Radical Humanism of M. N. Roy: January 2005
Radical Humanism of M. N. Roy: January 2005
Radical Humanism of M. N. Roy: January 2005
net/publication/262095821
CITATIONS READS
0 36,092
1 author:
Bibhuti Mahakul
Hidayatullah National Law University
8 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Bibhuti Mahakul on 27 November 2017.
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.
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
:
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
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
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)
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,
Mahadevan,T.P.M:ContenrporaryIndianPhilosophy,Sterling'
NewDelhi, 198i.
London, 1958
.& Unwin,
Allahabad, 1947-