M K Gandhi:

Critique of
Tradition & the
Idea of Swaraj

BLOCK IV
IMAGINARIES OF THE
NATION AND THE
WORLD

83
BLOCK III
Engagement with BLOCK 4 INTRODUCTION
Tradition
Block 4 highlights views on nation and the world as reflected in the thoughts of
modern Indian political thinkers. Babasaheb Ambedkar is one of the foremost
thinkers of modern India whose thoughts are centrally concerned with issues of
freedom, human equality, democracy and socio-political emancipation. He was a
revolutionary social reformer who demonstrated great faith in democracy and the
moral basis of a society. He was one of the principal critics of India's national
movement led by Gandhi. Ambedkar was the first major theoretician in India who
argued that consideration for the disadvantaged should be the constitutive basis of
a state if the state is committed to the upholding of rights. He envisaged a
democracy informed by law and a law characterised by sensitivity to the
marginalised sections. Rabindranath Tagore was a passionate advocate of
individual freedom, which is one of the cardinal principles of modern democracy.
He was of the view that personal freedom was essential for nurturing and
developing the mind’s intelligence. Tagore argued that nationalism created a
mindless hunger for material wealth and political power, undercutting the
fundamentals of democracy and humanity. Tagore was against the false, diseased,
perverted, and exaggerated nationalism which has developed in the West. His
concept of nationalism is fundamentally rooted in the question of what it means to
be human and humanity bringing him close to the concept of cosmopolitanism.
Jawaharlal Nehru’s idea of nation building had primarily a ‘modernist’ outlook.
He further approached a rationalist thought in every sphere for the development of
the nation. Most importantly he gave primacy to an individual’s national polity
rather than the religion or his/her religious community. This implied that he
stressed on the separation between religion and politics. Moreover, nation was to
be revered by all irrespective of race, caste or any community largely. Secularism,
according to Nehru, was not only a political doctrine but a social, revolutionary
character that embraced all religions and communities of Indian into one. One of
the main contributions of Ram Manohar Lohiya was to redefine socialism while
considering socialist movement in non-European countries like India. His attempt
to redefine socialist was in line with his views that any ideology should not be
followed without critical assessment. He was not a socialist in a traditional sense
and opposed Marxism and Communist totalitarianism. He was influenced by
Gandhian principle of non-violence and played a great part in bringing up a
synthesis between Gandhian and Marxian concepts. M N Roy was the first
communist theorist in India who attempted to use Marxism to liberate India from
foreign rule. He challenged all ideologies which deny sovereignty of man. As an
alternative, Roy desired to set up a new social order based on sovereignty of
individual. His humanism was based on three elements – rationality, freedom and
morality.

84
 B.R. Ambedkar
UNIT 6 B.R. AMBEDKAR:
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY
AND SOCIAL JUSTICE *
Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Life Sketch
6.2.1 His Writings
6.3 B. R. Ambedkar's Thought and Ideas
6.3.1 Ideological Orientation
6.3.2 Reason and Rights
6.3.3 Religion
6.3.4 Caste
6.3.5 Untouchability
6.3.6 Constitutional Democracy
6.4 Social Justice and Supportive Polity
6.5 Let Us Sum Up
6.6 Answer to Check Your Progress Exercises

6.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit will introduce with life sketch of Dr. Ambedkar. It explains the ideas of
Ambedkar on religion, caste, untouchability and constitutional democracy. You
will also read their thought of social justice and supportive polity. After studying
this unit, you should be able to:

 Understand the life journey and writings of Ambedkar

 Understand the Ambedkar ideas on religion, caste, untouchability and
constitutional democracy
 Know the Ambedkar of social justice and supportive polity

*
Prof. Valerian Rodrigues, Centre for Political Studies, JNU, New Delhi – 110067 (adopted from
the course MPSE -004, Unit 12)

85
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the 6.1 INTRODUCTION
Nation and the World
Babasaheb Ambedkar is one of the foremost thinkers of modern India. His
thought is centrally concerned with issues of freedom, human equality, democracy
and socio-political emancipation. He is a unique thinker of the world who himself
suffered much humiliation, poverty and social stigma, right from his childhood,
yet he rose to great educational and philosophical heights. He was a revolutionary
social reformer who demonstrated great faith in democracy and the moral basis of
a society. He was one of the principal critics of India's national movement led by
M. K. Gandhi. He built civic and political institutions in India and criticized
ideologies and institutions that degraded and enslaved people. He undertook
several major studies on the economy, social structures and institutions, law and
constitutionalism, history and religion within methodological rigor and
reflexivity. He was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian
Constitution and defended its key provisions with scholarly precision and
sustained arguments without losing sight of the ideals it upheld while, at the same
time; holding firmly to the ground. He embraced Buddhism, recasting it to
respond to modern and socially emancipatory urges, with hundreds of thousands
of his followers and paved the way for its resurgence in Modern India.

6.2 LIFE SKETCH

Babasaheb Ambedkar (1891-1956) was born in the untouchable Mahar Caste in
Maharashtra on 14 April, 1891. He suffered all kinds of social humiliations in
childhood as well as in his subsequent life on account of the stigma of
untouchability. In the class room, he was not allowed to sit along with the rest of
the students. He had to drink water only in his hand-cup in school, poured by
members of the upper castes from above. Learning Sanskrit language was denied
to him. Inspite of all these hurdles, he successfully completed his graduation from
Bombay University and went on to do his Master’s and Ph.D. from Columbia
University in U.S.A. He was influenced by the liberal and radical thought currents
in America and Europe, more particularly with the thought that emerged
following the French Revolution. Struggles against racial discrimination in
America helped his resolve to fight against caste-based oppression in India. He
came to be deeply concerned with untouchability and caste system that prevailed
in India. At the same time, he probed the impact colonialism had on the economy,
politics and social life of India.
His M.A. dissertation on Administration and Finance of the East India Company
and his Ph.D. thesis on The Evolution of the Provincial Finance in British India at
Columbia University and his D.Sc. dissertation on The Problem of the Rupee - its
Origin and Its Solution were brilliant contributions to the analysis of colonial
economy and politics and to anti-colonial economic thought.
After he completed his Ph.D. at Columbia University, he returned to serve the
administration of Baroda Maharaja who had sponsored his education in America.
But even after such exceptional qualifications, he had to suffer the pangs of
86 untouchability in Baroda administration. He left his service and was for some
time Professor of Political Economy at the Sydenham College of Commerce and B.R. Ambedkar
Economics, Bombay. He made a representation before the Southborough
Committee that preceded the Montague-Chelmsford reforms of 1919 and pleaded
for separate representation to the depressed classes, as the untouchable and, low
castes and communities were then known. He started Mooknayak, a fortnightly in
Marathi in January, 1920 and played a leading role in the first All-India
Conference of Depressed Classes held that year, presided over by Shahu Maharaj
of Kolhapur. He joined the London School of Economics to do his D.Sc. which
lies completed in 1922 and was invited to the Bar-at-Law from Grey's Inn in the
same year. He started his legal practice in Bombay in 1923 and played an active
role in the political mobilization and organization of the untouchables. He formed
the Bahishkrit Hitkarini Sabha (Depressed Classes Welfare Association) in 1924.
In 1927, he was nominated to the Bombay Legislative Council. He led the famous
Satyagraha at Chowdar Tank in Maliad demanding rights for untouchables from
common water tank, from which they were hitherto barred, eventually leading to
the burning of the Manusmriti. He started the fortnightly journal Bahishkrit
Bharat in Marathi and formed two organizations, Samaj Samata Sangh and
Samata Sainik Dal in 1927 to reinforce the demand for equality of the depressed
classes. In 1928, the Depressed Classes Education Society, Bombay was founded.
The fortnightly journal Samata too was brought out in the same year, during these
years, Dr. Ambedkar remained active as the professor of law. In 1928, he made
his deputation before the Simon Commission, enquiring into a issue of
constitutional reforms in India. He led the Satyagraha at Kalram temple, Nasik
demanding temple entry to untouchables in 1930. He presided over the First All
India Depressed Classes Congress, held in Nagpur in 1930.
Dr. Ambedkar's emphasis on self-help and the task of emancipation of
untouchables as primarily resting on themselves, his vision of Modern India and
his ideas on rights, democracy and representation increasingly pit him against the
Indian National Congress and M.K. Gandhi, its undisputed leader. This opposition
was poignantly visible at the Round Table Conference in 1931 where Dr.
Ambedkar demanded separate electorate for the depressed classes, which, M.K.
Gandhi, as the sole representative of the Congress vehemently opposed. M.K.
Gandhi went on a fast unto death against the communal award of 1932 that
granted separate electorate to the untouchables. Dr. Ambedkar negotiated on
behalf of the depressed classes and signed the Poona Pact, agreeing for the joint
electorate with reservation for depressed classes that led to the withdrawal of the
fast by M.K. Gandhi.
In 1936, Dr Ambedkar founded the Independent Labour Party which contested 17
seats in the elections of 1937 in the Bombay Province and won 15 of them. The
World War II and the demand of the Muslim league for Pakistan introduced new
and complex issues in the national movement. Dr Ambedkar established a
different party, the Scheduled Caste Federation in 1942 and was appointed as a
member of the Viceroy's Council in the same year for a period of five years.
Ambedkar was elected to the Constituent Assembly from Bengal and in the 87
Assembly, made a plea for a united India with the Congress and the Muslim
BLOCK IV League working together. He was appointed as the Chairman of the Drafting
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World Committee of the Indian Constitution and became the law minister in the Nehru
Cabinet in August 1947. In both these capacities he conceptualized, formulated
and defended a free and egalitarian framework for public life in India with
extensive safeguards for the disadvantaged and autonomy for religious minorities
and linguistic and cultural groups in India.
Ambedkar resigned from the Nehru Cabinet in 1951 and strove to work out an
alternative to the lack of social and economic democracy in India and the inability
of Constitutional democracy to effectively function in its absence. Such a search
eventually law him to conversion to Buddhism and the proposal for the
establishment of the Republican Party of India. He died on 6 December, 1956
mourned by millions. He left behind a complex body of thought scattered across a
large number of writings and speeches, an eventful public life spanning across
civic and political life and a radical agenda for economic, social and cultural
reconstruction.

6.2.1 His Writings

Dr. Ambedkar wrote several books. Unlike his contemporaries, he had done a lot
of original research on his texts. Apart from writing the Indian Constitution as the
Chairman of its Drafting Committee and defending it in the marathon debates of
the Constituent Assembly, he wrote several books that reflect systematic thinking.
Apart from his doctoral dissertations on the Problem of the Rupee (1923) and The
Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India (1925) he wrote Annihilation of
Caste (1936), Thoughts on Pakistan (1940), What Congress and Gandhi have
done to the Untouchables (1945), who were the Sudras? (1946), The
Untouchables: who were they, and why they became? (1948), States and
Minorities (1947), Thoughts on Linguistic States (1955) and his magnum opus
The Buddha and his Dhamma (1957) are the most important. Apart from them, he
wrote numerous articles, submitted learned memoranda, delivered lectures and
commented on the issues in the journals the published.

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
1. Highlight some points of Ambedkar’s ideological thought.
.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
………………………………………………………………………...………
….………………………………………………………………………...……

88
 B.R. Ambedkar
6.3 B.R. AMBEDKAR'S THOUGHT AND IDEAS
Dr. Ambedkar's thought has many dimensions. There were very few issues that he
left untouched. He formulated his opinion on many crucial questions that India
was confronting during his times. His versatility is reflected in his social and
political thought, economic ideas, law and constitutionalism.

6.3.1 Ideological Orientation

Dr Ambedkar described himself as a 'progressive radical" and occasionally as a
'progressive conservative' depending upon the context of demarcation from
liberals, Marxists and others as the case might be. He was an ardent votary of
freedom. He saw it as a positive power and capacity, enabling people to make
their choices without being restrained by economic processes and exploitation,
social institutions and religious orthodoxies and fears and prejudices. He thought
that liberalism upheld a narrow conception of freedom which tolerated huge
accumulation of resources in a few hands and the deprivation and exploitation that
it bred. He thought that liberalism is insensitive about social and political
institutions which, while upholding format equality, permitted massive
inequalities in the economic, social and cultural arenas. He argued the liberal
systems conceal deep inequalities of minorities such as the conditions of the
Blacks in U.S.A. and Jews in Europe, He further argued the liberalism was often
drawn to justify colonial exploitation and the extensive injustices it sustained.
Liberal stress on the individual ignored community bonds and the necessity of the
latter to sustain a reflective and creative self. Further, liberalism ignored the
repression and the alienation of the self that exploitative and dominant structures
bred. He found that liberalism has an inadequate understanding of state and the
measures that state has to necessarily adopt to promote and foster good life. He
left that the principle of equality before law is truly a great advance as compared
to the in egalitarian orders that it attempted to supplant, but it is not adequate. He
advanced stronger notions such as equality of consideration, equality of respect
and equality of dignity, He was sensitive to the notion of respect and the notion of
community was central in his consideration.
Ambedkar identified certain crucial areas on which he was in tune with Marxism.
He argued that the task of philosophy is to transform the world, as Marx
suggested in his Theses on Feuerbach, and he saw the central message of the
Buddha as demanding the same. There is conflict between classes and class-
struggle is writ large in social relations. He argued that a good society demands
extensive public ownership of the means of production and equal opportunity to
everyone to develop his or her self to the fullest extent. He however, rejected the
inevitability of socialism without the intervention of human agency concretely
working towards it; the economic interpretation of history which does not
acknowledge the crucial role that political and ideological institutions play and
the conception of the withering away of the state, He decried the strategy of
violence as a means to seize power and called for resolute mass action to bring
about a good society. He underscored the transformative effect of struggles in 89
transforming those launching the struggles and the social relations against which
BLOCK IV they are launched. He further argued that a desirable political order can be created
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World only by acknowledging a moral domain which he saw eminently expressed in the
Buddha's teachings.
He was very critical of the Brahmanical ideology which, he felt, has been the
dominant ideological expression in India. He argued that it reconstituted itself
with all its vehemence by defeating the revolution set in motion by the Buddha. It
subscribed to the principle of graded inequality in organizing social institutions
and relations; defended the principle of birth over the principle of worth;
undermined reason and upheld rituals and priest-craft. It reduced the shudra and
the untouchable to perpetual drudgery and ignominy. It defended inequality and
unequal distribution of resources and positions and sanctified such measures by
appeal to doctrines such as karma-siddhanta. It upheld the principle of the
superiority of mental labour over manual labour. It had little sympathy towards
the degraded and the marginalized. It left millions of people in their degraded
condition. Away from civilization, and defended their abominable conditions. It
had little place for freedom and for re-evaluation of choices, It parcellised society
into umpteen closed groups making them unable to close ranks, foster a spirit of
community and strive towards shared endeavors. It took away from associated life
its joys and sorrows, emasculated struggles and strivings and deplored
sensuousness and festivity. He constructed Brahmanism as totlly lacking in any
moral values and considerations based on such values.
Ambedkar was a bitter critic of Gandhi and Gandhism. He attacked Ghandhi's
approach to the abolition of untouchability, an approach that denied its sanction in
the shastras and which called upon caste Hindus to voluntarily renounce it and
make reparations for the same. Ambedkar felt that rights and humanity cannot be
left to the mercy and prejudices of people who have developed a vested interest in
undermining them. He did not demarcate the caste system and varna system, as
Gandhi did, but saw both of them as upholding the same principle of graded
inequality. Even if untouchability is abolished through the Gandhian appeal to
conscience which Ambedkar did not think possible, untouchables will continue to
occupy the lowest rung of society as a layer of the shudras. He saw Gandhi not
merely caving in to Hindu orthodoxy, but reformulating such orthodoxy afresh,
Gandhi was dispensing moral platitudes to untouchables and trying to buy them
with kindness while letting others to promote their interests, without hindrance.
He rejected the appellation 'Harijan' that Gandhi had bestowed on untouchables
and poured scorn an' it.
Ambedkar rejected many central notions as propounded by Gandhi such as
Swaraj, non-violence, decentralization, Khadi, trusteeship and vegetarianism. He
subscribed to a modern polity with modern economy. This-worldly concerns were
central to his agenda rather than other-worldly search. He felt that an uncritical
approach to Panchayat Raj will reinforce the dominant classes in the countryside
handing over additional resources and legitimacy to them to exploit the social
classes and groups below them.
90
6.3.2 Reason and Rights B.R. Ambedkar

Ambedkar saw the modern era as heralding a triumph of human reason from
myths, customs and religious superstitions. The world and man, he argued, can be
explained by human reason and endeavor. The supernatural powers need not be
invoked for the purpose. Infact, the supernatural powers themselves reflect weak
human capacities and an underdeveloped state of human development. He,
therefore, saw the expression of human reason manifest in science and modern
technology positively. If there are problems with regard to them, then the same
reason is capable of offering the necessary correctives. Further, he saw knowledge
as eminently practical rather than speculative and esoteric. He felt that speculative
knowledge divorced from active engagement with practice leads to priest-craft
and speculation.
Ambedkar's attitude to religion remained ambivalent. While he did not subscribe
to a belief in a personal God or revelation, he felt that religion, as morality,
provides an enduring foundation to societies and enables collective pursuit of
good life. Such a religion elevates motives, upholds altruism and concern for
others, binding people in solidarity and concern. It cares and supports and strives
against exploitation, injustice and wrong-doing.
He argued that freedom, equality and fraternity are essential conditions for good
life and a regime of discrete rights need to be constructed on them as the
foundation. He understood rights not merely within the narrow confines of liberal
individualism, but as individual and group-rights. He defended both types of
rights in the Constituent Assembly debates. Further, he argued for both civil and
political rights and social and economic rights. He did not see them in opposition,
but as reinforcing one another. If there is a conflict between them, they have to be
negotiated through civic and political forums He also subscribed to the rights of
minorities and cultural groups to maintain their distinctive belief's and identities
while at the same time affording them proper conditions to take their rightful
place in public affairs. He defended preferential treatment accorded to
disadvantaged communities not only for reasons of equality, but also on grounds
of egalitarian social structures, and for the pursuit of a sane and good society.

6.3.3 Religion
Ambedkar dwelt extensively on major religions of the world, particularly
Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. He wrote a great deal on Hindus
and Buddhism. The mainstream trajectory of religious evolution that he traced in
early India was the Vedic society getting degenerated into Aryan society; the rise
of Buddhism and the social and moral transformation that it brought about and
counterrevolution in the development of a specific ideological and political
expression which he termed Brahmanism.
He found that the Hindu scriptures do not lend themselves to a unified and
coherent understanding. They reflect strong cleavages within and across sects and
tendencies. There are cleavages within the Vedic literature; the Upanishadic
91
thought, often, cannot be reconciled with the Vedic thought; the Smriti literature
BLOCK IV is, quite open, in contention with the Sruti literature; gods come to be pitted
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World against one another and Tantra is in contention with the Smriti literature. The
avatars of Hinduism, such as Rama and Krishna, cannot be held up for adulation
as exemplaries. He saw the Bhagavadgita as primarily putting forward a set of
arguments to save Brahmanism in the wake of the rise of Buddhism and the
inability of the former to defend itself by appeals to rituals and religious practices.
Ambedkar developed a new interpretation of Buddhism and saw it as socially
engaged. It privileged the poor and the exploited and was concerned with the
sufferings and joys of this world. It does not subscribe to the existence of God or
the eternity of soul. It upholds reason, affirms the existence of this world,
subscribes to a moral order and is in tune with science. He saw the great values of
freedom, equality and community as central to the teachings of the Buddha.
Ambedkar had both theological and sociological criticism against Christianity and
Islam, Both of them subscribe to a transcendental domain which, apart from its
affront to human reason, beget authoritative and paternalistic tendencies. In a
sense, they, dwarf human reason, freedom of enquiry and equality of persons.
Their pronouncements cannot be reconciled with scientific reason. Christian
belief that Jesus is the son of God militates against reason. Both these religions,
he felt, accommodated themselves to graded inequality and ranking to different
degrees. Their precepts have often led their adherents to resort to force and
violence. He saw the Buddha standing tall against the protagonists of both these
religions.

6.3.4 Caste
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 emphasize 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 the 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 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
92
them uphold graded inequality and subscribe to the doctrine of birth rather than B.R. Ambedkar
worth.
Ambedkar argued for the annihilation of caste without which wielding community
bond 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 too feeble an exercise to constitute enduring bonds. He
further argued that shastras which defend 'varnas ratnadharma' have to be
abandoned as they justify and legitimize graded organization of society. He also
felt that priesthood in Hinduism should be open to all the co-religionists on the
basis of certified competence rather than 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.

6.3.5 Untouchability
Ambedkar distinguished the institution of untouchability from that of caste,
although the former too is stamped by the same principle of graded inequality as
the latter. Untouchability is not merely an extreme form of caste degradation, but
a qualitatively different one as the system kept the untouchables outside the fold
and made any social interaction with them polluting and deplorable. He argued
that inspite of differences and cleavages, all untouchables share common
disadvantages and are meted out the same treatment by caste Hindus: they are
condemned to ghettoes on the outskirts of the village, are universally despised and
kept away from human association.
He did not subscribe to the position that untouchability has its basis in race. He
saw it as a social institution defended by the ideology of Brahmanism. While he
did not extensively probe the reasons for the origin of untouchability, in one
instance, he proposed a very imaginative thesis that untouchables were broken
men living on the outskirts of village communities who, due to their refusal to
give up Buddhism and beef-eating, came to be condemned as untouchables.
Given the deep-seated beliefs and practices of untouchability prevailing in India,
Ambedkar thought that no easy solution can be found for the malaise. Removal of
untouchability required the transformation of the entire society wherein respect
and rights towards the other person becomes a way of life rather than a mere
constitutional mechanism. Given the entrenched interests and prejudices
revolving around the institution of untouchability, it was something too much to
expect from entrenched groups. Therefore, he felt that the primary burden of
emancipating themselves fell on the untouchables themselves. Such-self-help
required not only struggles, but also education and organization, Further, a
constitutional democracy with preferences at various levels can help enormously
in such an endeavor.

6.3.6 Constitutional Democracy

The major area of Ambedkar's work was on Constitutional Democracy. He was
adept in different constitutions of the world, particularly those that provided an 93
expansive notion of democracy. Rule of law as a bond uniting people and
BLOCK IV according equal participation of people in collective affairs was quite central to
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World his imagination. He was deeply sensitive to the interface between law on one hand
and customs and popular beliefs on the other. He, however, felt that customs may
defend parochial interests and popular beliefs might be deeply caught in
prejudices and may not uphold fairness. They may not be in tune 'with the
demands of time, morality and reason. But if law upholds freedom and
democracy, then it could be placed at the service of common good. Given the
long-drawn prejudices and denial of justice in public culture, he thought that the
role of the state based on law and democratic mandate is crucial. He envisaged a
democracy informed by law and a law characterized by sensitivity to democracy.
Law upheld reason and morality, but without the authoritative injunctions of law,
the former had no teeth.
Such a stress on democracy and law made Ambedkar strongly stress the
autonomy of the state. State needs to transcend the parochial interests galore in
society which often tend to reduce the state as an instrument of their purpose. He
argued that astrictive majorities which are permanent, and not amenable for
political dissolution and reconstitution, too can be considered as parochial
interests. They can undermine rights, but at the same time pretend that they are
upholding constitutional democracy.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
1. What was Ambedkar’s view on constitutional democracy?
.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
………………………………………………………………………...………
….………………………………………………………………………...……

6.4 SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SUPPORTIVE POLITY

Ambedkar was the first major theoretician in India who argued that consideration
for the disadvantaged should be the constitutive basis of a state if the state is
committed to the upholding of rights. He developed a complex set of criteria to
determine disadvantage. Untouchability was only one of the great social
disadvantages, although it was one of the most degrading and despicable one. He
concentrated on socially engendered disadvantages, not because law was unaware
of natural and hereditary disadvantages, but he felt that most disadvantages are
upheld by dominant social relations which attempt to convert them as natural
disadvantages foreclosing attention to them and absolving larger society from any
responsibility towards them. He left behind a system of safeguards for the
94 disadvantaged in general and the untouchables in particular. He thought that a set
of positive measures are a better guarantee than merely the moral conscience of B.R. Ambedkar
society, although the latter is a prerequisite to sustain such measures in the longer
run.
With regard to a scheme of safeguards, he advanced three types of measures
although all these three types of measures were not seen by him as appropriate to
all the disadvantaged groups and equally so. Their appropriateness is something to
be worked out in response to the concrete conditions of the concerned group. He
demanded an autonomous political representation to the disadvantaged groups,
not merely to ensure their political presence, but to insure that the concerned
groups undertake their pursuits of development, preservation or reproduction, as
the case may be, by themselves. He envisaged definitive constitutional measures
for the purpose rather than merely rely on public conscience. He argued that such
representation will enable these groups to take into account the larger and the
common issues into account and pitch their specific demands accordingly. He
sought reservation for the disadvantaged groups in public employment to the
extent they fulfill the requirement for such employment. He felt that they would
be inevitably marginalized, if such support was not legally extended to them. He
sought extensive supportive policy measures towards these groups so as to extend
to them the benefits of various developmental and welfare measures that a state
undertakes.
Ambedkar saw preferential measures as resting on an inclusive conception of
rights rather than merely the goodwill or benevolence of the majority. Infact,
goodwill itself needs to be cultivated with an awareness of such rights. In the
absence of such cultivation, goodwill and benevolence often collapse into narrow
pursuit of interests masquerading themselves in the language of altruism.

6.5 LET US SUM UP

Ambedkar has often been portrayed as a leader who upheld the partisan cause of
the untouchables. He was of course partisan and he upheld the cause of the
untouchables as the most disadvantaged and reviled segment of the Indian society.
But such partisanship and advocacy were grounded on a body of thought and
ideas built on defensible arguments which he very ably and effectively deployed.
He critically engaged with the ideas and ideologies in place in the world of his
times and attempted to devise his own valuations aided judgements on them. He
did not cave in to their popularity and preeminence. He had a place for religion in
the private domain as well as in the moral life of societies, but such a place was
grounded in good reason. An inclusive conception of rights and an assertion of
this world was central to his understanding of public life. He was an ardent votary
of democracy. But democracy cannot be confined to a mode of rule, but needs to
become a way of life. He was a trenchant critic of the caste system and
untouchability and stove hard to put an end to them. He saw social justice as an
essential attribute of a good polity and suggested concrete measures for the same.
His ideas mark him as different form his contemporary thinkers and today we
regard him, and he is much relevant to us, for being so much different from
95
others.
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the 6.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Nation and the World EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercises 1
1. Your answer should highlight following points
 Ambedkar described himself as a 'progressive radical' and occasionally as
a 'progressive conservative' depending upon the context of demarcation
from liberals, Marxists and others
 Was an ardent votary of freedom
 He saw it as a positive power and capacity, enabling people to make their
choices without being restrained by economic processes and exploitation,
social institutions and religious orthodoxies and fears and prejudices

Check Your Progress Exercises 2

1. Your answer should highlight following points
 Customs and traditions may not be in sync with time, morality and reason
 If law upholds freedom and democracy then it could be placed at the
service of common good
 Envisaged a democracy informed by law and a law characterised by
sensitivity to democracy

96
 Rabindranath Tagore:
UNIT 7 RABINDRANATH TAGORE: Nationalism and
Cosmopolitanism
NATIONALISM AND
COSMOPOLITANISM*
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 His Life
7.1.2 His Works
7.1.3 His Thoughts
7.2 Tagore’s Views on the Concept of Nationalism
7.2.1 Defining Nationalism
7.2.2 Tagore’s Disillusionment with Nationalism
7.2.3 Opposition to Eurocentric idea of Nationalism
7.2.4 Misreading Tagore’s Thoughts on Nationalism
7.3 Tagore’s Cosmopolitanism
7.3.1 Cooperation, Coexistence, Humanity and Spiritual Universalism
7.3.2 Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism
7.4 Let Us Sum Up
7.5 References
7.6 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

7.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit deals with Rabindranath Tagore who is not only a renowned poet, but
also one of the significant Indian philosophers. The main objective of this unit is
to understand Tagore’s views on the concepts of nationalism and
cosmopolitanism. Therefore, after reading this unit, you will be able to:
 know about the life, works, and thoughts of Rabindranath Tagore
 understand his contributions to the discourse of nationalism
 analyze his understanding of cosmopolitanism

*
Dr Kiran Agawane, Assistant Professor, Dept of Political Science, SRM University
Delhi-NCR

97
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the 7.1 INTRODUCTION
Nation and the World
Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) is not only considered as an outstanding
literary figure of India, but also a legendary figure in world literature. He is well
acclaimed not only within India, but also in the world. Apart from his remarkable
contribution in the field of literature, he has made a notable contribution to the
discourse of nationalism and cosmopolitanism. However, before understanding
his views and arguments regarding nationalism and cosmopolitanism, it is
necessary to know insights of his life and works.

7.1.1 His Life

Rabindranath Thakur (popularly known as Tagore) was born on 9th May 1861 in
Calcutta (now Kolkata), Bengal in an eminent and influential Bengali Brahmin
family. He was the fourteenth and youngest son of Debendranath Tagore.
Debendranath Tagore was a leader of the Brahmo Samaj which was a religious
reform organization established by Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Rabindranath’s
grandfather Dwarkanath Tagore was a rich landlord and social reformer.
Dwarkanath was also a close associate of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Tagore’s family
was among the earliest to join Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s Brahmo Samaj. Under the
influence of the liberal tradition of his family and the philosophy of the
Upanishads, Rabindranath Tagore developed a positive view of life and love of
humanity.

Rabindranath was educated at home and through his travels. He wrote his first
verse in his eighth year. He made regular trips to Europe. He was admitted to a
school in England, but soon he dropped out to resume his self-education. His
marriage took place in 1883. He married Mrinalini Devi Raichaudhuri, with
whom he had two sons and three daughters. In 1901, he settled down at
Shantiniketan (meaning ‘Abode of Peace’) and began his educational experiment.
He tried his Upanishadic ideals of education in this school. Most of his work was
written at Shantiniketan. Tagore not only conceived there an imaginative and
innovative system of education, but through his writings and his influence on
students and teachers, he was able to use the school as a base from which he could
take a major part in India’s social, political, and cultural movements. A major part
of Tagore’s life was spent in developing the school at Shantiniketan. In 1913, the
Calcutta University conferred on him a D.Litt. Degree. The Oxford University
conferred a Doctorate on Tagore in 1940 at Shantiniketan. He died on 7th August
1941.

7.1.2 His Works

From 1880s Tagore started writing and publishing poems, stories and novels. His
writings created a profound impact in his native Bengal, but it was not much
popular outside. In 1912 he carried some translations of his poems to England;
98 these were shown to the well known Irish poet W. B. Yeats, who helped to refine
them and, more importantly, gave them his endorsement. These poems were Rabindranath Tagore:
originally written in Bengali language, and were translated into English by Tagore Nationalism and
Cosmopolitanism
himself. This collection of poems, published under the title Gitanjali (meaning
‘song-offerings’), were a great success, going into ten printings within six months.
Tagore received the prestigious Nobel Prize in the field of Literature in 1913 for
his work Gitanjali. He became the first non-European to receive this esteemed
award. He achieved global acclaim and admiration for this work. The rationale for
awarding Tagore with Nobel Prize was: “Because of his profoundly sensitive,
fresh and beautiful verse, by which, with consummate skill, he has made his
poetic thought, expressed in his own English words, a part of the literature of the
West.” When Tagore received the Nobel Prize, India was still under the control of
the British.

Tagore was a prolific writer and thinker who wrote poetry, novels, short stories,
plays and essays. He is considered as India’s national poet, who has written
India’s national anthem Jana Gana Mana, is also the writer and composer of the
national anthem of Bangladesh Amar Sonar Bangla. His songs are popularly
known as Rabindra Sangeet (meaning ‘Rabindranath’s Songs’), which have
become an integral part of Bengal’s culture over a period of time.

Tagore has been revered by many in various ways for his works. For example,
Ramachandra Guha, writer of a book Makers of Modern India (2010), described
him as one of the “four founders” of modern India, along with Mahatma Gandhi,
Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar; Albert Schweitzer, another Nobel
Laureate, called him “the Goethe of India”; and Ravi Shankar, a legendary
musician, believed that had Tagore “been born in the West, he would now be as
revered as Shakespeare and Goethe”; Jawaharlal Nehru in his book The Discovery
of India (1946) praised Tagore as “India’s internationalist per excellence”.

7.1.3 His Thoughts

Tagore was not only a poet. He had expressed his thoughts on various subjects
through his writings. He was an excellent thinker and philosopher. He reflected
his philosophy through his poems. He did not write his philosophy in an academic
manner. His philosophical thoughts are scattered in his literature. He was also a
painter and musician. Tagore had expressed his views on various socio-cultural
and political issues that are still pertinent to the present time. For example, he
wrote on women’s oppression and empowerment, the importance of education,
human dignity, environmental awareness, reason and freedom, the need for
scientific and technological development, modernization, equal rights for all
citizens, cultivation of fellowship and respect across race and religion, egalitarian
relations among cultures and countries, the horror of violence and war and the
necessity for establishing world peace. He also wrote about child marriage, child
abuse, widow remarriage, the dowry system, and political and religious
exploitation in society. Therefore, Tagore’s writings go beyond literature, and
touch politics, culture, social change, religious beliefs, philosophical analysis, 99
BLOCK IV international relations, and much else. As a philosopher, Tagore, in a remarkable
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World book entitled The Religion of Man (1931), written in English and given as lectures
in Oxford in 1930, provided an account of how humanity could progress toward
mutual support and mutual understanding only through extended sympathy.

Tagore was a passionate advocate of individual freedom, which is one of the

cardinal principles of modern democracy. He believed that human beings were
born free and had every right to freedoms of thought, belief and expression. He
was of the view that personal freedom was essential for nurturing and developing
the mind’s intelligence. Tagore always believed in the transformative role of
education. For him, education is vital for the advancement of a society. He was of
the view that lack of education is the main source of India’s social and moral
problems. He was not just an enthusiastic proponent of education; he also
established education institutions, including Visva-Bharati (meaning ‘India in the
World’). It was an effort to show how India could be self-reliant and self-
respectful in education. According to Tagore, “Viswa-Bharati represents India
where she has her wealth of mind which is for all. Viswa-Bharati acknowledges
India’s obligation to offer to others the hospitality of her best culture and India’s
right to accept from others their best.”

He became the voice of India’s spiritual heritage for the world. In India,
especially in Bengal, he became a great living institution. Tagore was a creative
poet. He introduced new prose and verse forms and the used colloquial language
into Bengali literature, thereby freeing it from traditional models based on
classical Sanskrit. He was highly influential in introducing Indian culture to the
West and vice versa, and he is generally regarded as the outstanding creative artist
of early twentieth century India.

Mahatma Gandhi was his devoted friend. Tagore was the first person to call
Gandhi a “Mahatma” (meaning ‘the great soul’) and invited him to take care of
his alternative university Viswa-Bharati at Shantiniketan after his death. He made
Mahatma Gandhi a trustee of Shantiniketan. Mahatma Gandhi also reciprocated
these sentiments and was the first person to call Tagore “Gurudev”, (meaning ‘a
revered teacher’). Mahatma Gandhi referred to him as “poet of the world”.
However, it is important to note that though Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath
Tagore were close to each other, they differed significantly in their worldviews.
Like Mahatma Gandhi, Tagore also had a profound impact on Jawaharlal Nehru.

Tagore was knighted by the ruling British Government in 1915. It was considered
as prestigious because knighthood is a title given to a person for his greatest
achievements. However within a few years, Tagore resigned the honour as a
symbol of protest against British policies in India. In 1919, following the
Jallianwala Bagh massacre in which British soldiers fired on an unarmed crowd
in Amritsar, Tagore renounced his knighthood.

100
Check Your Progress Exercise 1 Rabindranath Tagore:
Nationalism and
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer. Cosmopolitanism

ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.

1. What is the significance of Rabindranath Tagore’s Gitanjali?

.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
………………………………………………………………………...………
….………………………………………………………………………...……

7. 2 TAGORE’S VIEWS ON THE CONCEPT OF

NATIONALISM
As mentioned earlier, Tagore was not only a poet. He was a philosopher who tried
to engage with different concepts. During the period of Tagore, nationalism was
one of the important concepts upon which many scholars were discussing and
debating. During that time, India was under the control of the British. Thus,
Indian people were also developing the sentiment of nationalism among
themselves. Tagore understood the importance of nationalism, and observed it
very carefully. After his careful analysis of nationalism, Tagore developed a
critique of nationalism. However, it does not mean that he did not have affection
towards India. However, his emotions were not limited to Indian territory and its
population. He had a broader vision of world unity and cooperation. Let us try to
understand his views on nationalism.

7.2.1 Defining Nationalism

Nationalism is a very difficult concept to define. Many scholars have tried to
define the term. For example, Benedict Anderson, in his well-known writing,
Imagined Communities (1983) defined nationalism as “a bond between people
that comes to exist when the members of a nation recognize themselves and their
compatriots to be part of a nation.” Another important scholar Ernest Gellner in
his Nations and Nationalism (1983) argued that a nation is formed “if and when
the members of the category firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to
each other in virtue of their shared membership. It is their recognition of each
other as fellows of this kind which turns them into a nation.” Eric Hobsbawm and
Terence Ranger in their seminal work The Invention of Tradition (1983) argued
that “many traditions which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in
origin and sometimes invented. This is particularly related to the modern
development of the nation and nationalism, creating a national identity promoting
national unity, and legitimizing certain institutions or cultural practices.”
101
BLOCK IV However, these are the ideas on nationalism mostly dominated by Eurocentrism.
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World The conditions of non-European world were different. For example, nationalism
in India grew in the wake of India’s national movement for independence against
the British Rule. This nationalism was naturally an emancipator as it would be the
rhetoric upon which the Republic of India would be founded. In our own history,
there have been those who have provided us with alternative narratives. These
alternative narratives on nationalism provide us broader understanding of and
contribute significantly to the discourse of nationalism. It provides alternative to
dominant understanding of nationalism which is mostly dominated by
Eurocentrism. One of such alternative narrative can be found in the writings of
Tagore, whose conceptualization and understanding of nationalism is important to
study for our understanding.

Tagore had attempted to define his understanding of a nation and nationalism in

his book Nationalism (1917). He also dealt with the idea of nationalism in several
of his novels, short stories, plays, letters, lectures, essays and articles. Most of the
scholars agreed that Tagore was firmly opposed to nationalism as defined in the
Western sense and favoured a cosmopolitan worldview instead. He was one of
those who sought an alternative to narrow aggressive nationalism.

7.2.2 Tagore’s Disillusionment with Nationalism

As mentioned before, Tagore was born in a period during which the nationalist
movement in India against the British rule was developing and gaining
momentum. In 1857, only four years before Tagore was born, the first military
uprising for self-rule broke out in India. It was also considered as India’s first war
of independence. In 1905, the Swadeshi (meaning ‘of one’s own country’)
movement started as a response to the British policy of partitioning Bengal. This
movement contributed significantly to the development of nationalism in India.
Although apolitical by nature, Tagore at first was drawn to the movement and
started giving lectures and writing patriotic songs. He participated in the Indian
nationalist movement from time to time. However, he had his own non-
sentimental and visionary way. But soon after, Tagore observed that the
movement turned violent with the nationalists agitating against innocent civilians
who were indifferent to their cause, and especially the Muslims who were in
favour of the partition for practical as well as political reasons. A champion of
Ahimsa (meaning ‘non-violence’), Tagore found it difficult to accept the insanity
of the nationalists in their burning of all foreign goods as a mark of non-
cooperation, although it was hurting the poor in Bengal who found homemade
products more expensive than foreign goods. He was further disheartened to see
that many of the impassioned youths started using bombs, hoping to liberate India
from the British rule by violence and terror. Thus, finally, Tagore withdrew from
the movement. The immediate reason for his withdrawal was that a young
Bengali radical, Khudiram Bose threw a bomb, killing two innocent British
civilians in 1908. It was these experiences with Indian nationalist movement that
102
disillusioned Tagore about the concept of nationalism, and raised some serious Rabindranath Tagore:
doubts about nationalism. Nationalism and
Cosmopolitanism

Gradually, Tagore had developed an understanding that nationalism is the

organized self-interest of a whole people, thus it is, least human and least
spiritual. According to him, “A nation, in the sense of the political and economic
union of the people, is that aspect which a whole population assumes when
organized for a mechanical purpose.” Tagore further argued that “When this
organization of politics and commerce, whose other name is the Nation, becomes
all-powerful at the cost of the harmony of the higher social life, then it is an evil
day for humanity.” According to him, nationalism created a mindless hungering
after material wealth and political power, undercutting the fundamentals of
democracy and humanity.

7.2.3 Opposition to Eurocentric idea of Nationalism

Tagore had observed and analyzed the Eurocentric idea of nationalism. After
seeing the Indian experience of nationalism and the influence of Eurocentric idea
of nationalism on Indian nationalism, Tagore raised some serious questions and
doubts. He then gradually developed his criticisms of the Eurocentric idea of
nationalism. This is considered as a significant contribution of Tagore in the
discourse of nationalism studies. He tried to move away from the discourse of
nationalism from an Eurocentric form of nationalism, and focused on non-
European countries’ form of nationalism. According to a renowned political
thinker and Indian educationist Humayun Kabir, Tagore was the first great Indian,
who defied the Eurocentrism introduced by colonialism into India and revived
India’s ancient ties with Asia and Africa.

Tagore was concerned about anti-colonial resistance in India which transformed

into chauvinistic nationalism. For Tagore, this has been the characteristic of
Western nationalism. For example, referring to the burning of foreign goods by
Indian nationalist leaders, during the freedom struggle, he said such acts were not
only self-defeating, but also a mere imitation of Western nationalism. Tagore
believed that Indian nationalism should not fall into the trap of Western or
European nationalism. Tagore was aware of the risks of a nationalism that was
rooted in the Western concept of a nation state. He had analyzed the European
forms of nationalism, and he came to the conclusion that the West had turned
chauvinistic. According to Tagore, nationalism in Europe was a sentiment that
was being promoted in order for a nation to become more powerful, particularly
commercially. His conception of nationalism sought to warn against this.

While studying Tagore’s critique of nationalism, we should not get a sense that
Tagore had completely negated the idea of nationalism. Nationalism has certainly
a good side, some ennobling and inspiring features. It undoubtedly possesses both
cultural and spiritual value. Amartya Sen has argued that “It would be wrong to
see nationalism as either an unmitigated evil or a universal virtue. It can be both, a 103
boon and a curse – depending on the circumstances two sides of the same coin.”
BLOCK IV Tagore was against the false, diseased, perverted, and exaggerated nationalism
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World which has developed in the West. Tagore talked about the example of Japan
which was trying to imitate Western nationalism in the East. Tagore at first
admired Japan for demonstrating the ability of an Asian nation to rival the West in
industrial development and economic progress. But then Tagore went on to
criticize the rise of a strong nationalism in Japan, and its emergence as an
imperialist nation. Tagore saw Japanese militarism as illustrating the way
nationalism can mislead even a nation of great achievement and promise.
According to him, “What is dangerous for Japan was not the imitation of the outer
features of the West, but the acceptance of the motive force of the Western
nationalism as her own.” In Tagore’s view, the chauvinistic nationalism that had
developed in the West was responsible for the war in Europe, and Tagore pleaded
with the Japanese to shun the path of violence. By referring to the example of
Japan, Tagore warned non-European countries about dangers of Western or
European nationalism. After encountering it in Japan, he was apprehensive of the
militant nationalism in India.

Tagore was of the opinion that the term nationalism was derived from the term
nation-state. It was the embodiment of Western ideas of capitalism and
mechanization. For him the nation was an “organization of politics and
commerce.” Therefore, he believed that this conception of nationalism was
intrinsically against the Indian tradition of self-autonomy, pluralism and religious
tolerance which one would find in what he termed as the Samaj (meaning
‘society’). Tagore refused to accept that the modern nation-state form developed
in Europe should be universalized. Arguing that it was a product of the particular
history of European countries, he insisted that the nation-state was utterly foreign
and inimical to the cultural traditions of the East.

According to an eminent historian M. S. S. Pandian, Rabindranath Tagore’s

disenchantment with nationalism was almost unconditional. If Tagore saw no
merit in nationalism, it was due to the quest for power that was and is essential to
any nationalist project. According to Tagore, “The spirit of conflict and conquest
is at the origin and in the centre of Western nationalism; its basis is not social
cooperation. It has evolved a perfect organization of power, but not spiritual
idealism.” For Tagore, even the national movement for independence from the
British colonial rule was an inadequate basis to justify the nation-form as a
symbol of freedom.

Tagore was so critical about the deteriorated form of nationalism that he had even
called nationalism “the worst form of bondage” – “the bondage of dejection,
which keeps men hopelessly chained in loss of faith in themselves.” Tagore was
so concerned about humanity that when nationalism goes against one’s humanity
he was more vocal in arguing against such nationalism. His concept of
nationalism is essentially rooted in the question of what it means to be human and
humanity.
104
However, Tagore’s idea of nationalism was criticized by many of his Rabindranath Tagore:
contemporaries, especially in the West. For instance, the Marxist critic Georg Nationalism and
Cosmopolitanism
Lukacs and the English writer D. H. Lawrence criticized Tagore.

7.2.4 Misreading Tagore’s Thoughts on Nationalism

There are some scholars who believed that Tagore’s thoughts on nationalism are
misread and misinterpreted. These scholars argue that Tagore has been wrongly
presented as a thinker who vehemently criticized nationalism. For example,
Sabyasachi Bhattacharya argued that “Tagore’s best-known work, Nationalism
(1917), is often mistaken for the sum and substance of his thoughts on
nationalism. However, a look at the evolution of his idea over different stages
suggests that his thoughts on nationalism cannot be accommodated within the
stereotypes of “internationalism” or “anti-nationalism” in which commentators
cast him. To focus only on that is a reductionist over-simplification of Tagore’s
evolving approach to the antinomies of nationalism as he perceived them.”
Bhattacharya further argued that “It is important to take caution from Tagore
against generalization too far on the basis of one or two texts like Nationalism
(1917), and making a reductionist representation of Tagore. One can broadly
distinguish several distinct stages in the evolution of Tagore’s approach to
nationalism.”

There is a common misconception about Tagore. Many people argue that Tagore
was too much of a cosmopolitan – too much of an internationalist – to be a sincere
patriot. Scholars argue that such an estimate of Tagore is based either on
ignorance or on prejudice. Those who are really familiar with his speeches and
writings know well how intensely he loved his own country. He was not,
however, prepared to sacrifice truth, justice, and humanity for so-called
patriotism. He would not divorce politics from ethics. Three of his novels - Gora
(1909), Ghare Baire (meaning ‘The Home and the world’) (1916) and Char
Adhyay (meaning ‘Four Chapters) (1934) – were seen as direct attacks on hard-
edged, masculine nationalism. In his celebrated novel Ghare-Baire he laid stress
on this point again and again through some of its characters. The clash between
patriotism and cosmopolitanism constitute a central theme of Ghare-Baire. This
novel has much to say about this theme. Satyajit Ray’s film “The Home and the
World” brilliantly brings out the novel’s tensions.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.

1. Why did Rabindranath Tagore get disillusioned by nationalism?

.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...…… 105
…………………………………………………………………………...……
BLOCK IV …………………………………………………………………………...……
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World ………………………………………………………………………...………
….………………………………………………………………………...……

2. Why did Rabindranath Tagore criticize Eurocentric or Western nationalism?

.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
………………………………………………………………………...………
….………………………………………………………………………...……

7.3 TAGORE’S COSMOPOLITANISM

Tagore’s criticism of nationalism brings him close to the concept of
cosmopolitanism which means a belief that all people are entitled to equal respect
and consideration, no matter what their citizenship status or other affiliations
happen to be. However, Tagore’s concept of cosmopolitanism is also unique, and
does not fall into the traditional understanding of cosmopolitanism.

7.3.1 Cooperation, Coexistence, Humanity and Spiritual

Universalism
Tagore’s cosmopolitanism is embedded with values of cooperation, coexistence,
humanity and spiritual universalism. His cosmopolitanism transcends boundaries
and is meant for humanity at large. He believed that the concept of citizenship
should be based on a humanist ideal. Tanika Sarkar in her article argued that
cooperation, coexistence and humanity are comprehensively reflected in Tagore’s
work entitled Gora (1909). Tagore’s Gora overcomes the ethnocentricities that
led to such a distortion, but, in it, the particular comes too close to the universal –
patriotism dissolves into love for all the helpless peoples of the world, offering a
radically new way of being an Indian patriot.

Tagore gave so much importance to cooperation, coexistence and humanity that

while denouncing nationalism, he does not refute the humanist values inherent in
European civilization since the Enlightenment. Tagore maintained his regard for
that European humanist tradition, though he rued its debasement in the twentieth
century in the form of nationalist imperialism. Based on his humanist thinking,
Tagore argued that Modern India’s claim to nationhood was fundamentally
flawed because India could not succeed in retaining the unifying spirits which
kept diverse people together for centuries, and had allowed conflicts between
faiths and caste division to countervail that spirit. Tagore’s cosmopolitanism
wanted to extend humanist values from national territory to international.
Therefore, he emphasized on universal humanism. It is such ideas of Tagore that
even Jawaharlal Nehru called him “the great humanist of India.”
106
Tagore wanted to bring the ideals of the East and the West into harmony, and Rabindranath Tagore:
broaden the bases of Indian nationalism. He not only believed, but also worked Nationalism and
Cosmopolitanism
for international cooperation, taking India’s message to other countries and
bringing their message to his own people. According to Jawaharlal Nehru, “And
yet with all his internationalism, his feet have always been planted firmly on
India’s soil and his mind has been saturated with the wisdom of the Upanishads.”

Tagore’s cosmopolitanism also denounces the spirit of selfish nationalism. He

believed in an international commonwealth based on disinterested and self-
sacrificing nationalism. He believed in the ideals of a spiritual commonwealth of
nations. In many ways, Gitanjali is a deeply cosmopolitan text in its spiritual
universalism.

Tagore emphasized racial and religious unity throughout in his writings. He was
of the view that such unity and plurality of consciousness could be achieved only
through proper education of the people, eradication of poverty through
modernization and cultivation of freedom of thought and imagination. He said,
“Freedom of mind is needed for the reception of truth.”

7.3.2 Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism

Though Tagore criticized a narrow and aggressive form of nationalism, he was a
highly patriotic poet. This is evident in the many patriotic songs and poems he
wrote. However, he never placed patriotism above soul, conscience, and love for
humanity. Patriotism is an emotional state, bonding or investment; it is a
sentiment. Nationalism is an ideology. Tagore rejected the idea of narrow
nationalism, but practiced anti-imperialist politics all his life.

The well known scholar Ashis Nandy has pointed out that, paradoxically, Tagore
was already India’s unofficial national poet. Not only had he written hundreds of
patriotic songs, these songs were an inspiration to many participants in India’s
freedom struggle. According to him, “Tagore was a patriot but not a nationalist…
He was seeking to clearly separate patriotism from nationalism so as to create an
intellectual and psychological base that would allow the “natural” territoriality of
a political community to avoid European-style nationalism. He knew the record of
European nationalism within Europe and in the southern hemisphere and he
foresaw the devastation towards which European nationalism was pushing Europe
and the world.”

American philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum in her influential essay Patriotism

and Cosmopolitanism (1996) invoked Tagore’s novel Ghare Baire, in which
militant loyalties to nation are unfavorably contrasted with allegiances to what is
morally good for the community of humanity. Nussbaum portrays Tagore as a
champion of moral rationality. In her interpretation, Tagore is the great champion
of a cosmopolitan vision. Nussbaum and others have argued for reading Tagore as
a model of cosmopolitan ethics and pedagogy, suggesting that his novel The
107
Home and the World in particular demonstrates a humanist ideal of citizenship.
BLOCK IV Amartya Sen echoes Nussbaum’s main line of argument when he also claims that
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World Tagore was a critic of patriotism.

Nussbaum, utilizing Tagore’s ideas of the Universal Man to promote an education

where students are not taught that they are citizens of a particular nation, but they
are, above all, citizens of a world of humans. She uses Tagore’s perspective of a
Universal Man who is not bound by local/regional or national boundaries to urge
us to transcend our petty provisional and ethnocentric views. For Nussbaum,
Tagore’s idea of a Universal Man is similar to the concept of a World Citizen, or a
Cosmopolitan, where we transcend the cultural boundaries that limit and impede
our growth and development.

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.

1. What are the main principles of Rabindranath Tagore’s Cosmopolitanism?

.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
………………………………………………………………………...………
….………………………………………………………………………...……

7.4 LET US SUM UP

Rabindranath Tagore was not only a great poet who was awarded with a
prestigious Nobel Prize for his Gitanjali, but also an original thinker who through
his writings expressed his views on various social, cultural, and political aspects.
As a philosopher, he also contributed to the existing discourse on nationalism of
his time. Although apolitical by nature, he came close to nationalist movement
and wrote various patriotic songs and poems. However, gradually he became
disillusioned by nationalism due to various factors like use of violence by
nationalist and freedom fighters, self-centeredness, hunger for material wealth and
political power, and ignorance of humanism and spiritualism. He also criticized
Western or the Eurocentric notion of nationalism for its chauvinism and greed for
political and economic power. Tagore’s thoughts on nationalism are scattered in
his literature. Tagore’s critique of narrow and aggressive nationalism brought him
close to the idea of such cosmopolitanism which believes in universal humanism,
spiritual universalism, cooperation, and coexistence.

7.5 REFERENCES
 Anderson, Benedict. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the
108 Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
 Atkinson, David W. (1993). Tagore’s The Home and the World: A Call for Rabindranath Tagore:
Nationalism and
a New World Order. The International Fiction Review 20 (2): 95:98.
Cosmopolitanism

 Berlin, Isaiah. (1996). Rabindranath Tagore and the Consciousness of

Nationality in The Sense of Reality: Studies in Ideas and Their History.
New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

 Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi. (2016). Antinomies of Nationalism and

Rabindranath Tagore. Economic and Political Weekly 51 (6): 39-45.

 Chatterjee, Partha. (2011). Tagore’s Non-nation in Lineages of Political

Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: Columbia
University Press.

 Desai, Anita. (1994). Re-reading Tagore. Journal of Commonwealth

Literature 29 (1): 5-13.

 Guha, Ramachandra. (2010). The Rooted Cosmopolitan: Rabindranath

Tagore in Makers of Modern India. New Delhi: Penguin.

 Hogan, Patrick and Lalita Pandit. (2003). Rabindranath Tagore:

Universality and Tradition. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson.

 Kabir, Humayun. (1961). Tagore was no Obscurantist. Calcutta Muncipal

Gazette. Tagore Birth Centenary Number.

 Nandy, Ashis. (1994). The Illegitimacy of Nationalism: Rabindranath

Tagore and the Politics of Self. Delhi: Oxford University Press India.

 Nussbaum, Marth C. (1996). Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism in Joshua

Cohen (ed) For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism.
Boston: Beacon Press.

 Pandian, M. S. S. (2009). Nation Impossible. Economic and Political

Weekly 44 (10): 65-69.

 Quayum, Mohammad A. (2020). Tagore, Nationalism and

Cosmopolitanism: Perceptions, Contestations and Contemporary
Relevance. New York: Routledge.

 Saha, Poulomi. (2013). Singing Bengal into a Nation: Tagore the Colonial
Cosmopolitan? Journal of Modern Literature 36 (2): 1-24.

 Sarkar, Tanika. (2009). Rabindranath’s “Gora” and the Intractable

Problem of Indian Patriotism. Economic and Political Weekly 44 (30): 37-
46.

109
BLOCK IV  Sen, Amartya. (2008). Is Nationalism a Boon or a Curse? Economic and
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World Political Weekly 43 (7): 39-44.

 Tagore, Rabindranath. (1917). Nationalism. London: Macmillan.

 Tagore, Rabindranath. (1985). The Home and the World. London: Penguin
Books.

 Tagore, Rabindranath. (1934). Four Chapters. India: Rupa (2002).

 Tagore, Saranindranath. (2008). Tagore’s Conception of

Cosmopolitanism: A Reconstruction. University of Toronto Quarterly 77
(4): 1070-1084.

7.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1. Your answer should highlight following points
 Tagore received the prestigious Nobel Prize in Literature in 1913 for his
work Gitanjali.
 He became the first non-European to receive this award. He achieved
global acclaim and admiration for this work.
 It was the first Noble Prize for India, though at that time India was under
the British Rule.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

1. Your answer should highlight following points
 Tagore observed that the Swadeshi movement which was developing
nationalism among Indians turned violent with the nationalists started
agitating violently.
 A champion of non-violence, Tagore found it difficult to accept the
insanity of the nationalist in their burning of all foreign goods as a mark of
non-cooperation, although it was hurting the poor in Bengal who found
homemade products more expensive than foreign goods.
 Also some freedom fighters were using violence and terror which resulted
into killing of innocent civilians. It was these experiences with Indian
nationalist movement that disillusioned Tagore about the concept of
nationalism.

2. Your answer should highlight following points

 According to Tagore, European or Western nationalism had transformed
anti-colonial resistance in India into chauvinistic nationalism.
 A mere imitation of European or Western nationalism during the freedom
110
struggle of India is self-defeating.
  Tagore was against the false, diseased, perverted, and exaggerated Rabindranath Tagore:
Nationalism and
nationalism which has developed in the West.
Cosmopolitanism

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

1. Your answer should highlight following points
 Tagore’s cosmopolitanism is based on the values of cooperation,
coexistence, humanity, and spiritual universalism.
 He believed that the concept of citizenship should be based on humanist
ideal.
 Tagore’s cosmopolitanism extended humanist values from national
territory to international. Therefore, he emphasized on universal
humanism

111
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World
UNIT 8 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU- STATE,
NATION BUILDING AND
SECULARISM*
Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Jawaharlal Nehru and State Building Post-Independence
8.2.1 Prominence of Scientific Culture in State Building
8.2.2 Idea of Planned Economy
8.2.3 Mixed Economy
8.2.4 Industrial Development
8.3 Jawaharlal Nehru and Nation Building
8.3.1 What is Nation Building?
8.3.2 Features of Nation Building
8.3.2.1 Making of the Constitution and Accommodation
8.3.2.2 Parliamentary Democracy
8.3.2.3 Federalism
8.3.2.4 Linguistic Re-organisation of States
8.3.2.5 Democratic De-centralisation of Catering Towards
Panchayati Raj
8.3.2.6 Party Building
8.4 Jawaharlal Nehru and Secularism
8.4.1 What is Secularism?
8.4.2 Nehru and Secularism
8.5 Let Us Sum Up
8.6 References
8.7 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

*
Dr Bipasha Rosy Lakra, Assistant Professor, Departmen of Political Science, JMC, University of
Delhi

112
 Jawaharlal Nehru-
8.0 OBJECTIVES State, Nation Building
and Secularism

The aim of this unit is to familiarize you with Jawaharlal Nehru’s ideas of state,
nation-building and secularism. After studying this unit, you should be able to:

 Engage with Jawaharlal Nehru’s views on nation and state building.

 Define Secularism
 To explore Nehru’s views on Secularism

8.1 INTRODUCTION
Jawaharlal Nehru could be asserted as among the few leaders who laid the very
foundation of Indian nation–state along with his critical socio-political ideas. He
was politically baptized by Mahatma Gandhi and redefined the nationalist
ideology in accordance with his rational faculties. For instance, till the 1928
Calcutta Congress session, the Congress leaders were content with the idea of
dominion status. However, Nehru along with his radical colleagues put forth
strong defence and arguments that paved way for the 1929 Lahore Congress
session to accept his idea of complete freedom and independence rather than a
dominion status. Nehru was a scientific rationalist that many a times ran contrary
to Congress leadership. Further, post–independence, he took charge as the first
prime minister of India and introduced socialist pattern of society that enmeshed
classical Marxism and a version of capitalism that germinated in India in terms of
colonialism. Therefore, it could be argued that Jawaharlal Nehru has not only
been an icon during the colonial era, but in post-colonial time period too wherein
many a times his political thoughts get evoked for an analysis and examination.

8.2 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU AND STATE BUILDING

POST- INDEPENDENCE
Post–independence Jawaharlal Nehru dropped his earlier conviction for Russian
Communism and his socialism and further, he did not aim at abolishing
capitalism, but curated a new scheme for India’s development and growth i.e., co-
joining certain essence of capitalism and socialism popularly referred to as ‘mixed
economy’. The reasons were obvious –the newly born nation required welfare of
all individuals based on secularism, democracy and socialism. The major
hallmarks were to be political, social and economic equality. Its cherished maxim
was liberty. However, for the good of all, this liberty was to be tethered by the
state. The Indian Constitution is the other component of a democratic system that
paved the way for raising the socio-economic standards of citizens.

Further, the rural masses formed the majority of the Indian population.
Agriculture was the backbone of Indian economy initially; therefore, Nehru
deemed it fit that rural masses became self-reliant. Thus, the adoption of
Gandhian method of Khadi and cottage industries seemed like a viable alternative.
He argued that through community projects the rural populations could get rid of 113
BLOCK IV socio-economic shortcomings as well as do away with illiteracy and ignorance
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World gradually. However, unlike Gandhiji, Nehru did not only rely on development of
villages, but put in a lot of emphasis on industries as a means to become self-
sufficient and reliant on oneself. He argued that Indian poverty could not be
eradicated until there was self-sufficiency in terms of utilizing science and
technology for industrial purposes and its proliferation. For instance, the five year
plans post-independence laid greater emphasis on establishment of heavy
industries, though he had specific apprehensions too. In his own words:

I am all for tractors and big machinery, and I am convinced that

the rapid industrialization of India is essential to relieve the
pressure on land, to combat poverty and raise standards of
living, for defense and a variety of other purposes. But I am
equally convinced that the most careful planning and adjustment
are necessary if we are to reap the full benefit of
industrialization and avoid many of its dangers.

He asserted that this method of planning is necessary to release the arrested

growth that have taken China and India within its grip. He further emphasized that
he had been greatly attracted to the Industrial movement that was majorly
engaging the industrial co-operatives. He thought that it would fit the Indian
background to, “give a democratic basis to small industry, and develop the co-
operative habit”. This could be further utilized to complement the bigger
industries. He said, “it must be remembered that, however rapid might be the
development of heavy industry in India, a vast field will remain open to small and
cottage industries. Even in Soviet Russia owner-producer co-operatives have
played an important part in industrial growth”.

Nehru not only emphasized the quantitative adjustment and balancing of several
tenets of method of production; but he desired politico-economic qualitative
changes to be done wherein new social benefits flow. Moreover, the social and
psychological aspects in this stance are to be given primacy. He stated, “thus we
will change the static character of our living and make it dynamic and vital, and
our minds will become active and adventurous. New situations lead to new
experiences, as the mind is compelled to deal with them and adapt itself to a
changing environment”. (pg 409) Nehru in his work- Discovery of India- asserts
that the three fundamental necessities of India were to develop “industrially and
otherwise”. Heavy engineering, machine-making industry, scientific research
institutes and electric power were essential to its economic growth vis-à-vis
building capacities for its people. He argued that these should be the very
foundations of all such planning to which the national planning committee too
laid emphasis on. He also mentioned that India lacked all these elements and that
there were always bottlenecks in the industrial expansion.

114
8.2.1 Prominence of Scientific Culture in State Building Jawaharlal Nehru-
State, Nation Building
and Secularism
Jawaharlal Nehru thoroughly believed in scientific culture and he was convinced
that methods and positive approach towards science have transformed, renewed,
revolutionized human life while also opening avenues for further research
changes. Moreover, Nehru’s approach towards life was based on scientific spirit.
He further said, “it is the scientific approach, the adventures and yet critical
temper of science, the search for truth and new evidence, the reliance on observed
fact and not on pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind-all that is
necessary; not merely for the applications of science but for life itself and the
solutions of its many problems”.

Therefore, he believed that merely large scale application of science and

technology consequently wouldn’t lead to economic development; however,
“progressive ideas” along with development of science were essential for all
round development. He also sought that religious and superstitious belief or belief
systems were big hurdles in socio-economic development of the country.
Therefore, it could be put forth that he was a socialist, but did not confirm to any
dogmas. He said, “and so while I accepted the fundamentals of the socialist
theory, I did not trouble myself about its numerous inner controversies. I had little
patience with the leftist groups in India, spending much of their energy in mutual
conflict and recrimination over fine points of doctrine which did not interest me at
all. Life is too complicated and, as far as we can understand it in our present state
of knowledge, too illogical, for it to be confined within the four corners of a fixed
doctrine”.

Thus, it could be concluded that Nehru had been a progressive leader who
moulded the environment in accordance to the then situation/s. He engaged with
democratic values and inculcated it in his political thoughts. Consequently, his
idea of socialism developed as Democratic Socialism which was an important
tenet for his economic planning.

8.2.2 The Idea of Planned Economy

For Jawaharlal Nehru- in his popular speech of India’s ‘tryst with destiny’ the
agenda included end of poverty, diseases and equality of opportunity. His idea of
development was a welfare state that would follow a socialist pattern. In this
stance, in his First Five Year Plan he asserted that refashioning of the economy
and social structure was pertinent to promote happiness in material and spirit. The
society required not to run on profit, but an urge for a classless society based on
cooperative effort that would provide opportunities for all. Therefore, he preferred
a democratic method for this to be realised.

Further, democratic planning meant utilization of available resources along with

recognition of full quality of labour. His idea was to increase wealth, raise
standards of living of the people in India, lessen the divide between wealthy and 115
the poor, thus ridding the nation of poverty and unemployment. He further said,
BLOCK IV “we believe in democracy, we believe in individual freedom and liberty, we
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World believe indeed that every individual is worthwhile and we cannot treat him merely
as some peg in the hole. This is our broad outlook. At the same time necessarily
following from that belief, we believe in economic betterment of every individual
and in removal of great distinctions between various groups and classes and a
gradual approach to equal opportunities for all. In the economic field, we are
faced with the question of developing India rapidly as we can and rising standards
of life. There are social forces which compel us to do that which do not leave
much choice. Now how are we to do that?”.

In this stance, one of the fundamental elements of Nehruvian model of

development was planned economy. The history behind this goes back to the days
when Nehru in 1927 during his visit was impressed with Soviet Russia’s planned
economy. Therefore, Economic Research Department was established in 1928
upon his insistence. The historical session of Congress that was held in Karachi in
1931 wherein various economic proposals were passed and was decided that the
role and control of state in the economic field would be considered important. It
was further decided that the state would reign the principle industries such as
public services, transport, railways, air and water, mineral resources respectively.
At the instance of the Congress, a National Planning Committee was constituted
and it consisted of fifteen members as well as representatives of provincial
governments in addition to Indian states that chose to collaborate with them.
Jawaharlal Nehru became the president of this committee which had industrialists,
financiers, economists, professors, scientists, village industries association and
representatives of the Trade Union Congress as well as village industries
associations. The reports that the committee prepared entailed self-sufficiency and
the doubling of per-capita income in the next respective decade. A radical
structural change was speculated for a socialist renewal of economy as
emphasised by the National Planning Committee.

Development of Agriculture Agriculture has been a salient feature of Indian

economy to progress as majority of the masses practised it for subsistence. For
Nehru, development of agriculture could cater to development of the whole
economy. He wrote further, “he entire future of our Second Five year Plan
depends upon our agricultural production. It is only the increase in agricultural
production that will give us the resources to fulfil that plan or even go ahead.. If
that falls us, the plan fails, and the future of India is dark. This applies to all
agricultural production, more especially it applies to food grains because they are
the basis of life here. It is bad enough that India, an agricultural country has to
import food grains. It would be worse if we do not get over this in the near future
and have surpluses which will give a basic strength to our economy”.

Another landmark decision pertaining to Indian agriculture and its attempt to

increase production was land reforms. Land reforms became an essential tool to
steer clear anomalies prevalent in the Indian agriculture system. The land reforms
116 process was initiated post-independence which aimed at abolishment of
intermediaries and landlordism. The first Constitutional amendment of 1951 and Jawaharlal Nehru-
the fourth in 1955, the state assemblies were empowered to make laws and State, Nation Building
and Secularism
abolish intermediaries. By 1960, the states passed abolition acts for zamindari,
taluqedari, jagirdari systems respectively. The land ceiling laws were passed in
1959 to prevent any concentration of power in the hands of the few individuals.
Therefore, under this system the tillers of the land secured occupancy rights in
their holdings. Thus, this was envisaged to increase agricultural production.

Further river valley projects for irrigation purposes and generation of electricity
was another modern method to increase agricultural yields. Nehru emphasised on
the usage of organic and composed manure, indigenous fertilizers, approved seeds
and chemical fertilizers respectively. He believed in agriculture education too. He
further wanted to link industrial production processes along with agriculture,
especially in the textiles industry. There were two schemes such as the
Communities Development Programme (CDP) and National Service Extension
Scheme (NSES) that Nehru extended with the increase in agricultural production
and that further catered to growth in small scale industries. Community
development was seen as a catalyst for rural development. While village-cottage
industries were beneficial for community development, he also wished that
production of khadi becomes an important part of community development
programme.

8.2.3 Mixed Economy

Mixed economy was one of the most integral plans of Jawaharlal Nehru. The idea
of a mixed economy was highly influenced by the concept a democratic
socialism. In his own words: “I believe in a socialistic pattern of society. We have
declared this as our goal. But even there, we have not adopted a rigid attitude
which would prevent us from having any leeway or learning from our past
experience or changed circumstances. At the same time we have allowed a very
large margin within which other forces co-operate. Their doors are open to all of
you to function in your own way. In fact, we want to help you in that. There is no
question of blind acceptance here. The basic question before us is to increase
production of essential consumer goods and their equitable distribution which will
reduce the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. We do not want the
new wealth to remain in the hands of a few people. That is not right”.

The mixed economy entailed enmeshing of socialist ideals and capitalist ventures
in a given economy. In this stance, public and private sector worked in a
complementary manner to cater to growth of the nation. Further, the public sector
constituted the state enterprises while the private sector entailed private/individual
corporate enterprises. However, it was the prominence of state enterprises over
the private enterprises in post-independence that was thought to increase
economic and industrial development. Foundational and basic industries were
dealt by the public sector enterprises, while the distribution of consumer goods
was taken care of by the private sector. 117
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the
8.2.4 Industrial Development
Nation and the World
Nehru was one of the prominent leaders who advocated and promoted heavy
industries in India. He preferred heavy industries over cottage industries (as
asserted by M.K Gandhi) in the pre-independence period too. Nehru stressed on
the necessity of heavy industries for catering towards public utility provided that
they did not jeopardise with the cottage industries and were to be strictly state
owned. Further, in his book Discovery of India he justifies that large scale
industries are inevitable and important. Moreover, he argues that cottage
industries would cater to subsistence, but for a stronger economy and
development large and heavy industries were required. Quote here:

He said further “it can hardly be challenged that, in the context of the modern
world, no country can be politically and economically independent, even within
the framework of interdependence, unless it is highly industrialized and has
developed its power resources to the utmost. Nor can it achieve or maintain high
standards of living and liquidate poverty without the aid of modern technology in
almost every sphere of life. An industrially backward country will continually
upset the world equilibrium and encourage the aggressive tendencies of more
developed countries. Even if it retains its political independence, this will only be
nominal, and economic control will tend to pass to other. This control will
inevitably upset its own small economy which seeks to preserve in pursuit of its
own view life. Thus, an attempt to build up a country’s economy largely on the
basis of cottage and small-scale industries is doomed to failure. It will not solve
the basic problems of the country or maintain freedom, nor will it fit in with the
world framework, except as a colonial appendage”.

Therefore, it was his prerogative to stress on three aspects of fundamental

requirements for development i.e. heavy engineering, machine making industry,
scientific research institutes and electric power. Further, he says that cottage and
heavy industries should work in a co-ordinated manner and avoid any conflict.
However, he stresses on the importance of heavy industries and states: “without
heavy industries we cannot remain independent, we become dependent, not only
dependent but dependent in a bad way. Nor do I think we might be able to raise
the standard of living adequately unless we have heavy industries at the back of
us”.

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.

1. What do you understand by ‘state-building’?

.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
118 …………………………………………………………………………...……
 …………………………………………………………………………...…… Jawaharlal Nehru-
………………………………………………………………………...……… State, Nation Building
and Secularism
….………………………………………………………………………...……

8.3 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU AND NATION

BUILDING
8.3.1 What is Nation Building?
The mid- twentieth century witnessed a wave of decolonization process and
independence movements along with prolonged struggles against imperialism.
India was no exception. However, amidst all of these challenges lied the divisive
forces that compelled India to be divided into two nations, but despite that,
various challenges awaited in future course of time such as religious, social,
cultural, linguistic and regional conflicts. Jawaharlal Nehru, being the first Prime
Minister of independent India took charge of the situation. Being a prolific
student of Indian history, culture, society, economy—he designed a strategy based
on national integration, consensus accommodation and decentralization. Ideals
such as democracy, welfarism, democratic socialism were at the core of
functioning of the state.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s idea of nation building had primarily a ‘modernist’ outlook.

He further approached a rationalist thought in every sphere for the development of
the nation. Most importantly, he gave primacy to an individual’s national polity
rather than the religion or his/her religious community. This implied that he
stressed on the separation between religion and politics. Moreover, nation was to
be revered by all irrespective of race, caste or any community largely.
Consequently post-independence, the successive states which were plural for
instance, India faced issues pertaining to caste, community and religious
contrasts. Therefore, it was the handiwork of the state leadership to pay attention
to these shortcomings and thereby, pave way for a nation building process. In this
stance, Jawaharlal Nehru had a seminal position. He was the guiding light of
independent India and guided its destiny till his demise.

National integration has been a crucial ingredient while one deals with nation-
building. National integration in this stance as defined by B.C Upreti entails a
process of coming together of various segments of the society at large. He also
stresses that integration does not mean uniformity. Instead it is a condition
wherein communities share ethical values and consensus which is manifested in
terms of growth of nationalism and a communitarian outlook.

Further, in accordance to Myron Weiner, national integration is a “process of

binding together of culturally and socially distinct groups into a single territorial
unit and the establishment of a national identity. It is both a process as well as a
goal by which all the people inhabiting a particular territory. Irrespective of their
religious, ethnic and linguistic differences, on the base of certain traditions,
119
BLOCK IV experiences, common history and values strive to live together”. Quote the
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World article.

Another scholar, Rasheeduddin Khan elaborated that national integration in India

requires that variables of religion, caste, tribe, region, language, culture, economy
and class for social stratification are fused in a design of ‘unity in diversity’. He
also argued further that cohesion and unity are essential, not uniformity;
Moreover, integration, reconciliation, solidarity were core constituting principles
to be imbibed by the people who constituted as Indian citizens. He said that
“federal India must resort to federal solutions and not resort to unitarian and
simplistic solutions imposed authoritatively without democratic sensitivity”.

8.3.2 Features of Nation Building

Thus, one can infer from the above definitions that national integration is a multi-
dimensional concept that is integral to nation building project that Nehru
envisaged. In this stance, Nehru envisaged specific ingredients for his popular
nation building process that comprised of-

8.3.2.1 Making of the Constitution and Accommodation

Firstly, the making of the constitution based on consensus, accommodation and

secular practises- Jawaharlal Nehru’s idea of integration wherein he
accommodated various strands from the society. The feudal interests were
accommodated through these provision for Privy Purses as well as creation of Part
B states wherein they were given the office of Rajpramukh. Further, the liberals
were accommodated through provisions such as fundamental rights,
parliamentary democracy, independence of judiciary, supremacy of constitution
while the Socialists were catered through Socialist policies through Directive
Principles of State Policies. The Gandhian demands and desires were
accommodated through provision of Article 40 of the Indian Constitution wherein
establishment of Gram Panchayats which would serve as units of local self-
government. It was further stressed that a nation like India has stood the test of
time due to early acceptance of the features of national integration despite strains
such as partition of the country and subsequent domestic problems that ensued.
Moreover, progression of the centre into the peripheral areas for administrative
development was crucial in this stance. Thus, making of the Indian constitution
that was based on consensus and plural accommodation was a requirement of the
hour then. Nehru emphasised on the regional integration for all sections realised
as a building block for nation building. He was a believer of dialogue and
discussion wherein he played a prominent role in framing the Constitution of
India. In this engagement, he emphasised accommodating the minorities and
thereby, giving them Right to Equality, Right to Religious Freedom, Educational
and Cultural Rights respectively. Further, capitalist and landlords were given the
Right to Property while the working classes were accommodated through the
120 provisions of Directive Principles of State Policy.
8.3.2.2 Parliamentary Democracy Jawaharlal Nehru-
State, Nation Building
and Secularism
Jawaharlal Nehru believed that parliamentary democracy was crucial for
integration of religious, social, linguistic, and social groups from India into one.
He stressed that this would further allow them shares in power-structure. He was
essentially keen on parliamentary form of democracy rather than the presidential
system owing to pluralist executive wherein various groups could be
accommodated. He believed that parliamentary democracy could not only provide
stability but flexibility too owing to diverse social structure. His outlook was
perhaps influenced by the conflict that emerged in the USA between the Supreme
Court and the President on the issue of the New Deal Programme post the Second
World War. Parliamentary system did cater to stability during such issues.
However, transformation of one party dominance to multi-party upsurge has led
to specific instabilities such as regionalisation of politics and decline of the
Congress party too which furthered the dysfunctionality of national integration
while India needed it most and thereby, leading to unstable governments or weak
rule and coordination. However, despite these developments, parliamentary
system ensured equal shares to social formations in the power structure, both at
national and state levels. Moreover, formation of coalition governments post-
1967 General Elections in India and in the centre after 1989 parliamentary
elections—it witnessed political upheaval; nonetheless, power sharing has been
crucial in these times too, which if argued, has fulfilled Nehru’s idea of national
integration to some extent.

8.3.2.3 Federalism

Jawaharlal Nehru realised that a unitary system was not suitable for a large
geographical country like India which was equally diverse in terms of culture,
religion, race, caste, tribe etc. Therefore, the central government was to be taken
as ‘staff’ while the state governments were to be taken as ‘line agencies’. This
was to cater to equal distribution of resources and also in accordance to their
requirements and demands. In this stance, Nehru took care of the respective chief
ministers and took them in confidence on all crucial issues such as appointment of
governors and communicated regularly.

8.3.2.4 Linguistic Re-organisation of States

Nehru had an excellent sense of political foresightedness. This entailed him

recognising legitimate political aspirations of regional groups and regions.
Linguistic groups and their demands were of utmost importance then; those were
vying separate states. To proceed with this process, Nehru set-up the States Re-
Organisation Commission in 1953 and thereby, accepted the demand of the
Telegu communities for the creation of Andhra from Madras. Majority of the
states were re-organised on linguistic basis except Bombay and Punjab in 1956.
However, it is to be noted that it was difficult for Nehru to reorganise on linguistic
lines—the states due to issues pertaining to rehabilitation of refugees, integration 121
of princely states and dealing with food crisis. Later, Bombay was subdivided into
BLOCK IV Maharashtra and Gujrat in the year 1960 as demands for these states gained
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World momentum.

8.3.2.5 Democratic De-centralization Catering towards Panchayati

Raj

The idea of democratic decentralisation was taken as a central tenet in nation

building as he deemed it fit to link the centre to the periphery and thereby,
bridging the gap too. Participatory democracy was in mind while Nehru was
going about with the concept of nation building as he believed that peoples’
participation was of utmost importance to cater to democracy as an ideal that
independent India had adopted. Panchayati Raj as an empirical method provided
the masses a choice to engage in the decision making procedure directly through
the institution of Gram Sabha and indirectly through their representatives in
institutions such as Panchayat Samitis, Gram Panchayat and Zila Parishads
respectively. Nehru emphasized that the three tier organisation of institutions
would integrate and sub-structure power judiciously. This would further pave way
for sharing/partnering of social groups such as tribe, caste, sect, religion etc.

8.3.2.6 Party Building

Jawaharlal Nehru emphasised party building exercise that entailed linking of the
Congress party to towns and villages through the centre. For this measure, the
Village Congress Committees, Mohalla or Ward Congress Committees, Mandal
Congress Committees, District Congress Committees and the All India Congress
Committee were highlighted. Thus, this was the other way to link the centre with
periphery. Therefore, Congress played a significant and crucial role in national
integration of India post-independence. However, post the demise of Nehru, the
project of national integration was marred by divisive forces within the Congress
and decline of Congress to a certain extent as compared to it being an “umbrella”
party as described by prominent political scientist Rajni Kothari.

8.4 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU AND SECULARISM

8.4.1 What is Secularism?
One of the most important tenets for nation building and national integration was
secularism. Given India’s history, post the advent of imperial forces which highly
influenced the social fabric of Indian communities, religions and race. Jawaharlal
Nehru being a learned scholar and who was immensely affected by the ideals of
reformation and renaissance emphasised the idea of secularism to deal with
national growth and development holistically. As the history of partition was
exercised, it brought to the fore exodus of Muslims from India with the Hindus
doing the same and settling in Pakistan and India respectively. Besides the arrival
of Hindu refugees in India, the nation also observed significant number of Sikhs
and Christians. Definitely, assimilation was not a solution to secure secularism. It
122
was only possible through integration and accommodation of these varied
communities which manifested different cultures, religion, race etc. Therefore, Jawaharlal Nehru-
Nehru emphasised the Indian Constitution as a major guardian for protection of State, Nation Building
and Secularism
secular rights of the people, especially through the Fundamental Rights that is
enshrined in Part III. Besides this, Nehru constantly vied against any communal
forces through his tenure as the prime minister of India.

8.4.2 Nehru and Secularism

Jawaharlal Nehru was not practically wedded with any kind of dogma or religion.
Secularism in accordance to him was not only a political doctrine, but a social,
revolutionary character that embraced all religions and communities in India into
one. His idea of secularism entailed four core aspects and those were: firstly,
religious freedom which meant which legitimately emphasised that no one shall
be discriminated on the basis of religion. He remarked, “we are building a free
secular state where every religion and belief has full freedom and equal honour
whose every citizen has equal liberty and equal opportunity. (J.L. Nehru-
Independence and after p.36)

Secondly, he emphasised neutrality of the state in religious matters and

deprecated any stance on religious domination of India. He stressed the state to
co-opt a method of peaceful religious co-existence. Thirdly, he argued secularism
in social life that could do away with any religion based regulations to dominate
the society; instead a uniform civil code, without any discrimination based on
religion, caste or tribe. However, he was cautious enough to avoid any
misinterpretation of sentiments pertaining to religion and worked likewise. Lastly,
specific mental attitude of the community at large pertaining secularism would
prove beneficial. Therefore, he emphasised that interests of the minorities are of
utmost importance and if people failed they would end up hurting the secular
sentiments of the nation.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.

1. What do you mean by ‘nation-building’?

.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
………………………………………………………………………...………
….………………………………………………………………………...……
….………………………………………………………………………...……

123
BLOCK IV 2. What were the major features of Jawaharlal Nehru’s nation-building?
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World .…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
………………………………………………………………………...………
………………………………………………………………………...………
….………………………………………………………………………...……

3. Describe Jawaharlal Nehrus’s idea of secularism.

.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
………………………………………………………………………...………
………………………………………………………………………...………
….………………………………………………………………………...……

8.5 LET US SUM UP

Jawaharlal Nehru took over as the first prime minister of India and continued until
his demise in 1964. Partition of India brought along communal issues and
disturbances of unprecedented character especially affecting Bengal and Punjab.
In addition, Indian Constitution and its framing was the other important exercise
that was being done wherein Nehru had a crucial role. His role as the first prime
minister of independent and sovereign India was to cater to development of the
state wherein state building and nation building was highly important. Thus, it
could be argued that Nehru grappled with social, political, economic issues while
he also took care of cultural and regional integration. Further, the integration of
princely states with the Indian Union under the aegis of Nehru and Sardar Patel-
who was the Home Minister then was vital. The Five Year Plans, establishment of
Planning Commission, launching of Community Development Programmes,
expansion of heavy industrial units which furthered the growth of private and
public sectors respectively. Holding of General Elections on the basis of
Universal Adult Franchise in the years 1951-52, 1957 and 1962 were significant
achievements for a newly decolonised nation. Moreover, Nehru’s foreign policies
and Non-Alignment movement too were crucial to highlight India’s identity as a
sovereign state. Perhaps, significant credit goes to Jawaharlal Nehru for bringing
along these developments in short span of time, yet quite effective.

8.6 REFERENCES
 Nehru, J. (Calcutta). The Discovery of India. New Delhi: The Signet Press.

 Nehru, J. (1982). Jawaharlal Nehru: An Autobiography. New Delhi:

Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund.
124
  Nehru, J. (1934). Glimpses of World History. New York: Asia Publishing Jawaharlal Nehru-
State, Nation Building
House. and Secularism

 Arya, R. S. (2006). Nehru's Strategy of National Integration. The Indian

Journal of Political Science, 919-926.

 Upreti, B. (2004). Dynamics of National Integration in India : Challeges

and Constraints of a Plural Society. In B. S. Maan, National Integration in
Communal Harmony (p. 59). Patiala: Punjabi University.

 Khan, R. (1995). Political Integration in Federal India. In V. G. Grover,

Indian Government and Politics at Crossroads, 1989-93 (pp. 711-12).
New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications.

 Pandey, B. C. (2009). Modern Indian Political Thought. New Delhi: Sage

Publications India.

 Pillai, R. (1986). The Political Thought of Jawaharlal Nehru. In K. L.

Thomas Pantham, Political Thought in Modern India (pp. 260-274). New
Delhi: Sage Publications.

 A Project of Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund(1957). Selected Works of

Jawaharlal Nehru: Volume 37. New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial
Fund

8.7 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1. Your answer should highlight the following points:
 State building entails development of state apparatuses, institutional
consolidation
 Building capacities through development and growth in areas such as
state based infrastructures such as educational institutions, public
development institutions, hospitals respectively.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

1. Your answer should highlight following points:
 Nation building aims at building the identity of the nation through the
state.
 It emphasises on popular belief that national unity leads to politically
stable country.
 The civil society foster social harmony thereby catering to overall
development.
125
BLOCK IV 2. Your answer should highlight following points:
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World  Major features of Nehru’s nation building were -: Making of
Constitution that accommodated all communities, religions, tribe,
caste, race etc.; putting forth parliamentary democracy; federalism;
linguistic reorganisation of states post-independence; democratic
decentralization catering towards Panchayati Raj, party building
initiative.

3. Your answer should highlight following points:

 Nehru’s idea of secularism entailed religious freedom in India, a
neutral state that would not jeopardise with the belief system of the
communities largely, and secular belief to be practised by all citizens
cutting across all religion, race, caste or tribe.

126
 Ram Manohar
UNIT 9 RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA: Lohiya: Socialist
Democracy
SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY*
Structure
9.0 Objectives
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 His Life
9.1.2 His Writings
9.1.3 His Political Thought
9.2 Redefining Socialism
9.2.1 Sapta Kranti (Seven Revolutions)
9.2.2 New Ideology or Doctrine of Socialism
9.3 Socialist Democracy
9.3.1 Democracy and Socialism
9.4 Let Us Sum Up
9.5 References
9.6 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

9.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit deals with one of the important Indian socialist thinkers – Ram Manohar
Lohiya and his idea of Socialist Democracy. The main objective of this unit is to
get acquainted with him and to understand his important ideas, particularly
focusing his thoughts on Socialist Democracy. Therefore, after reading this unit,
you will be able to:
 understand Ram Manohar Lohiya and his contribution to Indian socialist
thought
 understand his unique contribution in the sense of redefining socialism and
 understand his idea of Socialist Democracy

*
Dr Bipasha Rosy Lakra, Assistant Professor, Departmen of Political Science, JMC, University of
Delhi

127
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the 9.1 INTRODUCTION
Nation and the World
Ram Manohar Lohiya (1910-1967) was a prominent leader, and considered by
many as the most original thinker of the socialist movement in India. He was an
activist in the Indian national movement for independence and a socialist political
leader. Before understanding his thought, it is necessary to know about his life
and work.

9.1.1 His Life

Ram Manohar Lohiya was born on March 23, 1910 in a middle class merchant
family at Akbarpur, which is currently a part of the state of Uttar Pradesh. His
father, Heera Lal Lohiya, was a freedom fighter and a staunch follower of
Mahatma Gandhi. His mother, Chanda, died in 1912 when he was very young. He
became familiarized with India’s national movement for independence at an early
age by his father through the various protest assembles.
Lohiya received his education in various cities including Bombay, Banaras, and
Calcutta. He succeeded the matriculation examination in first class in 1925. He
joined the Vidyasagar College in Calcutta after completion of a two-year course at
Banaras University. In the year 1929, he passed the Honours examination in
English literature. He was attracted towards political agitation, even during his
student days. For example, he was just ten-years old when he organized a student
strike in 1920 on the death of Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He went to
Germany for higher studies in 1929. When he arrived in Berlin, he was very
young, just over 19 years, with a B.A. degree from the University of Calcutta and
a nationalist fervor imbibed from his family. He obtained Ph.D. in Economics
from Frederick William University (today’s Humboldt University of Berlin). He
wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the topic of The Salt Taxation in India. This was an
important issue which led to Gandhi’s historical march to Dandi. He focused on
Gandhi’s socio-economic theory. He submitted his thesis in 1933.
His proficiency in German language was excellent. Even decades later, he wrote
letters in German with ease and conversed with Albert Einstein in German during
his visit to the U.S. in 1951. In Germany he also came into contact with the
German socialist intellectuals and political workers. The intellectual background
and political conditions in Germany in that period immensely influenced the
thinking of Lohiya. He was influenced by the intellectual ferment in the
university, the cultural atmosphere of Berlin and the political situation in
Germany – all of which had a lasting impact on his future thoughts and actions.
He maintained his interest in German politics even while in the Congress Socialist
Party (CSP), and wrote a series of commentaries on the rise of Nazism and
Europe’s march towards a world war. The choice of Germany reflected Lohiya’s
dislike in joining any university in Britain – at that time the choice of most
Indians aspiring for a place in the colonial administration. Lohiya’s education in
Berlin formed a significant part in his ideological evolution. He left Berlin with
definite leanings towards socialism. The experience in Berlin widened his
128 understanding and perception.
When he returned to India in 1933, he got fully involved in the national Ram Manohar
Lohiya: Socialist
movement led by the Indian National Congress (henceforth the Congress). He Democracy
joined the socialist movement as one of the founders of the CSP. He was
considered as one of its pillars. Lohiya and other leaders like Acharya Narendra
Dev, Jaya Prakash Narayan, Achyut Patwardhan, Ashok Mehta, and Minoo
Masani formed CSP in 1934. These leaders attempted to build a nation for the
majority toiling people. They tried to strengthen the national movement by
organizing workers and peasants. CSP had declared socialism as its objective. It
stated that only Marxism could guide the anti-imperialist forces to their destiny,
and thus emphasized on democratizing the organizational structure of the
Congress. Lohiya actively participated in the national movement, and played an
important role in the underground Quit India Movement of 1942, and also went to
jail several times for his activism.
After independence, the CSP got separated from the Congress. The Socialist Party
(Praja Socialist Party after 1952) became a major opposition party in post-
independence India. At this point, Lohiya emerged as its first rank leader. He
played a key role in the formation of it. He was elected as General Secretary of
the new party in 1953. In 1955, the socialists gathered at Hyderabad and a new
Socialist Party of India was established under the chairmanship of Lohiya. After
1964 it became Samyukta Socialist Party. Under Lohiya’s leadership his party
adopted the policy of active opposition to the Congress government. It organized
several protests and civil disobedience campaigns against policies of the
government. However, the party had very little success in elections. Lohiya
himself succeeded in getting elected to the Lok Sabha only in 1963. Before the
general elections of 1967, he tried to unite all the opposition parties against the
Congress. This new strategy became successful. However, Lohiya did not live to
build on it. He died in 1967 in New Delhi. He was unmarried. He left behind no
family, and no property. However, he inspired many with his ideas. Lohiya led
several people’s movements, and he was jailed on numerous occasions during the
colonial period and after independence. He visited several countries and
participated in meetings of the Socialist International and the World Peace
Council.

9.1.2 His Writings

Lohiya was not only a socialist leader but also a profound thinker. He manifested
his ideas through his writings. He was a prolific writer. His writings consisted of
articles or sometimes a series of articles. Most of these were revised scripts of the
lectures that he had delivered at various places. These essays were then compiled
together in the form of books. The most important of such collections of Lohiya’s
writings is Marx, Gandhi and Socialism (1963). Some of his other such books are
The Third Camp in World Affairs (1951), Wheel of History (1955), Will to Power
and Other Writings (1956), Guilty Men of India’s Partition (1960), The Caste
System (1963), and Interval During Politics (1965).
His ideas were not limited to politics. He took serious interest in issues related to
129
culture, economy, religion, and science and technology. He reflected not merely
BLOCK IV on the present, but also on the distant past and future. He attempted to create
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World awareness among the people by writing articles and pamphlets. He utilized his
time by writing booklets, pamphlets and articles such as How to establish an
Independent Government, I am Free’, Prepare for the Revolution, and Brave
Fighters March Forward. He published the journal Do or Die during this period.
He had also written another scholarly article Economics after Marx while he was
underground. He was not only one of the founder members of the CSP, but also
an editor of its mouthpiece Congress Socialist. He edited the first thirteen issues
of it.

9.1.3 His Political Thought

One of the important features of Lohiya’s political thought was that he never
accepted any of the given ideologies in totality. It was his ambitious attempt to
answer a large range of questions. For example, he was influenced both by
Marxism and Gandhism; but he also criticized both of these ideologies. He never
followed any ideology unthinkingly. He studied and analyzed ideas deeply and
also questioned them. Whenever he found problems with any ism, he criticized it.
Another important feature of Lohiya’s political thought was that he never
believed in violence. He was non-violent by nature as well as training. He refuses
destructive tendencies. He never lost endurance. He believed that non-violence
was not a quality for cowardice. He followed what he reached. In his letter to
Mahatma Gandhi, he had elaborated the concept of non-violence in following
words, “Non-violent collective action is among the rarest and most precious gifts
received by mankind in all history”.
Lohiya criticized capitalism. He studied the unfair nature of capitalism and how
the British colonial rule was responsible for exploitation of the Indian people
while staying in India. He entered the nationalist movement and joined the
struggle against British imperialism in 1934 as a Congress Socialist. In 1936, he
was selected by Jawaharlal Nehru as the secretary of the Foreign Affairs
Department of the All India Congress Committee (AICC) which was the highest
body of the Congress Party. His selection was recognition of his talents and his
wide knowledge of international affairs. As Foreign Secretary of the Congress, he
played an important role in laying the foundations of the foreign policy of India.
He gave up that responsibility in 1938, and started to develop his own political
standpoint by critically examining positions held by the Gandhian leadership of
the Congress and the Communists who had poured into the CSP. He was arrested
in 1940, and was sentenced to a jail term of two years for delivering anti-war
speeches. During the Second World War, he was of the opinion that India should
not give any support to the British Rule. He advocated complete non-cooperation.
Lohiya was aware of the issues faced by the overseas Indians, and he told the
Indian people about their deplorable conditions. He had also drawn the attention
of the world towards the repression of civil liberties in India and other countries.
Lohiya lived a short and passionate life of thought and action. Recently there has
130 been a significant revival of interest in Lohiya among people’s movements and
struggles, especially those involved in resisting displacement, environmental Ram Manohar
Lohiya: Socialist
destruction and large-scale development projects. Lohiya provides an alternative Democracy
perspective, thus there is a growing interest in his ideas.
Lohiya has influenced many emerging writers and artists. He is known for his
influence on Hindi literature and writers in other Indian languages. Many scholars
have criticized Lohiya for his emphasis on Hindi language and his anti-English
approach. While commenting upon the critics of Lohiya, Yogendra Yadav has
argued that “the two most powerful orientations in the institutionalized world of
ideas in post-independent India – Nahruvian and Marxist – came together to
design a wall of silence around Lohiya.” Many critics of Lohiya’s ideas dismissed
him without reading him. They hold strong opinions about Lohiya without
reading him at all. Some critics cared to read Lohiya, but their reading tends to be
highly selective and the conclusions largely predetermined. The critique does not
go beyond the level of criticizing Lohiya for not understanding Marxism correctly
and for going against Nehru. Lohiya was concerned for people’s languages. He
argued that if language is the medium of expression, then the true expression of
the community would come forth only when its people expressed their thoughts in
indigenous language. He, therefore, pitched himself strongly against the
continuation of English as the medium of administration, the judiciary and higher
education.
He is considered as anti-Congress; the uncompromising critic of the Nehru-
Gandhi dynasty; and the person responsible for the politics of anti-English. For
Yogendra Yadav, Lohiya has been incorrectly portrayed as a Hindiwalla, Hindi
supremacist and a Hindi chauvinist. Lohiya’s thinking on the language question
has been misrepresented and misunderstood. In 1963, he propounded the strategy
of non-Congressism. He was of the opinion that in the past three general elections
the Congress won with a thumping majority and there was a feeling among the
masses that the Congress cannot be defeated and it has come to stay in power for
ever. Lohiya persuaded the entire spectrum of opposition parties to have mutual
adjustments to overthrow the Congress rule so that this illusion can be removed
from the masses. This formula of Lohiya got huge success in the 1967 general
elections and in nine States the Congress party was defeated and Samyukta
Vidhayak Dal (SVD) Governments were formed by the Opposition parties of that
time.
Lohiya also worked for the freedom of Goan and Nepalese people. He was a
relentless fighter against every form of injustice. He enthusiastically pleaded for
social equality and preferential opportunity for the socially oppressed sections of
society to enable them to overcome their hundreds of years old sufferings.
Lohiya knew the fact that people of India live in villages. He, therefore, became
the symbol of the aspirations of the poor peasants, the landless people and
agricultural labourers. He initiated farmer marches and struggles from 1947.

131
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
Nation and the World
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1. Why did Ram Manohar Lohiya oppose the Congress and adopted non-
Congressism strategy?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

9.2 REDEFINING SOCIALISM

One of the main contributions of Lohiya was to redefine socialism while
considering socialist movement in non-European countries like India. His attempt
to redefine socialist was in line with his thinking that any ism should not be
followed unthinkingly.
Lohiya’s higher education studies in Germany were a period which shaped
Lohiya’s thinking and ideas. Indumati Kelkar, Lohiya’s contemporary and
biographer, informs us that it was in Germany that Lohiya became a social
democrat. When he returned to India in 1933, he became one of the leaders of the
CSP, which was formed in 1934. Through a long training in the freedom
movement and the organizational struggles to build a socialist movement, Lohiya
developed his ideas of socialism. Jayaprakash Narayan, one of the most
influential Indian socialist leaders, started the Bhoodan movement, and left
politics. Other leaders like Achyut Patwardhan and Ramnandan Mishra turned to
spiritual quests. Ashok Mehta joined the Congress after some time, and Acharya
Narendra Dev, the great intellectual, died in 1955. It was a serious time for the
socialist movement. In such a situation, Lohiya tried to fill the void.
Lohiya tried hard to give Indian socialism a new concept and philosophy. He was
not a socialist in a traditional sense. He opposed Marxism and Communist
totalitarianism. He wanted the Indian socialist movement to be liberated from
Marxian thought and action. He was influenced by the Gandhian principle of
Ahimsa. He played an important role in bringing up a synthesis between
Gandhian and Marxian concepts. He has contributed to give a new meaning and
method of action to make the Socialist Party the most effective weapon against
the capitalist system.
Lohiya defined socialism in terms of ‘equality’ and ‘prosperity’ or ‘affluence’ for
132 the people. To quote him, “If socialism is to be defined in two words then they
are, equality and prosperity. I do not know if this definition has been given earlier Ram Manohar
Lohiya: Socialist
at any time. If so, I would call it the best definition given so far. The meaning of Democracy
socialism is ingrained in these two words: concrete meaning in terms of time and
place, and total meaning in terms of ideals.” But the problem that tormented
Lohiya was how to bring equality and prosperity together. In Lohiya’s experience,
the extremes of affluence and poverty, which had to be leveled down, were not
aspects of the similar society. This division, in its most glaring form, had become
an aspect of the global order in which the white people of Europe and the U.S.
had all the wealth and high levels of productivity while the rest of world remained
mired in poverty, dogged by low productivity and low income. That transformed
the issue of equality not only amid people of the same country inhabited by those
having the same skin colour, but also among people with different skin colours –
black, brown and white. It extended to include the differences of caste and gender.

9.2.1 Sapta Kranti (Seven Revolutions)

Lohiya gave the idea of Sapta Kranti (Seven Revolutions). The programme of
Sapta Kranti was his comprehensive answer for realizing the socialist dream in
the modern world system. He tried to establish an Asian Socialist Forum because
organizations such as the Socialist International and the Communist International
(or the Comintern) were under the control of white people, either under the
Atlantic block or the Soviet block. These contemplations provided impetus to
form the concept of Sapta Kranti which constituted (i) the civil disobedience
against violent revolutions; (ii) economic equality; (iii) abolition of castes; (iv)
emancipation of women; (v) national independence; (vi) an end to colour
discrimination; and (vii) the individual’s freedom of thought, free of coercion
from collectives of any kind.
Lohiya was the theorist of Sapta Kranti in the context of creating a new world
order on the basis of socialism. He wanted to give a new direction to the
movement for socialism by giving equal emphasis to the struggles against sexism,
class and caste-based exploitations. It was a departure from the Marxist line of a
class-centric programme for a socialist revolution. It was also going beyond the
Gandhian emphasis on constructive programme of ending untouchability and
casteism. This Sapta Kranti is supposed to be simultaneously taking place in the
modern world system and it was presented as the most outstanding feature of the
twentieth century.

9.2.2 New Ideology or Doctrine of Socialism

Lohiya’s contributions to the socialist thought are manifold. He believed that the
individual should be free from ignorance, backwardness and all kinds of
superstitions and prejudices. He highlighted the ideological problems of the
socialist movement in India. He was inspired by Marxism, but he did not accept
some of the postulates of Marxism without thinking. He argued that Gandhian
ideas and principles should be re-examined and reconsidered in the light of the
changes in the socialist and communist movements all over the world. He further
urged to look into the economic problems a country is facing. 133
BLOCK IV Socialism was originally a European theory in at least two senses. It originated
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World from Europe, and it was mainly about Europe. Later on, it got transferred to many
non-European societies including India. Indian socialist thinkers had to deal with
this European element in their theory. Thus, the question of the West in Indian
political thought got translated into the Indian socialist thought as well. The
general responses of the Indian socialists was to accept the original western
theory, whether communism or democratic-socialism, in its given form. As a
result, most of them did not question the belief in the superiority of European
civilization. Lohiya’s contribution to Indian socialist thought can be understood in
this context. He was the first thinker in India to challenge the dependence of
socialist theory on the West. His entire system of thought was an attempt to build
a truly universal socialist theory which took into account the non-European world
as well. Lohiya’s basic argument in this regard can be stated as follows. Socialism
is a liberating and revolutionary ideology. However, due to various historical
reasons it has till now centred around Europe. Orthodox Marxism or communism
illustrates this dependence. Even those socialists who reject communism tend to
mix some features of communism and capitalism, both of which are European
products. That is why socialism has failed to perform a revolutionary role in the
non-European world. This becomes another tool for establishing European
superiority. The way out of this situation is a new ideology or doctrine of
socialism. Our task is to search for theoretical foundations of this new doctrine. It
involves understanding a fresh historical analysis, setting new goals and devising
more appropriate strategies keeping the non-western experience in mind. This is
the task that Lohiya set for himself and tried to fulfill throughout his life. Lohiya’s
task is to remove Euro-centric assumptions i.e. basic ideas centred around Europe,
from the existing socialist theory and to build an alternative theory in its place.
On the basis of Lohiya’s definition of socialism which is based on equality and
prosperity, he claimed his socialism as distinct from European socialism which
has failed to acquire a face of its own, distinct from capitalist democracy and
Russian communism. His socialism was new, regenerated and liberated from the
traditional stains of socialism. He, therefore, strongly believed in the idea that
socialist movement in India should have a distinct Indian character.
According to Lohiya, Marx did not consider the peculiar and specific conditions
of the non-European world, particularly developing World countries. Lohiya
thought that his idea of socialism as a new civilization which would arise in the
backward regions of the present civilization and might ultimately cover the entire
world. It was largely influenced by the needs and requirements of the present
countries of the developing World. Lohiya argued that communism and European
tradition of socialism are not relevant in the prevailing socio-economic realities in
the developing World countries. Therefore, Lohiya advanced his theory of
socialism. He argued that modern concept like capitalism, socialism, equality,
liberty, etc. which have evolved in the context of the European experience, should
not be universalized and should not be entirely applied to Indian conditions.

134 It can be argued that Lohiya’s ideas and perceptions on socialism was highly
pragmatic. He not only redefined socialism in the context of developing World
countries, but also suggested various programmes for its realization. He supported Ram Manohar
Lohiya: Socialist
the doctrine – Equal Irrelevance of communism and capitalism – to the Democracy
developing world, including India.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1. Why did Ram Manohar Lohiya oppose the Congress and adopted non-
Congressism strategy?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

9.3 SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY

Lohiya believed in socialist democracy. He was the founder of an alternative
politics based on socialist ideology, with programmes of spade, vote and jail and
Sapta Kranti. He described these programmes as the symbols of a new
perspective of action and construction. According to Rajindar Sachar, Lohiya
gave a slogan, the sheet-anchor of Democratic Socialism, thus: spade-prison-vote
– where spade symbolized constructive activity, prison stood for peaceful struggle
against injustice, and the vote for political action. He attempted to incorporate the
Gandhian ideas into socialist thought.
He supported the power to the elected representatives of the people through
parliamentary means, but accepted the non-violent direct action against any and
every social, economic and political injustice.
He believed that the power of the state should be controlled, guided, and framed
by people’s power. He also believed in the ideology of democratic socialism and
non-violent methodology as instruments of governance.
Lohiya also elaborated his thoughts on the caste system in India. He criticized the
caste system. He interacted with some of the most important anti-caste leaders,
movements and organizations of India in his quest for the abolition of caste
system. He also engaged with Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Periyar Ramasami
Naicker. According to Lohiya, it is necessary to put primary emphasis on the
removal of caste system through systemic reform process for the success of
democratic socialist movement in India.

135
BLOCK IV Lohiya was known for his Four Pillar State concept. He believed that the village,
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World mandal (district), province and central government as the four pillars of the state.
He supported the idea of villages having police and welfare functions.
In his book on Marx, Gandhi and Socialism, Lohiya analyzed the principles of
democratic socialism as an appropriate philosophy for the successful operation of
constructive programmes. He was of the opinion that the economy of a
developing country could be improved through the principles of democratic
socialism.
Lohiya’s idea of socialism has three significant aspects that he sought to develop.
One, the decentralized state based on small agro-industrial communities and
operating on the principle of the “small unit machine”. Lohiya was also a firm
believer in decentralized economy. He emphasized the need of setting up of
cottage industries and the small machines with minimum capital investments
where maximum manpower may be used. However, it is not to be confused with
the Gandhian economy based on village self-sufficiency. Two, a new meaning
and understanding of Equality in the context of Indian history and situation. And
three, the means to achieve the socialist goal.
The aims of Lohiya’s socialism are the following:
1. Maximum attainable equality and justice tempered by equality.
2. A decent standard of living which, while avoiding the double impasse of
capitalistic and dialectical materialism, will tend to establish complete harmony
between the material and moral needs of man.
3. An industrial and agricultural technique and its judicious organization,
subjected to man and conducive to his entire physical, intellectual and moral
development.
4. The decentralization of political and economic power so as to make it easily
available to the common man, and restriction of bureaucracy by the
encouragement of cooperation in all domains, particularly in the domain of
production, distribution and consumption of national produce.

9.3.1 Democracy and Socialism

Lohiya was influenced by ideas of democracy and socialism. He considered these
two ideas as the two sides of the same coin. Socialism and democracy were in no
way different. He believed that they were not only complementary to each other,
but also interdependent. There could be no socialism without democracy. He
evolved a theory of limited personality of individual, party, government and state.
To quote him, “Democracy in all circumstances shall be the sheet-anchor of the
ideas and programmers of socialism. Democracy means the inevitable
answerability of administration to elected assembly.”
Lohiya was a democrat by conviction, but socialism appealed him as a way of
life. Lohiya believed in democracy, freedom and individual liberty. Such a belief
136 repelled him from communism or Marxism. Lohiya knew that freedom can exist
only when there is equality in all the walks of life.
 Ram Manohar
Check Your Progress Exercise 3 Lohiya: Socialist
Democracy
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1. Why did Ram Manohar Lohiya oppose the Congress and adopted non-
Congressism strategy?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

9.4 LET US SUM UP

Ram Manohar Lohiya occupies a significant place in the intellectual and political
history of modern India. There are many who admired and adored Lohiya, but
Lohiya was also criticized by many. Nonetheless, Lohiya’s position as a profound
thinker and inspiring leader remains, to a large extent, undisputed. He is one of
those few thinkers of modern India who recognized, with astonishing clarity, the
difficulties and complexities involved in transferring the ideology of socialism
from Europe to non-European cultural locations. He redefined socialism in the
context of non-European world, particularly developing World countries. Lohiya
knew very well that socialism, as an ideology and a movement, owed its origin to
Europe. Therefore, its pursuit elsewhere posed a huge theoretical challenge.
Political theorists have described this process as a transfer of political theory.
Lohiya readily accepted this challenge and invested a significant part of his
intellectual energy in the task of transferring the political theory of socialism from
Europe to the larger non-European world.
Lohiya attempted to develop an indigenous, autonomous socialism as an
alternative to Nehruvian socialism or Eurocentred socialism. He condemned both
communism and capitalism as unsuitable in Indian circumstances. He, therefore,
attempted to develop a third camp vis-à-vis the capitalist and communist camps. It
is largely an attempt to build an indigenous socialism that would emerge from
non-European world and meet their urgent needs. Lohiya has been regarded by
many as the most original of the Indian socialist thinkers because of his attempt to
liberate socialist doctrine from its traditional understanding. His original and
creative mind attracted writers and artists and inspired young generations. He
contributed significantly to the history of Indian socialist thought and movement.
Lohiya is a noted figure whose thoughts and ideas continue to have a powerful
influence on socio-political life in India. Although there has been a tendency
137
among the recent researchers not to recognize Lohiya and his contribution to
BLOCK IV socialist thought in India, his democratic socialist approach to look at ideology as
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World an integrated phenomenon is now being widely accepted throughout the world.
Lohiya was one of the most inspiring, courageous, consistent and creative
socialist leaders of the twentieth century. His ideas and views on diverse issues
are quiet relevant even today and will continue to remain in the coming centuries.

9.5 REFERENCES
 Arumugam, M. (1978). Socialist Thought in India: The Contribution of
Rammanohar Lohia. New Delhi: Sterling.
 Chaudhari, Chitrita. (1993). Rammanohar Lohia and the Indian Socialist
Thought. Calcutta: Minerva Associates (Publications) Pvt. Ltd.
 Deepak, Omprakash and Arvind Mohan. (2006). Lohia: Ek Jeevani.
Bikaner: Vagdevi Prakashan.
 Kelkar, Indumati. (2009). Dr. Rammanohar Lohia: His Life and
Philosophy. New Delhi: Anamika.
 Krishna, Gopal. (1968). Rammanohar Lohia: An Appreciation. Economic
and Political Weekly 3 (26/28): 1105-14.
 Lohia, Rammanohar. (1966). Equality and Prosperity. Mankind 10 (7).
 ____. (1970). India’s Path to Socialism. Mankind.
 Nene, S. R. (2010). Dr. Rammanohar Lohia Remembered: His
Philosophy, Scholarship and Vision. New Delhi: Rupa.
 Oesterheld, Joachim. (2010). Lohia as a Doctoral Student in Berlin.
Economic and Political Weekly 45 (40): 85-91.
 Pillai, K. Gopinathan. (1994). Political Philosophy of Rammanohar Lohia:
Alternative Development Perceptions. New Delhi: Deep and Deep
Publications.
 Sachar, Rajindar. (2009). Dr. Lohia – Our Revolutionary Mentor.
Mainstream 47 (14).
 Tolpadi, Rajaram. (2010). Context, Discourse and Vision of Lohiya’s
Socialism. Economic and Political Weekly 45 (40): 71-77.
 Yadav, Yogendra. (2010). On Remembering Lohia. Economic and
Political Weekly 45 (40): 46-50.

9.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1. Your answer should highlight following points
 Lohiya was of the opinion that in the first three general elections of
138
independent India, the Congress won with a thumping majority and there
 was a feeling among the masses that the Congress cannot be defeated and Ram Manohar
Lohiya: Socialist
it has come to stay in power for ever. Democracy
 The Congress was becoming dominant political party which could
dominate the Indian political scenario.
 It was the necessity to unite all non-Congress parties to provide alternative
to the Congress dominance.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

1. Your answer should highlight following points
 According to Lohiya, the Indian socialist theory was depended upon the
West. He argued that communism and European tradition of socialism are
irrelevant in the exiting socio-economic realities in the developing world
countries including India.
 Lohiya’s entire system of thought was an attempt to build a truly universal
socialist theory which took into account the non-European world as well.
 It involves understanding a fresh historical analysis, setting new goals and
devising more appropriate strategies keeping the non-western experience
in mind.

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

1. Your answer should highlight following points
 Lohiya’s alternative politics based on socialist ideology, with programmes
of spade, vote and jail and Sapta Kranti.
 Three significant aspects of Lohiya’s idea of socialism: One, the
decentralized state based on small agro-industrial communities and
operating on the principle of the “small unit machine”; two, a new
meaning and understanding of Equality in the context of Indian history
and situation; and three, the means to achieve the socialist goal.
 Lohiya considered democracy and socialism as the two sides of the same
coin. These were in no way distinct. They were complementary to each
other, and also interdependent.

139
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the
Nation and the World UNIT 10 M.N. ROY- MARXISM AND RADICAL
HUMANISM*
Structure
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Comintern and the Colonial Question
10.3 M.N. Roy and Indian Politics
10.3.1 On ‘India in Transition’
10.3.2 On Organization
10.3.3 Roy on the Second World War
10.3.4 Problems in Methodology
10.4 Radical Humanism
10.4.1 Critique of Marxism
10.4.2 Humanist Model of Politics
10.4.3 Partyless Democracy
10.5 Criticism
10.6 Let Us Sum Up
10.7 References
10.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

10.0 OBJECTIVES
Earlier in this block you have studied the role of Indian communists in the
national movement. M.N. Roy was one of the first leaders who injected Maxism
into the practical of India. This unit introduces you to the ideas of M.N. Roy who
started as a Marxist but gradually turned towards Radical Humanism. After
studying the unit you should be able to understand the contribution of M.N. Roy
towards the development of communism in India and critically assess the Marxist
analyses of Indian society.

*
Adopted from course EPS-03, Block -8, Unit - 29.

140
 M.N. Roy-
10.1 INTRODUCTION Marxism and
Radical
Humanism
Most strands of Indian political thought in the early 20th century grew out of the
historical conflict with colonialism. Narendranath Bhattacharya. Later famous as
M.N. Roy, was India’s first communist theorist who attempted to apply Marxism
to achieve liberation from foreign rule. He was born in the village of Arbelia in
1887. During the years that he was growing up, Bengal and the rest of the country
was witnessing an nation-colonial struggle. In Bengal there was an agitation
against the partition in 1911. These were the crucial years when the politics of
representation and constitutional agitation were being questioned and militant
nationalism was inspiring many young activists. Influenced by the climate of
militant nationalism, Narendranath Roy was involved in bomb making and
dacoity to secure funds for revolutionary activities. Narendranath and some other
activists were convicted in the Howrah Sibpur conspiracy case in 1910. He spent
about 9 months in solitary confinement in prison.

After this release, Narendranath Roy through his organizational ability rose to a
position high enough to be sent as a representative to negotiate an arms deal with
the Germans. The search for arms took him to the USA where in New York, he
came into contact with a number of American radicals, socialists, anarchists and
syndic lists. In Mexico after meeting M. Borodhin, a member of the Soviet
Communist Party, he became committed to the idea of a social revolution which
would ensure freedom to the people of India. He reassessed for the first time, his
earlier life as “narrow versioned” and undertook a journey to Moscow to attend
the second congress of the newly formed Comintern. In Moscow he offered
critical comments on Lenin’s Draft Thesis on the National and Colonial Question.
He also led a delegation of the Comintern to China. M.N. Roy and he was
expelled from the party.

Roy returned to India around 1930 and began his work as a critical Marxist. After
serving six years in jail, he joined the Indian national congress, in order to
influence its programme. Unsuccessful in his attempts he founded the Radical
Democratic Party on 21st December, 1943. When the party failed to make an
impact he dissolved it and founded a new cultural-political movement called
‘New Humanism’.

10.2 COMINTERN AND THE COLONIAL QUESTION

The national and colonial question was an enduring one for the Soviet Communist
party and the Comintern. The latter were never able to deal with this question
satisfactorily. The question was essentially of the strategy and tactics to be
adopted by communists in their own country, while being directed by the
Comintern. Now the strategy and tactic to be followed differed from country to
country according to the prevailing objective conditions and the relations of
forces. But the objective conditions were often perceived differently by the
communist parties and the Comintern. 141
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the
The problem was that the communist parties in various countries like India and
Nation and the World China analysed their societies with the help of concepts already present in Marxist
theory. The domain of facts in their own societies where however different and so
were the questions raised. For instance in India the communists had to tackle
questions outside the parameters of classical Marxism owing to the existence of a
backward capitalist economy. Classes corresponding to the capitalist mode of
production were different in many ways and class conflict also assumed very
different forms from those encountered in western capitalist societies.
Colonialism and external capital domination had given rise to a distorted
economy. But in the absence of a specific analysis of their own societies the
communists depended on the Comintrn for broad policy guidelines. The result
was often unfortunate since the Comintern did not have adequate information.
Gradually political movements in colonial societies questioned the Eurocentric
philosophy of history upheld by the Comintern and attempted and independent
course of action.

In Marxism there is a model of classic bourgeois revolutions in which the

bourgeoisie leads a revolution to its successful conclusion. A second way model
in which a bourgeoisie lacks hegemony over the revolutionary coalition is also
present. The debate amongst the Indian communists revolved around the second
way model – i.e. whether the bourgeoisie lacked hegemony or not.

In the second Congress at Moocow, Lenin developed a different theoretical

framework for the colonial societies. He argued that first; the colonial bourgeoisie
was historically capable of leading the revolution in India. A backward colonial
capitalism, according to Lenin, did not imply that the bourgeoisie was as
reactionary as in backward European states like Germany. So the Comintern must
enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeoisie democracy in the colonial and
backward countries, but should not merge with it. Secondly, he anticipated the
crucial role of the peasantry in colonial societies in the anti-colonial struggle.
M.N. Roy’s argument was different. He proposed that the Comintern and the
communist parties should not support the national liberation struggles but should
concentrate on building of communist parties and developing workers and
peasant’s organizations. Contrary to Lenin’s thesis he argued that a backward
capitalism in India produced a weak bourgeoisie, and a correspondingly stronger
proletariat, which was more powerful. In this manner Roy exaggerated the role of
the working class in the anti-colonial struggle. He eliminated the national
bourgeoisie as a vital ally in the national movement and was sceptical of the
revolutionary force of the peasantry. Eventually this implied that the working
class in India was to achieve freedom from alien rule on its own. After an intense
debate the supplementary thesis of M.N. Roy was adopted by the Congress.

Being an independent person b y nature, Roy was unable to continue as an

enthusiastic member of the Comintern, where the discipline had increased under
the leadership of Stalin. As the prospects of a World revolution dimmed, the
142 Comintern began to operate more as an organ of the CPSU. The rift between
M.N. Roy and the Comintern widened during the Sixth Congress of the M.N. Roy-
Marxism and
Comintern in 1928. The Comintern abandoned its united front policy between all Radical
classes and the policy of collaboration with the national bourgeoisie that was Humanism

being followed and instead proclaimed a policy of class confrontation under the
leadership of the proletariat.

The attack against Roy at the Sixth Congress was based upon his decolonization
theory. The theory states that the policy of imperialism was no longer and
obstacle to the development of industries in India. It signalled the changing
character of imperialism in which there was a transfer of partial benefits to the
Indian bourgeoisie.

After this expulsion from the party, Roy returned to India where in the Kanpur
Conspiracy case he was imprisoned from July 21st, 1931 to November 20th, 1936.

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the unit.

1. What were M N Roy’s views about Indian politics?

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

10.3 M.N. ROY AND INDIAN POLITICS

10.3.1 On ‘India in Transition’
In 1922 M.N. Roy undertook a sociological study of Indian society in a book
‘India in Transition’. He differed from other interpretations of the Indian Society:
Of the Indian liberals and moderates who believed in the capacity of British
statesmen and their reforms, and of the extremists and nationalists who confused
religion and politics. Roy offered a Marxist interpretation and became one of the
first to initiate a Marxist analysis of the nature of Indian politics – its class
structure and the state.

The Indian people were subject not only to exploitation by foreign capital as the
other interpretations said, but also Indian capital. The distorted and backward
nature of Indian capitalism had given rise to a urban proletariat. In the post-world
war era, co-operation was possible between the national bourgeoisie and the 143
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the
British imperialists because the latter had weakened. Therefore, in place of civil
Nation and the World disobedience propagated by the Congress, Roy advised militant mass action.

In 1922, he sent a programme to the Indian National Congress on the eve of the
Gaya Congress which included some of the following; ideas:

1) Abolition of landlordism
2) Reduction of land rent
3) State aid for modernization of agriculture
4) Abolition of indirect taxes
5) Nationalization of public utilities
6) Development of modern industries
7) Eight hour day, fixation of minimum wages by legislation
8) Free and compulsory education
9) Separation of State and religion.

10.3.2 On Organization
The communist party of India emerged as a national force only in 1935. Prior to
this, most of its units existed as regional groups. In the ‘Future of Indian Politics’,
Roy examined in detail the need for an organization which would be ujspecified
and general mobilization. Moreover most of the socialists and communists were
either languishing in prisons or were isolated from each other. The CPI was
endowed with the power to influence the unspecified party. The open, legal mass
party would facilitate collective action. The illegal communist nucleus would
direct this legal and mass front. The idea was a dual organization – ‘a people’s
party broad enough to attract oppressed classes and on the other hand, a
communist party of the working class. Roy also asserted that the programme of
the informal party would be the minimum programme of the CPI. This was the
beginning of Workers and Peasants party i.e. WPP in various parts of the country.
Every CPI member in his capacity or a member of the WPP, would be subject to
the discipline of the latter. The WPPs as mass legal platform, allowed them access
to cultural and political groups, like the trade unions and so on. The relationship
between the CPI and WPP was retained during the entire united front period.

In its sixth congress the Comintern changed its line. In a letter to the All India
Conference of Workers and Peasants Parties, Comintern urged the need for
creating and independent class party of the proletariat.

10.3.3 Roy on the Second World War

After Roy was released on November 20th, 1936, he appealed to the people to
rally in millions under the flag of the National Congress. Along with his
followers, they participated actively in the struggle for freedom. In 1936 he
addressed the Faizpur session of the Congress. But all attempts to radicalize the
Congress proved futile.
144
In 1937 he launched a wkly journal ‘Independent India’ which was later renamed M.N. Roy-
Marxism and
the ‘Radical Humanist’ in 1949. The first issue carried as the editorial a Radical
programmatic declaration defining the concept of national freedom, “Political Humanism

Independence is not the end it is the means to an end which is the radical
transformation of the Indian society.

The Second World War saw important changes in the ideological development of
the CPI and their perception of the role of the working class. After the fascist
attack on the Soviet Union, the anti-imperialist war was transformed into a
people’s war. Communist slogans changed. Throughout 1942, while congress
launched the unite India movement; the communist party exhorted its members to
not only unite but also to keep the wheels of production running. Roy along with
other communists was in favour of supporting the Allies which included the
British. According to him, the war was not between two states, but between two
ideologies. The war he stressed was an anti-fascist war and it should not be
confused with the anti-imperialist struggle. Throughout the war Roy condemned
the Congress for its animosity against the British.

Meanwhile the British released the imprisoned communists to implement their

‘people’s policy’. As a legal party, membership of CPI increased condisderably.
However all these actions alienated the party and its workers from the Indian
Public?

10.3.4 Problems in Methodology

During the anti-colonial struggle M.N. Roy and other communist leaders tried to
sincerely spell out the properties of a new model of revolution. In this attempt
Roy was keep to preserve the central tenets of Marxist theory. He analysed Indian
society with categories already present in Marxist theory. But Indian society was
experiencing a different historical situation which had to be expressed in definite
terms. He failed to comprehend fully the process of the structural transformation
of the Indian working class in a colonial context. His analysis used concepts
which had earlier been applied to of the India working class while formulating a
model of revolution.

Two distinguishing features of the proletariat in classical Marxism are,

disengagement and development of class consciousness. But in India the working
class was not a homogeneous class. It retained primordial loyalties of community,
class and religion while being drawn into the factory system. Also given the
nature of the colonial labour market, there was a large proportion of migrant and
seasonal labour employed in the plantations and mines. These workers have been
called semi-proletarian and semi-peasants because they retained their links with
their land in the village. More significant is the fact that the industrial proletariat
was numerically insignificant in the early 20th century. It was concentrated in the
cities of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Kanpur and Jamshedpur, but clearly lacked
features of the proletariat in classical Marxism. This misinterpretation was the 145
cause of Roy’s failure in developing an astute model or revolution which could
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the
successfully integrate the demands for nationalism and socialism, a task fulfilled
Nation and the World by Mao Tse-Tung in China.

10.4 RADICAL HUMANISM

10.4.1 Critique of Marxism
After dissolving the Radical Democratic Party Roy re-examined his ideas and
attempted a clarification of some concepts he had used. This examination led
him to launch an attack on Marxism on several grounds.

Developments during and after the war convinced Roy that communism had
degenerated into nationalism in the Soviet Union. Under Stalin the communist
party had become authoritarian. It suppressed all forms of dissent. The actions
of Soviet leaders in foreign affairs such as setting up of communist
dictatorships in East Europe, opposition to the Marshall Plan and so on, led
him to believe that they were aspiring to be a super power.

M.N. Roy also criticized the economic interpretation of history given by

Marx. He argued that by viewing the individual as only a part of the
collectivity, Marxism rejected the autonomy of the individual. According to
Roy, the existence of social organization presupposes the prior existence of
the individual.

He further contended that neither socialism nor communism but freedom

should be the ideal of a civilized society. Describing Radical Humanism in
this context he said, “We place man in the centre of scheme of things: others
would sacrifice him on the altar of the collective ego.”

He now viewed the Marxist model of revolution as an outdated one.

Revolution through insurrection was impossible owing to the military power
of modern states. He put forward the idea of a revolution by consent, guided
by a philosophy with universal appeal.

In the last years of his life 1947-54, Roy became an exponent of Radical
Humanism. Like Western philosophers, Turgot and Condorcet, he felt that the
progress of science had liberated main’s creative energies. He explained the
need to coin a new word because the existing philosophies were inadequate to
deal with the problems of Indian society. He argued that his political
philosophy makes room for the individual and moral values; and he judged
the merit of any social order by the freedom it gives to its individual
members.

Also politics around him had become opportunistic and the way could be
cleared only by introducing the human element in public affairs. He believed
that the right to participate in politics had been reduced to mere voting in
146 elections. This must be re-examined in order to establish complete
democracy.
 M.N. Roy-
10.4.2 Humanist Model of Politics Marxism and
Radical
Roy’s theory of a new model of politics aims at the rejection of spiritualism, Humanism

nationalism, and communism and stands for the acceptance of materialism.

According to M.N. Roy the latter is the only possible philosophy since it
represents the knowledge of nature as it really exists.

The basic elements of New Humanism are three: rationality, morality and
freedom. Roy argued that human beings are subject to their environment but
the rational nature of man compels him to offer better explanations of the
events of nature. As a rational creature man is involved in a struggle for
material existence. This struggle takes two forms – at the savage plane it
signifies the satisfaction of his mundane wants and at the higher plane, it
signifies his struggle for freedom. Freedom is a process and not a complete
idea. In the quest for freedom, argues Roy, man as a rational being is driven to
bring nature under his control and freedom “signifies the progressive
disappearance of all restrictions on the unfolding of the potentialities of
individuals as human beings. Freedom of the individual is one of the central
themes of Roy’s scientific politics. He challenges all ideologies which deny
the sovereignty of man. As an alternative to the existing ideologies, Roy
desired to set up a new social order based on the sovereignty of the individual.

10.4.3 Partyless Democracy

Given his experience of party politics, Roy attacked the goal of power as the
only incentive for political action. He argued that “politics is as old as
organized social life. It should therefore be realized that politics and parties
are not invariably related to each other, nor have they always been together.”
Hence there was possibility of political activity without the existence of
political parties.

The party system is an inadequate medium to represent the people in the eyes
of Roy. It denies the individuals any significant opportunity for effective
political action. The right to vote does not ensure political participation.
Moreover party rule signifies the rule of a minority of citizens who claim to
represent the aspirations of the people. Representative government largely
represents only the party which controls it and membership of even the largest
size is but a small fraction of the people. Finally Roy claims that party system
leads to dishonesty and corruption in public life since such a system works for
the leader and not for the people.

Roy formulated the notion of organized democracy and participant citizenship

to overcome the grave defects of parliamentary democracy. Concomitant to
this political framework is the need to introduce a new economic order.
According to Roy, a decentralized order in which function of the state are
performed by freed and voluntary associations of enlightened people will 147
provide a partial solution to the problem. The state will become advisory and
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the
administrative machinery to co-ordinate and supervise policies framed by the
Nation and the World people. The people will participate in local committees which will make them
conscious of their sovereign right.

The economic activity of the new social order has three characteristics:

a) Co-operative economy
b) Centralize planning
c) Science and Technology.

Since Roy was critical of capitalism and its doctrine of laissez faire and of state
socialism. He advanced the view of an economy based on widespread
decentralization and a practice of co-operation. Economic activity should be
conducted at the district, regional and national level by multipurpose co-operative
societies. Similarly, planning should be initiated at the grassroots level. Science
and technology should be used to reconcile the problem of economic development
with the human urge for freedom.

From the above discussion we find that M.N. Roy stated his career with a
commitment to Marxism but became disillusioned with it over the years. What
remained with him however was the conviction that revolutions are ‘heralded by
iconoclastic ideas conceive by gifted individuals, Primacy lies with the existence
of revolutionary ideal. A revolution must be preceded according to him by a
philosophical revolution. Thesis 20 in the Principles of Radical Democracy states
that a reorganization of society must be conducive to common progress and
prosperity without encroaching upon the freedom of the individual. Thus,
revolutions have no relations with violence or the struggle for power amongst
individuals but are meant to change the outlook of the people by bringing about
philosophical regeneration.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the unit.

1. Question – Explain Roy’s criticism of Marxism?

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...…….
…………………………………………………………………………...…….
148
 M.N. Roy-
10.5 CRITICISM Marxism and
Radical
Humanism
Even when it does not immediately result in political action the thinking of
political philosophers is often found to lie behind great social and political
changes. M.N. Roy will be remembered as one of the first leaders to nullify
intellectual tradition in order to comprehend the dynamics of colonial rule. He
attempted a Marxist analysis of Indian society and set his life according to such
principles. Yet he has been described as the tragic figure of Indian history. His
political career was marked by several failures and in the history of national
movement his practical achievements were rather short-lived. Even if we estimate
Roy’s position in political thought by his writings rather than by the effects of his
political work, we find much is lacking.

As pointed out above there were methodological defects in M.N. Roy’s work
during his association with Marxism. In his humanist phase he rejected almost all
these beliefs. But at the same time he criticized liberal political institutions like
the parliament, party system, elections etc. This new approach and philosophy
maintained that a scientific outlook, education and co-operative living would be
about harmony amongst individuals.

Roy clearly studied the social and political problems facing our society but he had
no solution in the form of a complete philosophy. The picture of society he drew
was neither wholly coherent or consistent though there was a superficial sincerity
in their claims. Therefore by no means can he be ranked in the category of great
political thinkers like Gandhi or Nehru.

10.6 LET US SUM UP

In this unit you read about M.N. Roy, the person credited with intro ducing
Marxian (class) analysis of Indian society and politics. You also studied about
Roy’s eventual disillusionment with Marxism and his presenting of an alternative
system of though Radical Humanism. In the end you were told about his
achievements and shortcoming. It is hoped that the unit would have provided you
with sufficient insight into a highly original if romantic mind.

10.7 REFERENCES
 Samaren Roy, M.N. Roy – The Twice Born Heretic

 V.B. Karnik, Biography of M. N. Roy

 J.C. Johari, The Great Radical Humanist

 J.B.H. Wadia, M.N. Roy

 Pantham ed., Indian Political Thought

149
BLOCK IV
Imaginaries of the 10.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Nation and the World
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1. Your answer should highlight following points

 Gave Marxist interpretation of Indian politics

 Focused on class structure and the state
 Indian capitalism gave rise to urban proletariat
 Highlighted that the British imperialists were weak after the world war
and could cooperate with the national bourgeoisie
 Advocated military mass action against them

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

1. Your answer should highlight following points
 Argued that Communism in Soviet Union had degenerated into
nationalism
 Soviet Union became authoritarian under Stalin, suppressed dissent
 Highlighted that Marxism rejected autonomy of an individual
 Favoured revolution by consent instead of revolution by insurrection

150