M N Roy's Radical Humanism

Roy’s Radical Humanism

Camil Parkhe,

The Navhind Times, Panjim, Goa, March 21, 1984

Improvement in the prevalent social political structure of the society has remained a concern of philosophers right from the ancient history of mankind, in the pursuit of the desire to bring the positive changes, these philosophers, including Pluto, Aristotle, Rousseau, Karl Marx and others, sought to give their own theories for the betterment of the society. In India, the name of M.N.Roy figures prominently among the contemporary Indian philosophers for providing solutions to the various crisis created under the different forms of governments in the world. The birth anniversary of the founder of the ‘radical humanism’ is being celebrated on March 21 in different parts of the country.

Disillusion: The radical humanism philosophy of Manbendra Nath Roy (1886-1954) which is centred around the three elements – freedom, reason and morality- was the outcome of long close association with the different movements in India, Communist countries and also in the West. Earlier, influenced by the thoughts of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Dayananda Saraswati, Roy came in contact with the Marxist literature . Further he was to rub shoulders with the world communist leaders, including Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and others. Roy is also heralded as the founder of the communist movement in India since Sripad Amrit Dange made his debut only after Roy sowed the seeds of the ideology in India. As a true nationalist, Roy was pulled into the struggle for Indian independence, but branded the policies of Gandhiji and Nehru as ‘‘against the common masses.’’ Roy was disillusioned with the Marxist ideologies during the last phase of his life (1947-54) and founded his own Radical Democratic Party. Later, on, the party was dissolved as a political wing and continued to function under the name Radical Democratic movement. The movement proposes to provide answers to the different problems created both under capitalism or parliamentary democracy.

Having deep experiences in various movements, Roy is bitterly against many of the Marxian principles as he is also critical of the capitalist principles. In fact, in one of the books, “New Humanism, a Manifesto’’ Roy evaluates the fruits of the first communist revolution borne in the only communist country at that time. (Of course, the experiences of the later communist countries, too, have not been better than that of Russia!) Despite its widely acclaimed deal of ‘‘ending the exploitation of man by man’’ communism continued to suppress the human individual under the name of ‘’collective ego.’’ Roy here points out the failure of Karl Marx in providing the clear outlines of the transitional period of the proletarian state to the stateless society which unfortunately led to the many shameful affairs in the early communist world. The criticism of Marxism by M.N. Roy is manifold. The teleological interpretation of society puts restrain on the freedom of the individual, he says and adds that Marxism gives a negative role to the individual while glorifying the social struggle.

Roy is also against the economic interpretation of the human history as preached by the Marxists. Before man became a ‘’homo economicus’’ he was purely guided by his biological considerations. Though a firm believer in the theory of evolution, like Marx, Roy denied that man was ruled by economic needs.

Marxist ethics: M.N. Roy also criticises Marx for his ethical foundations. Marx apparently preaches different kinds of morality in different stages of society. Marxist ethics tell us that all our social evils are originated in the root cause of ‘‘man being determined by his economic considerations and that man freed from these considerations will not exploit others.’’ And since Karl Marx believed in the real, free nature of man, I think there is no internal contradiction in Marxist theory while providing different types of morality as it accepts that economic considerations determine the human modes of behavior. Naturally, man will not exploit each other once these considerations are ruled out.

On the other hand, Roy also criticises the parliamentary democracy which according to him, makes the civil liberties mere formalities and adds that the inadequacies of this system are inherent in itself. Noticing the communist alternative too unpleasant and the status quo ‘’ubearable’’ Roy forwards his own third alternative.

Third alternative: Roy stresses on the human nature as rational, claiming that with evolution, man has come to be ruled by his reason. Man is essentially rational and, therefore, moral. Roy adds that morality emanates from the rational desire for harmonious and mutually beneficial social relations. The purpose of all social endeavour should be to make man increasingly conscious of his rationality. And ‘‘freedom is the progressive elimination of all the factors –physical, social, psychological which obstruct the unfolding of man’s rational, moral and creative potentialities.’’

Roy maintains his materialist stand when he says that one cannot be moral under the fear of any power, be it society, government or supernatural power. Man is moral since he is rational. Roy’s humanism thinks neither in terms of a class or nation; it is cosmopolitan; it conceives freedom as freedom of the individual and, therefore, Royist philosophy does not accept the sacrifice of the individual at the altar of the collective ego.

Having the notion of man as rational and, therefore, moral, Roy rejects the economic notion of man and says new humanism cannot be realised either by economic reconstruction or by capturing power through violence. The fundamental democratic principle can materialize only when the spiritually free society comes forward. The real guarantees of parliamentary democracy, according to him, is not the law but the moral conscience of the majority in power. To Bring about this setup, Roy suggests installation of pyramidal structure of the state, raised on the foundation of the local democracies which he calls as “political schools”. Through the local democracies, the right of recalling and regular referendum the masses will maintain a constant check on the rulers. But the urgent need is to stimulate the urge for freedom and to develop faith in oneself.

Ideal society: The Royist cosmopolitan humanism believes in a spiritual community in which other governments will gradually disappear. The spiritual community of Roy resembles the ‘’agnostic community’’ of Sri Aurobindo. Both philosophers consider bringing more and more people under the same fold as a duty. The ideal society will be neither capitalistic nor communist but cooperative since man as a rational being can subordinate his interests to the well-being of others. Here Roy shares his belief in cooperative fellowship of man with the other prominent Indian thinkers, including Gandhi, Tagore and Sri Aurobindo. However, unlike them, his philosophy is purely materialist and based on the natural rationality of man.

The travel of M. N. Roy from a staunch Marxist leader to a philosopher calling for moral renaissance is unique as only a few people have dared to move so drastically from one extreme to the other. But is shows his critical, open mind.

Karl Marx and M. N.Roy have little differences as far as their ideals are concerned. Though the former accepted the economic notion of man, I wonder if he means that man will retain his economic nature even top the stateless society. Xxx the stateless society of Marx resembles the rational society of Roy. Marx proceeds to bring the ideal by advocating action while Roy begins with making man responsible and spiritually free from self-interest.

In India, somehow materialist philosophy is not received with much appreciation, probably due to the strong influence of the religious philosophy over the masses. However, many people, especially, from the elite classes, have joined the Royist movement during his life-time and later. The followers of Roy and the institutions founded by to propagate his ideology, are carrying, on the work of Roy in different ways without having any affiliation with political parties.

Constraints: “Roy died at the time when he was most headed,”” Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan has said on the death of this great Indian thinker. However, despite the rich content and noble ideals, the philosophy of radical humanism seems far from being applicable to the present Indian society. The moral renaissance, of which Roy talks of, is not possible in the contemporary Indian society which is in bondage of poverty and superstitions, where economic consideration gain primacy over spiritual or political considerations. Thus it is difficult to speak of ‘’awakening one’s faith in oneself’’ and at the most, the so called radical philosophy can be restricted to only a smaller number of people.