would be people’s committee in each village, city or town, elected annually on the basis of adult
franchise. The economic activity of this new social order will be comprised of (i) Cooperative
planning, (ii) Centralized planning and (iii) Science and technology.
(4) Humanist ideology: The concept of humanism is not new. The crowning piece of Roy’s
original work which is designed to be man’s ultimate fulfilment is new humanism. New
humanism, as presented in the Twenty-Two Theses, has both a critical and a constructive aspect.
The critical aspect consists of describing the inadequacies of communism (including the
economic interpretation of history), and of formal parliamentary democracy. The constructive
aspect, on the other hand, consists of giving highest value to the freedom of individual,
presenting a humanist interpretation of history, and outlining a picture of radical or organized
democracy along with the way for achieving the ideal of radical democracy.
The re-assertion of the value foundations of politics and society is a contribution welcome
to the modern political thought and behavioural political analysis. In his well-known work,
Reason, Romanticism and Revolution, Roy wrote that “New humanism is cosmopolitan. A
cosmopolitan common wealth of spiritually free men would not be limited by the boundaries of
nation states, capitalist, fascist, socialist, communist or any other kind which will gradually
disappear under the impact of the twentieth century renaissance of Man”. Roy also argued that
unless chains of religion and superstition were broken, there was no chance for real humanism.
Religion of any type, with God or without God, was against the very spirit of humanism.
Religion represents attitude of surrender which is undesirable for a happy growth of humanism.
Each and every religion by necessity must assume some super human existence. Humanism
which primarily assumes and emphasizes on the primacy of man cannot be based on the notion
that there is something or someone higher than man himself.
Roy’s philosophical ideas were heavily criticised on various grounds. As Roy stated that all
living beings originated out of the matter and the mind is the product of matter. But critics argued
that he had failed to give logical and adequate reasons as to how the living bodies are created
out of the matter. He was also criticized for his perception about religion to which the antagonists
argued that religion played an important role in our cultural and intellectual development. His
Marxist view of the Indian society was criticised on the grounds that it was not applicable in that
time. Moreover, he was strictly against liberal political institutions like political parties,
elections, and parliament and supported a new harmonious approach with a scientific outlook.
Even, the picture he drew of the Indian society was inconsistent and superficial. Roy’s ideas
about the formation of people’s committees are unrealistic. Formation of such committees
require enlightened, alert and educated masses. These committees will make only symbolic
difference to the current representative system as they will consist only two percent of the
32 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
population of a particular town or village. 98% people will not have their say in the political
system.
33 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
(6) Roy emphasised the concept of moral man. To him politics cannot be divorced from
ethics. Roy traces morality to rationality in man. Reason is the only sanction for morality.
Without moral men, there can be no moral society. Moral values are those principles which a
man should observe for his own welfare and for the proper working of society.
(7) He advocates humanist politics. This will lead to purification and rationalisation of
politics. Today, man is debased to the level of an unthinking beast power politics. To him,
politics can be practiced without power. ‘Party politics has given rise to power politics’. To him
any party government can, at best, be for the people, but it is never of the people and by the
people. In a country like India, he laments about the evils of party politics that exist, where
ignorant conservative people are exploited in the elections. Thus, he favoured the abolition of
the party system which will enable politics to operate without an incentive of power. In the
absence of that corrupting agency, morality in political practice would be possible.
(8) Roy's social order rises with the support of enlightening public opinion as well as
intelligent action of the people. Roy stands for ‘Revolution by Consent’. He concedes the right
of the people to resist tyranny and oppression, but he rules out the use of violent methods. Today,
the modern state is too powerful to be overthrown. Lastly, according to Roy, ‘one cannot be a
revolutionary without possessing a scientific knowledge. The world stands in need of change.
Science has given confidence to a growing number of human beings, that they possess the power
to remake the world. Thus, education becomes the essence and condition of revolution and
reconstruction. Revolution by consent does not operate through the politics of power, but
through the politics of freedom’.
In conclusion, it can be said, in brief, that M. N. Roy as the exponent of radical humanism
has asserted that the advance of science was the factor for the liberation of man's creative nature
from which emerges the future of modern civilisation in the progressive triumph of science over
superstition, reason over faith.
34 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
possibly bring its best elements to the forefront and unless the available intellectual level and
moral integrity are brought to bear upon the situation, democracy cannot come on its own. He
also observed that the people had not yet attained high moral standards, so, he suggested that at
the initial stages there should be elective and selective democracy both. Roy drafted a model
Constitution of India on the basis of his radical democracy. Part I of the Constitution dealt with
the declaration of rights and fundamental principles, according to which supreme sovereignty
vested in the people who would have absolute right to change or modify any political unit. A
bill of rights containing not only political and social, but economic rights as well was also
incorporated in the Constitution. Thus, Roy has not ignored the economic aspect of his ideal of
radical democracy. He argued that progressive satisfaction of the material necessities is the pre-
condition for the individual members of society unfolding their intellectual and other finer
human potentialities. According to him, an economic reorganization, which will guarantee a
progressively rising standard of living, is the foundation of the radical democratic state.
“Economic liberation of the masses”, says Roy, “is an essential condition for their advancing
towards the goal of freedom”.
The method of proportion representation was also incorporated in the Constitution to protect
the rights of the minorities. According to Roy, all provinces in India, would be formed on the
basis of linguistic and cultural homogeneity. He suggested a federal type of government and
advocated for institutions of referendum, initiative and recall. The ideal of radical democracy
will be attained, according to Roy, through the collective efforts of mentally free men united and
determined for creating a world of freedom. They will function as the guides, friends and
philosophers of the people rather than as their would-be rulers. Consistent with the goal of
freedom, their political practice will be rational with a coherent amalgamation of both reason
and morality. To Roy, “spiritually free individuals at the helm of affairs will smash all chains of
slavery and usher of freedom of all”. Roy categorically asserts that a social renaissance can come
only through determined and widespread endeavour to educate the people as regards the
principles of freedom and rational co-operative living. Social revolution, according to Roy,
requires a rapidly increasing number of men of the new renaissance, and a rapidly expanding
system of people’s committees and an organic combination of both. The program of revolution
will similarly be based on the principles of freedom, reason and social harmony. Thus, Roy’s
ideal of radical democracy consists of a highly decentralized democracy based on a network of
people’s committees through which citizens wield a standing democratic control over the state.
5) How far was M. N. Roy influenced by marxism? On what grounds did he differ from
marxism?
Ans: Roy's baptism as a Marxist began in Mexico in 1917 where, along with Bosodin, he
accepted Marxism us a philosophy for excellence. He accepted all the major tenets of Marxism
and, sought to interpret the Indian situation along Marxist lines. This is evident from the
following:
(1) Roy submitted his thesis on Colonial Revolution at the Second Congress of the
Communist International in 1920. To him, world capitalism was drawing its main strength of
modern European capitalism and so long as the latter was not deprived of this source of super
profit, it would not be easy for the European working class to overthrow the capitalist order.
Thus, he concluded that the revolutionary movement in Europe was absolutely dependent on the
course of revolution in India and other Asian countries. In order to overthrow foreign capitalism,
it was advisable to make use of the co-operation of the bourgeois nationalist elements, but only
in the initial stages. The foremost task was to form a communist party to organise peasants and
workers and lead them to revolution. If, from the outset, the leadership is in the hands of a
communist vanguard, the revolutionary masses will be on the right road towards their goal and
they will gradually achieve revolutionary experience.
35 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
(2) Roy gave a Marxist interpretation to Indian history. Its main features were gradual decay
of the rural economy, steady rise of capitalism, the conquest of India by the British bourgeois to
capture new markets, to find new fields of exploitation and export of capital. The 1857 uprising
was the last effort of the de-throwned feudal potentates to regain their power; Indian National
Congress was the organisation of intellectual bourgeois to carry out their political struggle and
to facilitate economic development. Colonial exploitation prevented the normal economic
development of India and the working class was too backward to fight for socialism.
(3) Roy does not identify Marxism with communism; Marxism is a philosophy while
communism is a political practice. Roy believed in socialisation of the process of production.
When labour is performed collectively, its product must be collectively owned. Private property
must cease to be an economic necessity before it can be abolished. Roy rejects the dictum that
dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to achieve communism. He believes that a revolution
cannot be made to order in an industrially backward country like India, the establishment of
proletariat dictatorship cannot be envisaged. In India such a thing cannot happen; nor did he
agree with the idea of ‘withering away of the state’.
(4) Roy foresaw two things in establishing socialism in India- an agrarian revolution and
building up of modern industry under the control of a real democratic state. Roy did not consider
socialism an immediate issue for India. Socialism was not a matter of desire for him, it was a
matter of necessity. Socialism becomes a historical necessity when majority feels a necessity for
it.
The introduction of the mechanical means of production on a large scale, the abolition of
pre-capitalist restrictions on production, and the attainment of certain minimum economic level
are the historic pre-conditions for establishing socialism. A socialist India could not be built
overnight. The problem of transition to socialism in India had two parts viz., (i) achievement of
free Indian democracy and (ii) Transformation of the social order into a socialist democracy.
Roy gave precedence to political freedom over economic freedom and socialism.
Humanist critique of Marxism: According to Roy, Marx's theory of class struggle has
subordinated the individual consciousness. He was also critical of Marx giving too much
prominence to the working class. To him, polarisation of capitalist society into the exploiting
and the working class never takes place. The middle class does not disappear. It is the middle
class which produces revolutionaries. Lenin recognised this fact, but failed to recognise the
middle class as a class. Thus, Roy denounced the theory of class struggle. Society could never
survive without some kind of a social cohesive force and as such, class struggle cannot be the
only reality. Roy considered the proletariat as the 'most backward stratum of the society'. He
gave a place of pride to the middle class and the individual. He also denounced the theory of
dictatorship of the proletariat as this would establish totalitarianism. Revolutions cannot bring
about miracles. What was needed was a judicious synthesis of rationalism and romanticism. As
a radical humanist, he thought that revolution was to be brought about not through class struggle
or armed violence, but through proper education. Revolution would not bring about any sudden
change. He also did not agree with Marxian economic interpretation of history as it had many
flaws. For Roy, the biological urge of self-preservation preceded the economic motive of earning
a livelihood. He criticised the Marxian dialectics, the evolution of democracy to socialism was
a continuous process, and not a dialectical process.
According to Roy, the materialism of Marx was dogmatic and unscientific and neglected
the creative role of the human subject. He opined that Marx under the influence of Hegel rejected
the eighteenth-century materialism and also humanistic materialism propounded by Ludwig
Feuerbach. This rejection of Feuerbachian humanist materialism by Marx is the most
unfortunate event. Thus, Roy is critical of Marx’s rejection of autonomy to the human being.
Marx rejected the liberal concept of individualism owing to the influence of Hegelian thesis
of moral positivism over him. It is this positivism that laid the foundations for his philosophy of
Machtpolitik. Furthermore, moral positivism elevates the society or the class as the giver of
36 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃M. N. Roy
norms and this also results in the minimization of the role of the individual. Marx neglected the
value of individual autonomy and proved himself to be disloyal to his humanist Feuerbachian
antecedents. Roy opined that this rejection of liberal and utilitarian concept of individual by
Marx betrayed his earlier humanism. Moreover, the moral degeneration of international
communism results from upholding the relativism of ethical criteria and the elevation of the
Hegelian type of moral positivism.
Furthermore, Roy did not regard surplus value as a peculiar feature of capitalism. The
creation of surplus value and the accumulation of capital were also necessary in a socialist
society. The only difference between a socialist society, unlike capitalist society, was that the
surplus value was not appropriated by a particular class.
attempted to synthesize different elements of thought. He tried to throw light on elements such
as rationalistic renaissance, physical realistic cosmology, humanistic ethics and a passionate
quest for freedom.
38 | P a g e
4. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
7) For the defence of Dalit rights, Ambedkar started the periodical called in 1927.
Ans: For the defence of Dalit rights, Ambedkar started the periodical called Bahishkrit Bharat
in 1927.
8) On January 31, 1920, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar launched the newspaper , a weekly
devoted to the issues and challenges of untouchables.
Ans: On January 31, 1920, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar launched the newspaper Mooknayak, a
weekly devoted to the issues and challenges of untouchables.
39 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
2) Which book that advocates the caste system was burned by Ambedkar?
Ans: On December 25, 1927, Babasaheb Ambedkar burned ‘Manusmriti’ as a symbol of
rejection of the religious basis of caste system in India.
1) Nationalism.
Ans: In view of Ambedkar, nationalism means expression of inner unity of a people and it is a
process of social assimilation. Therefore, irrespective of caste, colour and creed, nationalism
gets perfect harmony if social brotherhood of men prevails everywhere within a nation. To
Ambedkar, nationalism is negation of caste spirit and caste spirit is nothing but deep-rooted
communalism. He emphasized to fight against casteism, linguism, communalism and separatism
because he was of the opinion that these social evils divide the people into small social units
which are against the spirit of nationalism. In view of Ambedkar, communalism being one form
of groupism is a threat to national integration which may hamper the way for equality and
fraternity. He viewed nationalism as a spiritual phenomenon rooted in humanism.
40 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Though nationality and nationalism are two different psychological states of human mind,
there cannot be nationalism without the feeling of nationality. In view of Ambedkar, nationality
is “a feeling of consciousness of kind which is on one hand binds together to those who have it,
so strongly that it overrides all differences arising out of economic conflicts or social gradations
and on the other hand, severs them from those who are not their kind. It is a feeling not to belong
to any other group. This is the essence of what is called a nationality and national feeling”. He
opined that nationality may turn into nationalism when two conditions are satisfied:
a) There must arise the desire to live as a nation and nationalism is a dynamic expression of that
desire.
b) There must be a territory which nationalism could occupy and make it a state as well as a
cultural home of the nation.
Therefore, Ambedkar is of the opinion that nationalism should be based on a strong will to
live as a nation and deep feeling to make a state or cultural home with definite territory. Political
unity will not alone bring about such kind of nationalism rather social unity would be more
congenial for bringing about a sense of human brotherhood which induces a sense of oneness.
Like Jyotirao Phule, he did not think that India was a nation: “How can people divided into
several thousands of castes be a nation?” he asked. For him, the national movement was
dominated by an elite, of which the masses were the first victims. For, as he said in 1943 before
trade union activists, the working classes “often sacrifice their all to the so-called cause of
nationalism. But they have never cared to enquire whether the nationalism for which they are to
make their offerings will, when established, give them social and economic equality”.
For Ambedkar, there was an “ism” above nationalism: Humanism, with its values of
equality and liberty. Hence his collaboration with the British to promote the cause of the Indian
plebe and to fight the Axis powers and also his conversion to Buddhism. For B. R. Ambedkar,
human dignity mattered more than nationalism.
2) Democracy.
Ans: For Ambedkar, “Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is primarily a mode
of associated living of conjoint communicated experience and to be searched in the social
relationship. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen”. He
believed democracy means no slavery, no caste, and no coercion. Democracy is not a gift of
nature. It is a habit of social living and can be acquired by the people themselves for their
emancipation and wellbeing.
Dr. Ambedkar believed that in democracy revolutionary changes in the economic and
social life of the people are brought about without bloodshed. The conditions for that are as
follows: (i) there should not be glaring inequalities in society, that is, privilege for one class;
(ii) the existence of an opposition; (iii) equality in law and administration; (iv) observance of
constitutional morality; (v) no tyranny of the majority; (vi) moral order of society and (vii)
public conscience.
Addressing the Constituent Assembly, he suggested certain devices essential to maintain
democracy: (i) constitutional methods; (ii) not to lay liberties at the feet of a great man; (iii)
make a political democracy a social democracy.
For him political democracy is not an end in itself, but the most powerful means to achieve
the social and economic ideals in society. He firmly believed that political democracy cannot
succeed without social and economic democracy. State socialism within the framework of
parliamentary democracy can defeat dictatorship. Fundamental rights without economic
security are of no use to the have-nots. He focused on three categories of democracy that should
exist in India that are (i) political democracy; (ii) social democracy; and (iii) economic
41 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
democracy. For him, “Social and economic democracy are tissue and the fibre of a political
democracy”.
A crusader against social and economic injustice and a great champion of human rights
with a firm belief in democracy, he exhorted his audience at the All India Depressed Classes
Conference: “It seems to me that there lies on us a very important duty to see that democracy
does not vanish from the earth as the governing principle of human relationship. If we believe
in it, we must both be true and loyal to it. We must not only be staunch in our faith in
democracy, but we must resolve to see that whatever we do not help the enemies of democracy
to uproot the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity”. For that he exhorted the Dalits to
defend and support democracy and secularism to safeguard their rights, life and liberty.
3) State socialism.
Ans: Ambedkar studied several features of Marxism and favoured some Marxist principles. He
usually subscribed to the material view of history and agreed to the need for a total change for
bringing in relation to the equality. He also accepted the thought of public ownership of property.
Though, he did not become a Marxist. The other significant diversity of socialism was
democratic socialism. Ambedkar's firm belief in democracy attracted him to this ideology.
He felt that socialism functions within a democratic framework. Democracy and socialism
need not be opposed to each other. Therefore, in 1947, Ambedkar propounded the thought of
‘state socialism’. Even earlier, when he recognized the Self-governing Labour Party in 1937, he
had adopted a broadly socialist programme. The programme of the party incorporated state
management of significant industries, bringing in relation to the a presently economic system.
The party wanted to ensure minimum average of livelihood for agricultural and industrial
workers.
State socialism means that the state would implement a socialist programme by controlling
the industrial and agricultural sectors. To him, the state will actively manage both the industry
and the agriculture. This will ensure equitable sharing of wealth and protect the needy and the
poor. Rapid industrial progress and welfare of all the parts of the civilization will be the
responsibility of the state. Ambedkar placed a particular stress upon state socialism, seeing it as
a necessary factor for the development of industrialization. Though, the democratic
organizations such as the parliament will also remain intact. In 1947, Ambedkar suggested that
the Constitution of India should incorporate the principle of state socialism. This thought of state
socialism shows that Ambedkar was aware of the troubles of poverty and economic inequality.
So, he attached much importance to the role of the government. Government, just as to him, has
to perform the role of a welfare agency. It has to ensure rapid progress and presently sharing of
the fruits of that progress.
4) Perceptions on caste.
Ans: Ambedkar's understanding of caste and caste system underwent certain significant changes
overtime. Initially he identified the characteristics of caste as endogamy superimposed on
exogamy in a shared cultural milieu. He felt that evils such as sati, child-marriage and
prohibition of widow-remarriage were its inevitable outcomes. Once a caste closed its
boundaries, other castes too fallowed suit. The Brahmins closing themselves socially first gave
rise to castes. Ambedkar continued to emphasise the endogamous characteristic of caste but
roped in other features such as division of labour, absence of inter-dining and the principle of
birth which he had initially considered as integral to endogamy. He also found that caste name
is important for the continued reproduction of caste. He argued that castes as discrete entities
have to be distinguished from caste system based on the principle of graded inequality. At the
pinnacle of this system are the Brahmins. He argued that ranking on the basis of graded
inequality safeguards the stability of the system and ensures its continued reproduction which
42 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
simple inequality would not have permitted. The dissenting members are accommodated as
another grade in the hierarchy of deference and contempt that deeply mark the caste system.
Ambedkar thought that caste is an essential feature of Hinduism. A few reformers may have
denounced it but for the vast majority of Hindus breaking the codes of caste is a clear violation
of deeply held beliefs. The principles governing varna system and caste system are one and the
same. Both of them uphold graded inequality and subscribe to the doctrine of birth rather than
worth.
Ambedkar argued for the annihilation of caste without which wielding community bonds,
and upholding freedom and equality becomes well-nigh impossible. He suggested inter-caste
marriages and inter-caste dining for the purpose although the latter, he considered, is tao feeble
an exercise to constitute enduring bonds. He also felt that priesthood in Hinduism should be
open to all the co-religionists on the basis of certified competence rather than on birth. At the
same time, he thought this project is well-nigh impossible to be carried out because what is to
be renounced is believed to be religiously ordained.
43 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
45 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
46 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
47 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
49 | P a g e
5. Jay Prakash Narayan
1) Jay Prakash Narayan was born on in the remote Bihar village of Sitabdiara.
Ans: Jay Prakash Narayan was born on 11 October 1902 in the remote Bihar village of
Sitabdiara.
2) Jay Prakash Narayan was a great proponent of socialism and his idea about socialism was
depicted in his book .
Ans: Jay Prakash Narayan was a great proponent of socialism and his idea about socialism was
depicted in his book ‘Why Socialism?’
3) According to JP, the serious flaw of parliamentary democracy lies in its system.
Ans: According to JP, the serious flaw of parliamentary democracy lies in its electoral system.
7) Jay Prakash Narayan and introduced the Sampattidan or gift of property or wealth
for the welfare of the people.
Ans: Jay Prakash Narayan and Vinoba Bhave introduced the Sampattidan or gift of property or
wealth for the welfare of the people.
8) It was on 5 June 1974, during a public meeting at Gandhi Maidan in Patna, that JP first gave
the call for .
Ans: It was on 5 June 1974, during a public meeting at Gandhi Maidan in Patna, that JP first
gave the call for total revolution.
10) In 1956, Jay Prakash Narayan established ashram in a village called Sakhodeora in
Gaya district.
Ans: In 1956, Jay Prakash Narayan established sarvodaya ashram in a village called
Sakhodeora in Gaya district.
2) How many years did Jay Prakash Narayan live in the United States?
Ans: Jay Prakash Narayan lived in the United States for seven years.
1) Total revolution.
Ans: Jay Prakash Narayan's final stage of development of political ideology is the concept of his
total revolution. In 1974, he proclaimed the total revolution. He declared the entire revolution at
Patna's Gandhi Maidan as his ultimate goal. He wanted to establish a society that is free from
exploitation and oppression.
51 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jay Prakash Narayan
2) Sarvodaya.
Ans: The word ‘sarvodaya’ is a compound Sanskrit word comprising sarva (all) and udaya
(rising) - meaning all round wellbeing or good of all. This all includes that the all living being.
The word sarvodaya was coined by Gandhiji while he was in South Africa. Sarvodaya is a
concrete programme of social revolution. It offers us the picture of a new social order. Sarvodaya
was a conceptual construct JP borrowed from Gandhi to cumulatively articulate his vision of a
decentralised, participatory and egalitarian socio-economic and political order for the country.
In the sense of J. P. Narayan there shall be redistribution of land and no one shall have more
land than three times the economic holdings. Sarvodaya is integral revolution or double
revolution as J. P. Narayan called it ‘social revolution through human revolution’. In 1956 at the
conference of the “Asian Socialist” he presented Sarvodaya as the “true road to socialism”. It
accepts the universalization of self-government in which the people should actively participate
in cooperative action. The political philosophy of sarvodaya is a powerful intellectual attempt
to build a plan of political and social reconstruction on the basis of ethical idealism. According
to J. P. Narayan, the scheme of the reconstruction of Indian polity and economy involving
increasing decentralization of power for the realization of ‘swaraj’ is in live with the ancient
Hindu traditions and institutional patterns of self-government. To him the revitalization of the
sense of man’s belonging in a community is to be the goal of a ‘sarvodaya worker’.
52 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jay Prakash Narayan
The important task is to create this sense of community, to inculcate a philosophy in which
the essentially social nature of man is brought into an organic relation with the totality, to base
human organisation on the principles of trusteeship, dharma and a voluntary limitation of wants
and to evolve institutions to suit the social genius of India, so that they may sustain, revive and
strengthen the whole fabric of Indian society.
More concretely, JP envisages a system in which at the base—or rather at the centre—there
are the ‘primary communities’ more or less of the size of the existing revenue villages. These
are the self-governing, self-sufficient, agro-industrial, urban-rural, local communities. Beyond
them are the ‘regional communities’ in which a number of primary communities come together.
Similarly, a number of regional communities form into the ‘district communities’, which in turn
form the ‘provincial communities’ and finally there is the ‘national community’. A hope is also
expressed that a day might come when the national communities might federate together to form
the ‘world community’. This is the structure.
The manner of conducting business is also simple. At the local level, there is the Gram
Sabha, of which the membership extends to all adults in the village. The Executive of the village
is to be vested in the Gram Panchayat, formed not by elections but by general consensus of
opinion in the Sabha. At the regional level, the Gram Panchayats will be integrated into a
Panchayat Samiti, on the basis of indirect elections from the Gram Panchayats. Following this
pattern — and always on the basis of indirect elections — there will be the District Council, the
State Assembly and the Lok Sabha. At each level, the administration is to be carried on by
committees of representative bodies which are to be assisted by civil servants and which would
be coordinated in a Coordinating Committee. Legislative powers will be exercised at these
various levels on the basis of division of functions and delegation of powers from the centre to
the periphery. But in general, more power will reside in the village communities. This is the
scheme of JP’s communitarian democracy.
53 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jay Prakash Narayan
Marx’s dialectical materialism and scientific socialism appealed to Jay Prakash Narayan
and he saw it as a theory which would help uncover truth. He published a booklet Why Socialism,
arguing that today more than ever before is possible to say that there is only one type, one theory
of socialism – Marxism. The Marxist phase of JP’s life seemingly continued during the decade
of the 1930s after which he drifted to the philosophy of democratic socialism and finally turning
out to be sarvodaya in the post-independence times.
2) Delineate the contribution of Jay Prakash Narayan among the Indian political thinkers.
Ans: Jay Prakash Narayan was one of the greatest political thinkers that India produced in the
twentieth century. He had been the foremost leader and spokesman of Indian socialism. He used
the concept of socialism blending with Gandhian socialism for the Indian perspective. He
gradually changed his political ideas to adjust to the necessity of the Indian polity. His theory of
democratic socialism was different from Western political thinkers. He became the torchbearer
of Gandhiji’s ideas of peace, non-violence and Gram Swaraj. JP strongly talked against the
serious defects of parliamentary democracy in India. He tried his best to establish communitarian
democracy which was more and more decentralized so that people can take part more and more
in the administration for their development.
J. P. Narayan explained how the total revolution would bring positive changes against all
types of corruption. In the post-independence era, his political ideas brought a moral fabric,
people-centric political culture and a ray of hope to make people-centric democratic government.
His non-Congress leadership after independence was a dedicated service for the country to
reconstruct the nation with real democratic values and attitudes to save the interest of the people.
After the independence of India, JP was only ‘Crusader’ to launch a total revolution in the
country without any interest in power. He called total revolution as a permanent revolution to
be continued to bring a change not only in the mentality of the people but also in the socio-
economic system of the country. JP’s total revolution aimed to achieve basic changes in the
social, cultural, political and economic values of the Indian people. He used the term ‘total’ in
the sense of a comprehensive revolution affecting all aspects of social life.
J. P. Narayan wrote several books and articles on the reconstruction of the Indian Polity. He
was awarded Magsaysay award for public service in 1965 and was posthumously awarded
Bharat Ratna in 1999 for the contribution of social and political leadership in India. JP never
wanted any power, position, and fame for himself. This selfless leader was dedicated to making
an ideal India with the establishment of equality, freedom, and justice for all. Indeed, his political
ideas emphasized the need for moral development, non-violence and participatory democracy
to reconstruct the nation.
54 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jay Prakash Narayan
methods suggested to bring about social transformation. Jay Prakash Narayan’s democratic
socialism was thus a fusion of Marxism with Gandhian values and Western democracy.
However, the Marxian element in Jay Prakash Narayan continuously went on decreasing,
as he moved closer and closer to Gandhian philosophy. Disappointed with Marxism and upset
with the defeat of his party, The Congress Socialist Party in the general elections of 1952, Jay
Prakash Narayan decided to give up politics and devote his life towards Sarvodaya and Vinoba
Bhave’s Bhoodan Movement (distribution of land to the landless). He referred this move of his
as ‘Jeevandan’. He had realized that politics would not be able to deliver the goals which he
initially associated with socialism, viz., freedom, equality, peace and fraternity. And the only
alternative to politics available was Gandhi’s Sarvodaya, which he had ignored earlier.
Thus, Jay Prakash Narayan had more faith on Gandhi’s Sarvodaya, than Karl Marx’s
Dialectical Materialism. Three features of Gandhism particularly appealed Jay Prakash Narayan.
One, emphasis laid on morality and ethics, which he felt, lacked in Marxism. Two, the path-
breaking techniques of revolution in the form of civil disobedience and Satyagraha. And third,
its stress on decentralization. Due to the impact of Gandhian thought the ideology of Jay Prakash
Narayan had changed from Marxism to Sarvodaya, from materialism to spiritualism, from
violent revolution to nonviolent revolution and he gave a vision about creative work to establish
a nonviolent society and gram-swaraj.
55 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jay Prakash Narayan
home in Patna on Oct. 8, 1979, from the effects of diabetes and a heart ailment. Fifty thousand
mourners gathered outside his home, and thousands followed as his casket was carried through
the streets, calling Narayan ‘the conscience of the nation’. Prime Minister Charan Singh declared
seven days of mourning. Narayan was remembered as the last of Mohandas Gandhi's colleagues
in the independence movement. He was posthumously honoured with India’s highest civilian
award ‘Bharat Ratna’ in 1999 in recognition of his social work.
Jay Prakash Narayan was a dauntless and heroic leader of the Indian freedom struggle. Only
a few great leaders in our country have suffered so much physically for the salvation of the
people as JP. He was the path builder of the Indian Socialist Movement and was its great leader,
organiser and theoretician for two decades. As a dedicated worker for the emancipation of the
rural countryside, he tirelessly worked for the peaceful solution of the social and economic
problems which were getting explosive. He was the crusading champion of the cause of the
liberation of Tibet and Bangladesh. Like the great Buddha, he tried to convert ferocious robbers
to the path of decent living. His important writings — Nation Building in India (1929), Why
Socialism? (1936), Socialism Sarvodaya and Democracy (1965), Communitarian Society and
Panchayati Raj (1970), Prison Diary (1977), Towards Total Revolution (1978) — constitute a
notable contribution to world political science. The total revolution phase of Narayan’s life
(1974-79) revealed the Himalayan dimensions of his charismatic personality. He appeared as a
titanic force galvanizing and solidifying the energies of the youth for India’s second political
freedom and economic reconstruction. He traversed the political scene as a mighty colossus.
Indeed, he was the greatest mass leader in Indian history after Gandhiji.
A great revolutionary, he was also a profound humanist. He was one of the greatest
defenders of democracy in the twentieth century. His sad, premature and tragic passing away
must have been hastened by the terrible ordeal that he had to face in 1975 in prison. He risked
his life to save the country from the bondage of totalitarianism. For centuries to come, his life
of sacrifice, utter self-abnegation, revolutionary fervour and noble idealism will continue to
inspire patriots and social workers. As an intellectual, he will continue to have an abiding place
in the domain of the social sciences.
the socialist solution: to abolish private ownership of the means of production and to establish
over them the ownership of the whole community.
JP was fully convinced that socialism in India could be established if sufficient power was
obtained by a socialist party. He was in support of adult franchise on a functional basis,
organising cooperatives, strengthening the producing masses with the powers and overpowering
role of the state in the economic life of the country. These ideas became the philosophy and
objectives of the Congress Socialist Party. He formed the Bihar Socialist Party in 1934. Other
socialist friends of Jay Prakash like Minoo Masanai of Bombay and Srimati Kamala Devi
Chattopadhyay of Maharashtra joined with him and were engaged in spreading the socialist
movement in India staying inside the Congress and Jay Prakash suggested to his socialist friends
to discuss among them regarding the prospect of working for socialism inside the Congress.
Accordingly, he convened a meeting of the Congress socialists during the General Session of
the Congress. The response was good. They formed Congress Socialist Party with separate
identity. The Party took the decision to fight against all types of exploitations, to fight against
the profit-extracting motive of the capitalists in the country, to enforce the distribution of
national wealth equally among the people of India. In Bombay on October 21-22, 1934 the first
annual session of the Congress Socialist Party was held. JP was moving spirit behind the
resolution that emphasized the socialist nature of the policy. The resolution listed certain
objectives to be achieved by C.S.P. These resolutions clearly spell out JP’s ideological
commitment to socialism. The aims of C.S.P. were:
(1) Transfer all power to the producing masses.
(2) Economic life of the country to be planned and controlled by the state.
(3) Socialisation of key and principal industries.
(4) State monopoly of foreign trade.
(5) Redistribution of land to peasants.
(6) Co-operative and collective farming to be encouraged.
(7) Right to work to be a fundamental right.
(8) Non-discrimination between sexes by state - gender justice.
(9) Repudiation of public debt.
This development was a crucial step in his socialist ideology because it was based upon a
scientific deduction, when he contrasted capitalism and socialism. In his opinion, profit-making
was the sole objective and life-line of capitalism; also, the root cause of its emergence as a social
disease because “as long as profits are sought, no recovery is possible. The symptoms of the
disease will keep reappearing. At the same time if profits are eliminated, capitalism dies. Thus,
there is a vicious cycle drawn from which socialism alone offers an escape”. The establishment
of the party was a pragmatic step to implement the ideals of socialism.
He inferred that abolition of capitalism was a positive and mandatory move towards socialism.
With this understanding he broadened the philosophy of socialism. As “socialism is not
merely anti-capitalism, nor statism. Nationalisation of industry and collectivisation of
agriculture are important aspects of socialist economy; but in themselves they are not socialism.
Under socialism there is no exploitation of man by man, no injustice and oppression, no
insecurity and an equitable distribution of wealth and services and opportunities”.
He was a democrat. For him, the state in socialist India must be a fully democratic state.
There can be no socialism without democracy. He was convinced that a democratic society
offers the chances for socialism to come into existence. Otherwise, the bureaucratic state
emerges with the support of the capitalist class. At this point people will resort to violent means;
hence democracy is the only system for a free, non-violent socialist society.
58 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jay Prakash Narayan
system of India is also reflected in a book titled Dynamics of Socialist Ideals, where he wrote:
Certainly, as far as the Indian experience is concerned, my uneasiness with the party system is
comprehensible and logical. If by ‘party’ is meant the organized and principled expression of
ideologically coherent socio-political interests and policies, it is arguable that post-independence
ruling-class India has never had a party at all, only agglomerations.
With the help of a communitarian democratic system, JP attempted to reconstruct the nation
by the elimination of power centric party politics in the Government. He recognized the maladies
of power centric party activities which destroys people’s rights. JP strongly talked against the
serious defects of parliamentary democracy and party politics. He tried his best to establish
communitarian democracy which was more and more decentralized so that people can take part
more and more in the administration for their development. He tried to transform Rajniti into
Lokniti to set up participatory democracy in India.
4) Define the term ‘total revolution’ and discuss its features and components.
Ans: Total revolution, as a concept, was put forward by Jay Prakash Narayan in the wake of
Bihar Movement in Patna on June 5, 1974. Jay Prakash Narayan's concept of total revolution is
one of his most important contributions to modern Indian political thought. His reflections on
total revolution crystallized out of his experiences during the sarvodaya phase of his life. It was
also a reaction to the contemporary socio-economic and political situation of the country.
Total revolution signifies a radical transformation not merely of our material conditions but
also of the moral character of the individuals. The idea was implicit in many of Gandhi’s writings
and speeches. JP came across a few practical problems associated with the sarvodaya movement.
If sarvodaya was his aim, total revolution was the means to achieve it. Total revolution is basic
change in all aspects of life. Following Gandhi, JP recognised the necessity of change in the
individual, the individual who takes upon himself the task of changing society. “One of the
unstated implications of satyagraha would be”, JP says in his Prison Diary, “a self-change, that
is to say, those wanting a change must also change themselves before launching any kind of
action”. The three major elements of total revolution were:
a) The creation and organization of people’s power,
b) Total and revolutionary change in all aspects of public life and
c) Development of people's government from the lower level.
Features of total revolution- The major features of Jay Prakash Narayan's concept of total
revolution include:
(1) Non-violence: The concept of total revolution was based on nonviolence. J. P. Narayan
explained that violence always led to further violence and to control the outbreak of mass
violence, an instrument of organized violence is required. He also refuted the idea that violent
revolutions could lead to 'swift and sure' result. Jay Prakash Narayan agreed to Tolstoy's famous
remark which showed that at times the revolutionaries tend to exploit people in the name of
revolution itself.
(2) Defence of democratic structure: Total revolution includes his idea that one of the
objectives of the revolution would be to maintain the democratic structure of the state. In his
notes penned down on 23 August, 1975, while still in prison, he remarked, "Total revolution has
to be peacefully brought about without impairing the democratic structure of society and
affecting the democratic way of life of the people". He also explained that the functioning of
democracy was not restricted to elections, legislation planning and administration.
(3) Transformation in the internal life: By his total revolution, JP meant a transformation
in the internal life of individuals as well as in the entire social structure. To Fred Bloom, the
60 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jay Prakash Narayan
meaning that Jay Prakash gave to total revolution was very simple: a transformation which
makes what is truly human the centre of life.
(4) Concept of permanent revolution: JP believed that the total revolution was a
permanent revolution. It would continue always and keep on changing our personal and social
lives. As he put in 1976, "It will always go on and on, this revolution knows no respite, no halt
and certainly not a complete halt". But he continued to add that the goals of the total revolution
would keep on changing according to the requirements of contemporary society.
(5) Leadership of students: J. P. Narayan assigned the role of leadership to the students.
He felt that the students were better equipped to spearhead the revolution because they were
neither swayed by power politics nor were they burdened by the day-to-day struggle for survival.
(6) Non-acceptance of Marxian class struggle: Lastly, Jay Prakash Narayan also
mentioned the difference between class struggle and total revolution. He admitted the view that
class organizations and class struggle would lead to violence. Sarvodaya prohibited class
struggle or any class organization. Hence, with regard to the content of total revolution, he had
mentioned that, at different periods, total revolution might assume different forms depending on
the needs of time and place and on the forces that are contending for power.
Components of total revolution- Total revolution is a combination of seven revolutions.
It is a permanent revolution and is expected to move on towards higher and higher goals. JP’s
concept of revolution is very comprehensive like that of Gandhi’s. It consists of a wide spectrum
of variables. There are seven components of total revolution – social, economic, political,
cultural, intellectual, educational and spiritual. JP himself thought that the cultural revolution
could include educational and ideological. Similarly, social revolution, according to him, in the
Marxian sense can cover economic and political revolutions and even more than that. He also
thinks that each of the seven categories can be further split up into sub-categories.
(1) Political revolution: In the political sphere the revolution would remove all vestiges of
centralization. In the sphere of political revolution JP follows Gandhi. In other words, if power
was shared among different echelons of the social structure starting from, say, the village
upward, the danger of centralisation could very well be avoided. JP's concept of democracy is
logically a theory of decentralized power and that of a party-less administration. It was this
approach to decentralisation of power that led him to support the panchayati raj system. At the
base of the new political organization will be the local or primary communities, neither so small
that a balanced development of communal life and culture become difficult, nor so large that life
in them becomes impersonalized.
(2) Economic revolution: The economic base of total revolution was laid on ‘Marx's
exploitation free society, Gandhian values of greedless society and appropriate technology
which should come from best possible scientific research’. JP was against the strategy of large-
scale industrialization and state capitalism (introduced in the guise of nationalization of
industries). Industrial development should be based on small scale industries and labour-
intensive enterprises. In the economic sphere JP emphasized on economic decentralization and
balanced regional development. At the centre of economic development should be 'man' and
hence every adult or head of a family should be given work and a minimum standard of living
should be adopted. This obviously required moral and spiritual development of the people.
(3) Social revolution: A social revolution is basically an economic revolution in the
Marxian formulation. Marx’s use of the term was justified in the European context. In the Indian
context, the term ‘social’ has a distinctive character. Due to caste divisions, a whole panoply of
rituals, hierarchy, modes of inter-caste communication, sense of pollution, marriage norms and
practices, social distance, and informal rules of behaviour have grown over thousands of years.
The task of total revolution in this sense is iconoclastic. It has to break the caste barriers. And,
in order to do so, total revolution must evolve new norms and practices replacing those based
on caste. Inter-caste dining, abolition of dowry system, archaic marriage rules and regulations –
61 | P a g e
Indian Political Thinkers┃Jay Prakash Narayan
all must enter the area of total revolution. It is in this sense that the social content of total
revolution assumes quite an independent dimension.
(4) Educational and spiritual revolution: Referring to the educational and spiritual
revolution JP wrote: “I do not have asceticism in mind. That is for the spiritual seekers. For the
average man, for all of us, a full material satisfaction is itself a spiritual life. Craving excess, bad
means to gather wealth, these are anti spiritual”. He was a deeply moral person and felt that
people must be taught to turn away from the consumerist way of life. This leads to the
importance of value-based education. Education must ensure that the members of the community
are well prepared to accept new ideas.
(5) Cultural revolution: At a purely personal or group level, cultural revolution invokes a
change in the moral values held by the individual or the group. In any debate of moral values,
therefore, ends and means must enter. In the cultural sphere, he advocated a cultural resurgence
based on a re-evaluation of existing values including freedom, equality and brotherhood. JP used
the term culture in a very comprehensive sense. The cultural aspect of total revolution
emphasized on a change in our way of living and thinking.
(6) Intellectual revolution: A change in regard to the ends – means relationship both in the
individual and group life is bound to produce a corresponding change in the belief system, that
is, the ideology of either the individual or the group. A new ideological revolution, therefore, is
bound to ensure if the organic relationship between ends and means is accepted. As a natural
corollary to this, an intellectual revolution cannot be avoided; for the entire ends-and-means
approach in the context of Gandhian thought must give a new outlook to the individual or the
group to view things around them. And this is what JP means by intellectual revolution. The
most important variable in the cultural change is education. JP’s scheme envisaged a thorough
change in the system. According to JP, education must be a powerful element of social change
and it should be closely linked to national development. It should be biased in favour of the
masses rather than in favour of the upper classes. It must create a new kind of awareness among
the submerged and weaker sections of our society, so that they feel fully integrated with the
society.
Many critics have strongly criticized his concept of total revolution as utopian and
impractical. Thinkers like N. G. Gorey doubts whether total revolution is feasible in a country
like India where the fatalism is so deep-rooted. While other people like W. S. Kane says that
realizing Indian condition, total revolution was a long-term target. It may be flexible to take
initiatives to win it. JP, himself was aware of the gaps in the revolution. After MK Gandhi, JP
inspired the new generations with new urge and determination to go forward. He was a fearless
and risk-taker person to establish liberty, equality, and justice for all in the country. With
humility, towards the end of his life, he stated; “And this unsuccessful life will be blessed a
hundred times, it makes the thorny path a bit easier”.
62 | P a g e