The Indian Journal of Folitical Science

Vol. LXVI, N'o.3, .Xul,v-SePt.' 2005

RADICAL IIUMANTSI\{ oF M. tr{. ROY
BK Mahakul

Manobendro Natlt Ro1'as a politicol tltinker of Moderu India is

o lladical Humanist, by tlisowning Marxism. {n evolving tlte so-
cial philosophl'of Radical Hunmnism' he considers hinself as a
hunmnist and not an ofihodox Mancist. He integratet! Radicol-
isnn v,ith Scienti/ic humanisn or New Huntanisttt. His political
views orefouttletl on reoson and morality and not on any dognn'
He beliit;el ilnt tlrc crisis of rnotlem civilizotion is chte to the
lack of integrated vie't+' of ltltfilan nature- According to M-N.R91t,
itt on),revolutionaryt 5eslal philosophy sovereignty of man tnusl
be recognized. Man must be token as a moral e,xtily ond not
merely i biologicat one. Rol' v'as critical of the Momian con-
cepts of economic deterntinism, dictatorship of the proletoriat,
t{ialeclol materiolism, and surphts volue. Accotding lo him, the
economic slruclttre of tlrc saciety should be so planned fiat il
would prontote freetloll and.-well-being of the itidivitltal-He
dsse,'/s tfutt the task of e"very,fi.ghterfor a nev' lrumanistic workl
v,ould be to rnake every individttal consciotts of ltis innate ra-
tionality. Thus Ro1,.rrlr"€.ss€s that neitlter Capitalism nor Porlia-
nretilary S),steu cair solve lhe problenrs of nmnkind. New Hu-
nmnism is the only ahernolh'e, v'hich reconciles social organi-
zulion anrl individual fi'eedom. Ilis philosophy ort Ratlical Hu-
rnrrnisnr is consitlered as his ntost intpa!1flttt contribution, v*ich
nu1, provklefor a strong fottndntiotr lo Indian dentocracl'-

ir4 ana b e ndra Nath-B.oy-tire thiuker: arldinle lle-c tla l, p as s ed tlrlo qgb-
three stages. In the hrst stage, he was a national revolutionary engaged in
smuggling arxis and money for the revolutionary movement in Bengal. In
the second stage, he u,as a Marxist active in Comnrunist movenrent. In the
third and fi1al stage, he emerged as a Radical Humanist, by disorvning
Marxism. As an intellectual, M.N.Roy had a zest for new ideas. He accepted
Marxism in 19 i 9 rvhile in lr{exico, but he did not remain a Marxist. ln
1 92 8, Roy developed serious d ifferences with the Communist International;
in which was a member since 1 918 and breaking offhis relations he reached
lndia. Since that time, he developed a new Social Philosophy known as
Radical Humanism. In evolving the social philosophy of Radical
Hununism, Roy was influenced by different thinkers like Marx, Hobbes,
Hegel, and Lenin etc. Roy attenrpted to unite the rational ideas of these
different thinkers, which were diverse even conflicting stands o66rstrghti
in one Philosophical System. In 1940 Roy began a joumey away from
 The Indian Journal of political Science
608
Marxism towards Radicalism.

Humanism- The concept- The termhumanism has been derived

fi.om the
Latin word 'Humanus' meaning a system of thought primarily
concerned
with human bqing and with rruman affairs in general. There have
been
seveml schools of humanism, particularly French and German
schools,
which have contributed much in its develophrent in history. However,
all
of them have one conrnon thing that, they attach primary importance
to
man. The humanists assert that man by nafure is good and
capable of
indefinite advances towards perfection.

M.N.Roy considered himself as a Radical and not an ofthodox

in
between 1940 to 1947. Later, he cha
called integral scientific humanism or New Humanism. In August
1947 in
the manifesto of New Hurnanisnl R.oy explained his political
views as
being founded on reason and morarity and not on any dogma.
Roy said:
"Most revolutionary political practice be guided by the Jesuitic
djctum-
the end Justifies the nreans. The final sanction of revolutionbeing
its nroral
appeal- the appeal for social justice- logically the answer
to flre latter
yects can
ever be attained by imrnoral means. In critical movements, when
larger
issues are involved and greater things are at stake, some
temporary
compromise in behaviour may be permissible. But when practices
repugnant to ethical principles and traditional human values
are stabilized
as the permanent feafures of the revolutionary regime,
the means defeat
the end. Therefore, communist political practice has not
taken the world,
not even the working class, anywhere near a neworder offteedom
and
social justice. on the contrary, it has plunged the army of revolution_
Proletarian as rvell as non-proletarian in an intellectual confusion,
spiritual;
chaos, emotional fi-ustration, and a general demoralization" (Roy
1947:
34 -37). These words were reminiscent of Gandhi who
Royhad denounced
for the greater part of his life.

M.N.Roy has viewed; history cannot be co'sidered merery a

succession ofevents. [t contains the records of man's struggle
for freedom.
ln the past man either subrnitted to the forces of nahrre or to a blind
faith
a
Radical Humanism of M. N. Roy 609

inthe existence of a supernatural agency iike God finding himself helpless

against the forces of nature he wanted deliverance and imagined God for
absolute dependence and subordination. As a result of several hundred
years of shuggle man ultimately succeeded in casting off the illusion of
his relation with God. Renaissance in Europe was a revolt of man against
the authoritarianism of religion. Liberated from the tyranny of theology
and the prejudices of supernaturalisrq mankind marched towards what
we call modern civilization. In such a situation Roy felt the need of a new
philosophy to usher in the age of man it had to be a primarily concemed
with human life, a philosophy which would set human spirit free, a
philosophy which would explain all the phenomena of nature and
experiences of human life u,ithout any reference to supernatural powers-
a philosophy with a social purpose. For Roy, the end ofhumanist tradition
- , iffiiontluouglm,ecian-izationwasru-agedymaking
the start of a decend civilization prevailing then. Giving his own
appreciation of the situation M.N. Roy said, " The eclipse of the humanist
tradition is the course of this degeneration and decay. Modem civilization
stood at the head of the declining plane of decay the movement it broke
away from tradition of humanism-subordinated man to the institutions
(RoY 1952:269).

Roy's New Humanismwas cosmopolitan in outlook. It could think

not in terms of the nation or a class but only in tenns of man. Such a

conception could be the foundation of New Humanism, new, because it is

Humanism enriched, reinforced and elaborated by scientific knowledge
and social experience gained during the centuries of modern civilization
(Royl947: 34). His New Humanism is pledged to the ideal of a
commonwealth and fraternity of freeman. He believed that a
corunonwealth of morally and spiritually liberated individual is the
ftlndanrental requirement for the realization of a better and healthier society.
Such a humanistic society would be a spiritual community not lirruted by
the boundaries of national states-, capitalist, fascist, or of any other kind.
Thc trndian .Iournal of Folitical Science 610

As a Radical Humanist, Roy's approach was individualistic. Man

must be taken as a moral entity and not merely a biological one. Man is
moral because he is rational. The universe nrust be taken as a moral order
governed by laws inherent in itself. The individual must not be subordinated
either to a nation or to a class. Roy rejected both the nationalism of
Congressmen and the theory of class struggle ofthe Communists. He said:
" Radicalism thinks in ternx neither of nation nor of class; its concern is
man, it conceives freedorn as freedom of the individual" (Roy 1947:36).
The individual should not lose his identity in the collective ego of the
nation or of the class. " The Nation-State, iu practice, makes no greater
concession to the concept of individual fleedomthan the class-state of the
Communists, and also of the socialists. And no modern democratic state
haS ye t bltgiown-atronat iSt coil ectiVism- -(R o),, I 9 5 2 ).

M.N.Roy was impressed by the philosophy of Karl Malx in the

beginning ofhis political career. He accepted Marxismbecause he believed
tirat Marx was a humanist and that he was deeply concemed about man.
Hurnanism in Marx had strong attraction for Roy. However, 1940, as a
Radical Hununist, Roy ceased to believe in the Marxian theory of class
struggle. Society could not sulive without some kind of social cohesive
force and, accordingly class sffuggle could not be the only reality (Roy
1947). Linked with this theory of social cohesiveness Roy's emphasis
was on the role of the middle class as the most progressive class in modern
society. Whereas in Marxian theory the working class has a special place,
in later fomulations of Roy the middle class had a special status. Roy
emphasized the.individual and not the class, but when he spoke in terms
of classes he gave pride place to the middle class and not to the proletariat,
whom Roy characterized as the most backward stratum of society (Roy
t9s2).

Roy recognized the contribution of Marx in giving a new social

pldlosophy, but he rejected interpretation ofMarxismby the Contemporary
Communists. Communism began as a movement for the salvation of the
a
I{adical Hurnanism of M" N. R'oY 6ll
world tortured arid tormented by capitalist exploitation but lately is causing
grave misgivings even among the progressive forces ofthe modem world.
According to Roy, "The abolition of private property, state ownership of
the means of production and planned economy do not by themselves end
exploitation of labour nor lead to an equal distribution of wealth" (Roy
1952:31). To Roy, dictatorship of any kind was inconsistent with the ideal
lor freedorn. The claim of Communists that Proletarian dictatorship with
planned economy brings greatest good of the greatest number has been
tested and proved wrong.

M.N.Roy was critical of the Marxian concept of economic

deterrninism. Economic determinism cannot be the social philosophy,
which is required to lead civilized nrankind out of the present crisis. Roy

the threatened catastrophe is to be avoided. We must have faith in human

ingenuity and the creativeness of the human mind, which are far from
being exhausted", (Roy, 1961: l5). He contended that the "new social order
must combine planning with fi'eedom and should be led by the ideal of
collective welfare and progress".

Roy denounced the theories of class struggle and of the dictatoiShip

of the Proletariat. He wanted to emphasiz:e the individual more than the
class, whe.ther it be the working class or the middle class. Roy envisaged
the conflict ofthe present age as "between totalitarianism and democracy,
between the all-devouring-collective ego-nation or class and the individual
shuggling for freedom (Roy t 94 7 : 3 3 ) Roy asserted that Marxian en"rphasis
on revolution and on the dictatorship of the Proletariat would lead to
totalitarianism. Revolutions could not bring about miracles. Roy did not
discard the rvord 'revolution' in total. As a Radical Humanist, Roy came
to believe that a revolution should be brought about not through class
shuggle or anrred violence but tfuough education. Education not in the
conventional sense of reading and writing, but education in the culturral
sense, of a high degree of general human development. The method of
 f T

The [ndian Journal of Political Scienee 612

education that Roi, emphasized for bringing about the Radical Humanist
revolution was not very different from the constitutional method that the
early moderates and liberals of India had advocated. Roy's revolution
involved no sudden change. His radical humanistic revolution was to be
achieved, not by violence or armed insurection, but through the slow
process ofeducation.

M.N.Roy.uar
l;y much critical ofwestern democracy, especially
pariiamentary democracy. Democracy, which, means only counting of
i I heads when heads have no freedom to live in dignity is a mere deception.
li
i
ll:r ;
i Modern democracy wants to be in power and for this they want to keep
:

i, people backward. Under parliamentary system intelligence, integrity,

':
l,l ' wisdom, moral excellence do not count for much. Yet these are human
' virtues. {Jnless-thesrin{}uencepolrticatorganizatron; a democratic way ;
of life can never be realized. Unless parliamentary democracy is based on
moral conscience of the majority in power it cannot rcalize the desired
end-greatest good of the great number. With no recognition of the
importance of individuals in social life and freedom parliamentary
deniocracy does not allow individuals to participate in the regular
nctioning of poiitical iife.-lMith private+renopelie+ja{he-means-of ----'----- ----t-
production the principle of equality is never realized. As a result of all
these defects under parliamentary democracy the government for the people I

can hardly be a government of the people, because the majority in power I

still rules by law and not by conscience. In order to make the common (
man realize that he has a unique place as a sovereign, Roy viewed that a
foundation of organized local democracies must be laid. l

I
M.N.Roy was very much critical of Marxism on the following C

grounds. tl

c
As a Radical Humanist Roy did not agree with the economic
S
interpretation of history. He was greatly influenced by Materialisrn and
t:
the Maniist theory that existence deterniined consciousness, but he yet
li
asserted that the theory of the economic interpretation of history did not
 It;rtlical Hunranism of M. N" Roy 6l:l
Iullow necessarily as a corollary from materialist philosophy (Roy

l !tlSl:198). The biological struggle for existence could not be equated

with the economic impulse to earn a livelihood. Roy observed: "The point
*rfldeparture of the Marxist historiology was the mistake of confounding
plrysical urge with econornic motive" (Roy 1952:217). Roy viewed the
lriological urge of self-preservation preceded the econonric motive of
eaming a livelihood, in the same manner as the idea of the means of
production preceded'the development of the means of production
themselves..Man, prior to becoming a homo-economicus in search of
economic amenities, was guided by biological considerations.

Roy criticized Mat*ian materialism as dogmatic and unscientific.

I{e argued that in Marx's dialectical materialism, there is an element of
tontradietion. Dialectie s aS a process oflogic or as a methodof enquiiy
was acceptable to Roy. But logic could not be confused with ontology
and the larvs of thought could not be taken as a description of the process
of nature or the cbntent ofreality. Dialectics, stating that the matter moves
tluough the triad system of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, is essentially
an ideal systen'r. [n contrast, materialism is scientifically neutral. Roy,
therefore;pointedout that it u'as illogieahoplaceinone-equatiorrdialectics;
which is subjective in nature and materialism, which is objective in nature.
--
Roy critised Marxian Dialectics that the subject matter of a branch of
metaphysical enquiry was being confounded with the instrument of
conducting that enquiry (Roy, 195 1:199).

Roy uas a believer in rcason and an enemy oftradition and theology.

He criticized Marxismas theolo-eical. Since history is made bythe operation
of the forces of production, one may conclude that there ;s very little that
ffitn can do. He becomes a slave to the forces of production. Roy rvas
critical of Marx on the ground that the laffer denied the autonorny and
soverei-enty of the individual. To Marx, the hun-nn nature is malleable, it
lacks anything stable and permanent, and it is determined by economic
forces. In conh'ast, Roy argued. there is somethin! stable and permanent
 The Indian Journal of Political Science 6r,r

in human ilatllre, rr,hich is the basis of mau's rights and duties. Nzfan, lirr
Ii"onr be ing a toy in the hanris of the forccs of productiein, possess a creatir t'

potential. Roy areued tliat N{arx, in attaching sanctity to the eristing mor rrl

order, negated his earlier humanism.

Roy also rejected the Marxian principle of surplus value. He dirl

not consider surplus vaiue as a peculial characteristic of Capitalisrn. No
society could progress and tirere could be no capital formation unless
tirere was a surphs of production over consumption and unless this surplus
rvas empioyed as capital tbr increasing production still ftlrther" There could
be no accumulation of capital u,ithout the creation of surplus value, ancl
:
there could be no economic progress rvithout the accumulation of capital.
Roy asserted thata eaprtalist Society, +.hi,ehJrelped in the accurnulation
of capital, was econonically a more advanced type of society than a feudal
one, which produced for consumption and not for the market and which
created no surplus value and therefore no capita.l (Roy 1947:23-26). While,
according to Marx, surplus value was the cause of social injustice and
degeneration, Roy considered surplus value as the only lever for further
social pro gress andcultural deuelopuert-
According to Roy, the economic structure ofthe new society would
be so planned that it would promote freedom and weli-being of the
individual. He was against the state ownership of the means ofproduction.
Roy's Radical Democracy presupposes economic re-organisation of society
so as to eliminate the possibility of exploitation of man by man. It aimed
at a "economic liberation of the masses, and creation of essential conditions

for their advancement towards the goals of freedom". In place of state

ownership, he recommended cooperative ownership. The basis of the
economic structure will be on the principle of co-operative which avoids
the extremes of Capitalism and Socialism. To Roy, the Co-operative
economy will be distinct from the Capitalist and Socialist economy. Roy
believe in economic planning based on voluntary cooperation and
suggested for the organization of Co-operatives at levels of social life.
lladical Humanism of M. N. Roy 615

Radicalism consists of ali positive elements of Marxism freed from

its fallacies and clarified in the light of greater scientific knowledge. It
was the reaction against the contemporary socio-cultural crisis. The
manifesto of Radical Humanism laid down that, "the ideal of Radical
Democracy will be attained through the collective efforts of spiritually
free men and women united in a political parry with the determination of
" ,, t'r
creating a new order of freedom. The members of the party will guides,
friends and philosophers of the people rather than as there would be rulers
consistent rvith the goal of freedom; Political practice of the party will be
rational and ethicai

Radicalism is neither optimistic nor pessimistic. It is rather a

synthesis of activism and rationalism. In analyzing the actual human
situation, Radicalism tries to find out the various possibilities. This holds
out no false hope and without being pessimistic it seeks to adjust the
methodology of action to the possibility of available resources. Radicalism
proposes a coffrmon struggle against international anti-social elements.
Under Radicalism planning would be threefold- like social, democratic
ng m econorTuc
not only assure increasing productivity and better standard of living but
greater opportunity to individuals to take initiatives. According to Roy,
the new social philosophy must start with reviving faith in man regarding
his potentialities. Any attempt to promote economic welfare, social
reconstruction and political liberty must begin with man. Roy said,
humanism was the only alternative not only to conrnrunism but to all forms
of institutionalism. "Democracy can be established only by the reassertion
of the humanist tradition. Man is the measure ofhis world. Being inherently
rational he can always learn fi'om experience. He develops his intellectual
faculties and nroral values in his efforts to secure a better life for himself'-
(Roy, 1948). To Roy, " The basic idea of a new revolutionary social
philosophy must be that the individual is prior to sociefy, and incl.ividual
freedom must have priority over social organization" (Roy, 1952.284)
 The Indian Journal of Political Science 616
There occuned significant discontinuity and change in M.N.Roy,s
career" His political evolution passed from unilitant nationalism to
communism to New Humanism. In the end of his career Roy came to
believe more and more on individualism ancl liberalism. Unlike medievai
Indian saints and the contemporary social and political leaders, M.N.Roy
built up the.humanist philosophy with flesh, blood and brain. Democmcy
was the base, while rationalism its center, and sovereignty ofman its apex.
Roy thus, gave a philosophy of life. Roy's inner being revolted against the
disappearance of individual fteedom. In the history of modern Indian
thought many eminent thinkers rvrote on poverty in India and exploitation
of the weak by the strong. But Roy was the first man, who analysed social,
econonuc torces upon Indian society from time to
time. He asserted that the task of the fighter for a new humanistic world
rvould be to make every individual conscious'of his innate rationality and
to find his unity with others in a cosmopolitan commonwealth of free
men and women. He declared his faith that, .,Man did not appear on the
earth out of nowhere. He rose out of the background of the physical

ical
cord was never broken: Man, with his mind, intelligence, will renrain an
integral part of the physical universe. The latter is a Cosmos-a law-governed
system. Therefore, man's being and becoming, his emotions, will, ideas
are also determined" man is essentially rational. This reason in man is an
echo of the harmony of the universe. Morality must be refered back to
man's innate rationality. The innate rationalityofman is the onlyguarantee
of a hafmonious order, which will also be a moral order, because morality
is a rational function. Therefore, the purpose ofall social endeavour should
be to man increasingly conscious of his innate r-ationality
(Roy, 1947:34-47)

The philosophy of revolution evolved on the basis of the whole

stock of human heritage for political action and economic reconstruction
is known as New Humanism. It stress that neither capitalism nor
&- P arliarnentary system can solve the problenx. Soc ial ism and comnrunism
&
E
1
1

laY
tll'
e
Y.ri

&.
r..
&
t!
 ol7
Radical Humanisrn of M' N" RoY
rejectthenotionoffl.eedom.NewHunranismistheonlyalternativc'r,vlticll
fi"eedom' According to lloy'
reconciles social organization and individual
phiiosophy must be that the
,.
The basic idea of a new revolutionary social
freedom must have priority
individual is prior to society, and individual
Royhad been considered
over sociai organization" (Roy, 1952:284)'M'N'
aSoneofthemostlearnedofModernlndianwritersonpoliticsand
philosophy.Hisphi.|osophyofRadicalFlumanisnrisconsideredasthe
important contribution, which could
provide for a strong basis to
nrost
lndian democracY.

REFERENCES :

Appadorai,A:IndianPoliticaiTlrinlring,OxfordUnivetsityPress,

Ghosh, S : Political ldeas and Movement

in lndia; Allied' Neu'
Delhi, 1975.

Mahadevan,T.P.M:ContenrporaryIndianPhilosophy,Sterling'
NewDelhi, 198i.

Mishra, Umesh: History of

Pub., Allahabad, 1957'
Asia Publishing House'
Narvane, V.S : Modern Indian Thought,
Bombay, 1954.

Rad-hakrishnan, S. (Ed) : Contemporary

Indian Philosophy' Allen

London, 1958
.& Unwin,

Raju, P.T.(Ed) : Idealist Thought in India'

Allen and Unwin'
London, 1953'

Ray, B.G. : ContemPorary Indian I

rhilosoPhers' Kitabistan'

Allahabad, 1947-

Roy, M.N : Constitution of free India-

A Draft' Radical Democratic

Party, Delhi, 1946"