Freedom through Democratic Reorganisation: A Critical
Reading of M. N. Roy’s New Humanism: A Manifesto
Nil Kamal Roy,
Ph.D. Research Scholar,
Dept. of English and FL,
Central University of South Bihar,
Bihar, India,
&
Vipin Kumar Singh,
Professor,
Dept. of English and FL,
Central University of South
Bihar,
Bihar, India.
Abstract: In shaping the concept of Great India and in
idealizing the cultural life in India, India philosophers take the most
prominent role. So, the importance of the Indian philosophers from any field
becomes essential in the conceptual construction of India. In discussing the
political life in India, the significance of the democratic value is to be
analysed synchronously. While talking about the Indian concept of democratic
nationalism, the political philosophy of Manabendra Nath Roy (1887-1954)
helps to draw a new scope in the discussion. Roy’s New Humanism: A Manifesto (1947) deals with the utmost human
value of people in political system. He talked about setting up a completely
free sovereign citizenship by reorganising the existing parliamentary democracy
where people elect their “delegation” and lose their sovereignty for a
considerable period of time. To him, access to the freedom of sovereign power
is to be fluent and incessant for a citizen. That is why Roy named his proposed
democracy as Radical Democracy. The freedom that Roy tried to shape through
establishing a pure democracy is universally reflective, as this sort of
democratic value of life does not fade even beyond the physical boundary of a
nation. He broadened the democratic interest of life rejecting the tendency of
viewing life in a narrower point of political perspective. Thus providing a
scope for reimagining democracy, borders and internationalism - his
philosophical explorations challenge conventional notions of individual
sovereignty under nationhood and borders. The philosophical formulations of
this thinker are experimental. He did not look Indian society through the
contemporary established views of the West. Rather, he propagated his own ideas
to view Indian life which should inevitably be spiritually free.
Keywords: democracy, freedom, nationalism, M.N. Roy, new
humanism
Introduction:
Manabendra Nath Roy alias Narendra Nath
Bhattacharya (1887-1954) was one of the revolutionary philosophers of the
twentieth century. Throughout his life, he engaged in Indian politics,
movements and political reformations. Roy was the first person to propose the
idea of a Constituent Assembly to draft constitution “by Indians and for
Indians” (“The Making of India’s Constitution” 00:00:58-01:07). He was the
developed the concept of Radical Humanism. It is a philosophy that prioritizes
human freedom. It talks about individual freedom and well-being. In terms of
societal relationship, ensconcing individual qualities gets nucleus value of
importance. The progress is measured on the basis of the individual’s
potentialities. The crux of the Radicalism is that “man is the measure of
everything” (New Humanism: A Manifesto 62). It fosters individualisation
of social relationships which is determined by the intra-personal level of
consciousness. So it contours a line between collective social development and
individual social well-being, and caresses the former. His life underwent
idealistic changes in diverse orbital movements of his political journey. He
was the founder of Communist Party in India. He began as a radical nationalist
in Bengal, founding member of the Mexican Communist Party and went with the
authoritarianism of Stalinism – all these happened around the first quarter of
twentieth century. But after returning back in India and enduring imprisonment
from 1931 to 1936, he judged his ideological position and became a critic of
Communism. This period witnessed his magnum opus Reason, Romanticism and
Revolution (1952) where he diagnosed modern civilisational crisis in
cultural and moral ground. His shift from a radical Marxist to become one of
its terrible critics makes him a paradoxical figure in the history of Indian
philosophical journey. However, his experimental political doctrines create
quite a stir when we ruminate on the vision of the Indian freedom fighters
behind their call for democracy and how much it has been reified.
The Radical
Democratic Party of India, which was founded by M. N. Roy, resolved to issue a
manifesto on the main principles of New Humanism in the 1946 Conference. The
need of developing the movement of New Humanism began with the Party’s
foundation day in 1940. M.N. Roy took the initiative to write down the draft of
the manifesto according to the resolution and submitted it in the party’s
Central Political Council which was held between 23rd and 25th
may in 1947. The group which propagated the movement for New Humanism
differentiated themselves from both the nationalists and the orthodox
communists. For Roy, there is a little difference between Nationalism and
Communism as the latter sect took the attitude of the former in the immediate
issue of the Second World War. As Roy did not find any ongoing competence of
the philosophical construction to meet the requirements of the contemporary
time, he felt the necessity of new social ideology and philosophy to mitigate
the crisis of culture. “He realised that communism provided no
solution to worldly problems and in communism man is treated as a helpless
being dancing to the dictates of economic forces and his individual personality
is subordinated for the collective interest” (Debjani Ghosal 32). Roy’s New Humanism:
A Manifesto deals with the utmost human value of people under political
system. Here he denied promoting narrow practice of human value and spirit
under humanism. India’s vision of humanism is felt to be compromised somewhat
in the democratic process of constituting life. Roy finds a new way to
determine this actual free democratic orientation. That is why he names it New
Humanism.
Conceptual Foundation
of New Humanism
In shaping the
concept of Great India and in idealizing the cultural life in India, the Indian
philosophers take the most prominent role. So, the importance of the Indian
philosophers from any field becomes essential in the conceptual construction of
India. In discussing the political life in India, the significance of the
democratic values is to be analysed synchronously. While talking about the
Indian concept of democratic nationalism, the political philosophy of
Manabendra Nath Roy helps to draw a new scope in the discussion. M. N. Roy is
the first person to propound a systematic philosophical theory on the political
construction of India. He is known for his philosophical views on New Humanism.
He ascribed the function of humanism to the responsibility of protecting
individual right in relation to the world. While talking about freedom of human
will through democratic reorganisation, the political philosophy of New
Humanism or Radical Humanism by M. N. Roy guides us towards a constructive
design of a true democratic life. Such
worldly perspective of developing views broadens the realms of our focus and
associates us with an advanced value. The contribution of M. N. Roy to Indian
philosophy provides the discourse of tolerance and acceptance that goes beyond
the traditional boundaries of a nation. Promotion of liberal thoughts is essential
in extending our social acceptance as well as universal acceptance. In his
philosophical views, the notion of nation and its borders becomes blurred when
the whole world’s interest is bound in a single formula.
In
the manifesto, Roy drew a philosophy which he called a social philosophy based
on human philosophy of history. It is very scientific as the principles can be
outlined from a general philosophy of nature and life based on the
cosmological, ontological and ethical concepts and propositions. The
contemporary antiquated political doctrines and theoretical postulates about a
Utopia should be replaced to attain the possible efforts for heading off the
threatening catastrophe of the upcoming World War created by the political
situations. He wrote: “Neither the co-called western democracy nor Russian
Communism can head off another war, towards which the world is drifting, as it
were, by fate” (New Humanism 5). He also remarked: “In this gravest
crisis of its entire history, the civilized world needs a new hope, a new
faith, a new ideal – a new philosophy of revolutionary theory and practice
suitable for the conditions of the time” (6).
At the beginning of
his philosophical development, M. N. Roy was a devoted follower of Marxism. But
later, he became a critic of communism and formed his own radical philosophy on
Humanism. He named his revolution New Humanism which is based on the exclusive
protection of humanity. He called it new as he was not satisfied with the
contemporary concept of Humanism. Thus going beyond the traditional formation
of the Humanism, his ideology became exceptional. His thoughts are centred on
humanism. Rationality, morality and liberation are the driving force of his
Humanism. Benefit, independency and enrichment of human are the main target of
his new-Humanism. He believed that the rationality and morality can lead a
society to head off the crisis of culture. Analysing and critiquing numerous
philosophical and political doctrines and ideologies he formed his New
Humanism. He pointed out in his The Problem of Freedom (1945):
“Freedom is not a beautiful castle built in the air of imagination. It rests on
the triple pillar of humanism, individualism and rationalism.” (61)
He believed that the
right of individual independency can only be protected by democratic system. To
him, socialism is that society which establishes individual freedom by
eradicating inequality and discrimination. Behind the man’s quest of knowledge,
the desire to acquire freedom and truth is rooted. The more one gets knowledge,
the more he reaches to the truth. He assumed that in the Marxist socialism and
the capitalist society, an individual can never be freed from the trap of
exploitation and deprivation. All his economical and instinctive can be
fulfilled in his propounded theory of New Humanism. In his New Humanism: A
Manifesto, he said:
Radicalism thinks in
terms neither of nation nor of class; its concern is man; it conceives freedom
as freedom of the individual. Therefore, it can also be called New Humanism,
new, because it is Humanism enriched, reinforced and elaborated by scientific
knowledge and social experience gained during the centuries of modern
civilization.
Humanism is
cosmopolitan. It does not run after the Utopia of internationalism, which
presupposes the existence of autonomous National States... A cosmopolitan
commonwealth of free men and women is a possibility ft will be a spiritual
community, not limited by the boundaries of National States – capitalist,
fascist, communist or of any other kind – which will gradually disappear under
the impact of cosmopolitan Humanism. That is the Radical perspective of the
future of mankind. (36-37)
In Roy’s humanism,
the national borders are transcended and they cannot immure the virtues of
people. The realm of human communication narrows down as the world itself is
fragmented in different parts within it. But in Roy’s nationalism, these parts
are more focused, organised and concentrated. They are not scattered, but are
arranged on the basis of self-rectifying mood. Vivifying inner strength is
their main will. The democratic value of life that Roy talked about in the
boundary of a nation is consistent beyond the border. For him, the democratic
value of life does not fade even beyond the physical boundary of a nation. He
broadened the democratic interest of life rejecting the tendency of viewing
life in a narrower point of political perspective. This also provides a scope
for reimagining borders and internationalism as his philosophical explorations
challenge conventional notions of nationhood and borders.
Actually behind
India’s becoming as the multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-religious
country, there is the long history of peaceful cohabitation by maintaining
tolerance, democratic ideology and liberalism. So, in the context of today’s
world of better social connectivity, people in India need to have a sense of
self-rule in a new way of maintaining tolerance which the great philosopher
focused on by rejecting the Indian practice of counterfeiting Western political
system. India is so diverse a country that maintains
a strong, pliable and regular invisible thread which holds all kinds of
colourful, myriad beads into its capability. This umpteen identification needs
a proper channel of communicating with each other. Roy talked about an
organised democracy in pyramidal structure where parliament takes its apex
point and People's Committees prevail at its base. The People's Committees work
as a network countrywide. It works as an alternative to parliamentary democracy
and Roy proved the present day formal parliamentary democracy, not democratic
parliamentary system, as unsuccessful for it establishes a system where people
consign power to a “delegation” for a considerable period of time and have to
lose to protect self sovereign power which an individual should wield always
effectively as per as democracy is concerned. So he refused to accept this sort
of democracy i.e., parliamentary democracy but democratic parliamentary system.
He emphasized on the fact that a democratic state must always confer the
individual to exercise their sovereignty. But in this parliamentary system,
power can only be applied periodically and “individual citizens are powerless for
all practical purposes, and most of the time” (57).
Moreover economic liberation is a craving
urge or crucial for a free man. In Radical Democracy, economic reorganisation
is of utmost importance. It ensures material necessities for a man so that he
can have no hindrance in his way of acquiring full potential. The freedom that Roy dreamt cannot be merely achieved by
capturing authorial power of politics “in the name of the oppressed and
exploited classes and abolition of private property in the means of production”
(55). He
felt that political democracy is needed for economic democracy which can
distribute wealth uniformly among all individuals in a society. On the other
hand, economic democracy is not possible without the presence of political
democracy. However Roy pointed out: “Planned economy under political
dictatorship disregards individual freedom on the pleas of efficiency,
collective effort and social progress” (57). Here he felt the presence of
dictatorship which aims to exist perpetually and that is why he argued that
higher form of democratic freedom is impossible. In the Radical Democracy, Roy
emphasized on the participation of the adult population in determining the
economy of production and distribution instead of conferring it to the delegations.
The active participation of the entire adult population will be based on the
universal knowledge to have maximum control and scope on the product and
production. Roy does not believe in the doctrine of laissez
faire which embraces exploitation of man by man as economic “free” man is
to be a slave or slave holder. Hence, he feels the necessity of a rational
being who is bound to be moral as morality comes from conscience and this
conscience is nothing but “the instinctive awareness of, and reaction to, environments”
(58). The revolution, which comes from the human brain, is the most
iconoclastic commodity as it causes radical change with outstanding
ideas. And here human as a thinking being is the maker of the world. So
the more men can use their conscious creative ideas - powered by indomitable
spirit - in creating adventurous ideas for constituting a free society for free
men, the more they would be able to create conditions of a powerful democracy.
To Roy, in a
democratic country people are sovereign and they must have a free will which
will be capable of rational judgement. So men, not merely being voting robots,
must raise their sovereign voices any time they feel. This human calibre never
ceases under radical democratic practice. On the contrast, he expressed the
possibility of degradation of sovereign people under a formal democratic
practice. He noticed it in the context of India and also pointed out that under
this degradation people will be diverted from job of establishing a pure
democracy: “in India such degradation of formal democracy is practically
predetermined by the cultural predisposition of the people to believe blindly
and to accept miracles.” (108)
Defining Freedom in
Roy’s Thought
India has always had
a tendency to acquire moksh or salvation in life. For ensuring freedom
to the growth of its multidimensional, multilayered and multifaceted societies
- a diverse, flexible and versatile kind of people managing scheme needs to be
entertained for its people. The concept of democracy is very much constructive
in granting every possible development of human views, virtues and varieties.
These are the spiritual human qualities, restricting which is really a negation
to knowledge and this strengthens a habit of ignorance and spiritual
barrenness. The spiritual condition for a man is set when he is capable of
erecting and expressing his every truthful design. If an honest mind welcomes
these expressions, they have to be preserved as honesty is always spiritual.
For vindication of these creative voices, a spiritual feeling is to be
paid. All these facts made the Indian leaders feel the necessity of
democracy. This democratic life is spiritual.
The establishment of Radical Democracy is task only
possible by the collective efforts of spiritually free men who will not play
their roles like that of the rulers but as guides, philosophers and friends.
Any kind of power will be dethroned in this movement of people's will for
freedom. Human is the measure of a society. The freedom rate in the individual
determines the level of improvement of a collective social position.
Achievement in individual aim is the utmost requirement for measuring the
success of a society as human beings are “in the wheels of a mechanised social
organism” (54). Here freedom means the attainment of a favourable position in
the earthly environment that makes human beings to perform every opportunity
for life’s potential. So individuality of the human beings is to be focused on.
He felt that a political party system, which considers an individual only in
terms of a man of flesh and blood and tries to find him or her in supposed
collective ego, cannot provide a means of pure freedom. This freedom cannot be
attained by sacrificing individual sovereignty. He stated: “Communism or
socialism may conceivably be the weans for the attainment of the goal of
freedom” (55).
Democratic control of a powerful and planned political
machinery can ensure freedom in the reorganisation of order. The role of people
in creating effective democratic structure is vital. They must have access to
knowledge on principles of freedom and cooperative living to build up the
congenial foundation of revolution. This programme of revolution will erase
every possible form of external control on life. A citizen must have to be
educated in constituting a progressive, prosperous and free society. The
People's Committees will work as schools for the citizens. Radical Democracy
will also work for the detached, marginal and isolated individuals to bring
them to the forefront of social affairs. Here Roy again feels the necessity of
spiritually free men to lead in this process. Roy argued that knowledge
liberates a human being by deleting the obscurities that constrains the mind
into conventionally orthodox, superstitious and fear-stricken beliefs. Knowledge brings clarity for understanding the truth. The mind becomes
immune to all sorts of illogical and irrational temptations under the knowledge
of this truth. In defining life’s knowledge, Roy focused on
knowing nature and its phenomena and this act is conducive in eradicating
obstacles and obscurity. In this process of cognising the surrounding world
through biological struggle, liberation is contained within an individual’s mentation.
Roy believes that knowledge is man’s biological property and he or she is
biologically a rational being who carries the will of freedom. This connection
among biological, mental and intelligent realm of human is the science behind
determining the process of key will of human behaviour.
Conclusion
In
the present day order, Roy’s views on people’s rights in a democratic country
like India become a way to solution for the pragmatic problems that India is
undergoing. If such a societal practice is established where an individual is
always unbound to his or her thinking, reasoning and expressing - it is itself
a freedom. This very state diminishes the desire of seeking freedom from
outside. Though Roy’s theory has been criticized later from multiple philosophical
perspectives in the questions of its implementation, his contribution in
coining a new political philosophy based on the concept of humanity and
development of human wealth is no doubt innovative and very experimental. The
independent India borrowed many principles from M.N. Roy’s Constitution of
Free India (1944). India’s concept of Five-Years Plan is also derived from
Roy’s “People’s Plan.” So, considering all of his contribution in India’s
thought, he can be considered a great Indian thinker, a political philosopher,
economic philosopher and political-economic reformer of India. Roy’s philosophy
teaches us how to respect each individual without any compromising his will
power. His philosophical renderings make us feel the actual freedom under
a democratic system.
Works Cited
CLPR Trust. “The Making of India’s
Constitution.” YouTube, 15 Aug. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrKEtEzqZ7g.
Ghosal, Debjani. “M. N. Roy’s
philosophy of ‘Radical Humanism’: An Overview.” Heritage, Vol. III,
2016, pp. 31-40.
Roy, M.N. New Humanism: A Manifesto.
Ajanta Publications, 1981.
---. Reason, Romanticism and
Revolution. Ajanta Publications, 1989.
---. The Problem of Freedom. Renaissance
Publishers, 1945.