Humanism of M.N.Roy and R.N. Tagore- A Comparative Study Dr. Karabi Goswami Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy Narangi Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, Narangi, Guwahati, Assam,India E- Mail:dr.karabigoswami@yahoo.in ABSTRACT : Humanism as a philosophical movement, from the beginning until now concentrates on man and his power. M.N.Roy and R.N. Tagore are two prominent figures in contemporary Indian thought, preach two different humanistic thought. As humanist and philosopher, both Roy and Tagore had much in common in their criticisms of modern societies and trends and in their proposed alternatives. As a Humanist both had placed man at the centre, and opposed those forces which affected man s freedom. They strongly opposed, that aspect of modern civilization, which makes a man machine, minimizing human freedom. Though both are different in their views as one is spiritualistic and the other is materialistic, both are agreed that man is a product of biological evolution, and human nature can be changed through education. However Roy rejects the prophetic aspect of Tagore. He admired Tagore as a humanist poet but in other aspects, he differed from Tagore. Roy was a materialist and had no faith on spiritualism, mysticism etc. which Tagore appreciated. This paper mainly focuses on the two different attitude of humanistic thought propounded by two prominent contemporary Indian philosophers. Keywords: Biological evolution, Humanism, Human nature, Materialism, Spiritualism. I. Introduction: Humanism as a philosophical movement, from the beginning until now concentrates on man and his power. Though differences and disagreements are there among different humanist philosopher, and trends, they believe in certain basic principles and on the basis, of these principles, they have dreamt to find the human society and civilization. The principles as they believe in are such as - that man, by nature is good and capable of indefinite advances towards perfection. That there cannot exist, any insuperable barrier to the future progress of human civilization, human efforts can eliminate all barrier of progress. That if full liberty, is granted to the individual, he will use it for the betterment of the society as a whole[1]. M.N.Roy and R.N. Tagore are prominent figure in contemporary Indian thought; preach two different humanistic thought based on Indian society in particular and universal as humanism in general. II. Objectives of the study: This paper attempts to study and compare the humanistic thoughts of two contemporary Indian philosophers M.N.Roy and R.N.Tagore. www.ijirssc.in Page 110
III.Methodology: The present paper is based on the secondary data collected from the secondary source i.e. published literature of the subject concern.. IV. Result and Discussion: M. N. Roy a prominent figure in contemporary Indian thought, preaches a new approach to humanistic thought, which is suitable particularly for man, in Indian society and in general for man, in the world. He realizes a number of problems and defects in prevailing humanism and establishes a new brand of humanism, called New or Scientific Humanism, as distinct from the older humanism, which took man for granted as an elementary indefinable and shifted man s blind belief simply from God to Man, while man remained a mystery, himself a matter of faith. His movement for a humanist revival, starting from the attempt to explain what is human nature. Manhood is the beginning of human existence, and man is an end in himself. To Roy, humanism cannot be based on, the belief that there is something higher than man. Roy claims that his new Humanism is integral Humanism, distinguished from older forms of Humanism, which were more poetic and romantic, by being strictly based on scientific knowledge of man and human nature. He adopts scientific approach to understanding human nature[2]. Whatever we call human nature, man s attributes and potentialities, can strictly be deduced from the background of the physical universe. Human nature according to Roy is essentially rational, which he derives from man s biological evolution. The three attributes of human nature are rationality, morality and freedom which are causally connected. These three attributes of man s nature are the three main values of scientific or new humanism of Roy. Rabindranath Tagore, the renowned poet of India, basically was a humanist. He is a firm believer in the evolution of man to a higher destiny. The vast and rich literature of Tagore reveals that in the heart of all men is constantly working the urge of evolution, Man in human society is all the while striving to realize himself in the world-man by breaking through the shell of his ego. In fact, it is in this process that the whole cosmic universe seeks its own truth, the supreme truth of the ever-growing, ever-becoming Humanity [3].To him, man is a finiteinfinite being and has an inner power within him to realize his unity with the whole of mankind, with Nature, and also with God. He has preached for the exaltation of the spirit in man. It is possible for man to realize the supreme personality through love in his life-time. As humanist and philosopher, both Roy and Tagore had much in common in their criticisms of modern societies and trends and in their proposed alternatives. As a Humanist both had placed man at the centre, and opposed those forces which affected man s freedom. Modern civilization had tended to reduce men and women into one-dimensional individuals, who alienated from themselves and who had become manipulable almost like machinery [4]. They strongly opposed, that aspect of modern civilization, which makes a man machine, www.ijirssc.in Page 111
minimizing human freedom. Both thought that for a morally desirable society self-training of the individual is very necessary. Both suggested some guidelines of self-training which involved development of man s conscience and understanding and their concern for others and sprit of service and co-operation. Tagore saw such people as teachers, co-operators, Artists, and Roy as friends, philosophers and guides. The common to them was to educate people so that they become universal individuals. From such individuals and their association would grow a movement in the direction of a morally desirable society. Both thought that only men and women of developing moral perception and dynamism could set in motion, a process that would bring society nearer to a moral and harmonious order [5]. Again, both agreed that man is a product of biological evolution has the capacity to struggle against environment. Tagore says, As an animal he is still dependent on nature, as a man he is a sovereign who builds his world and rules it [6]. Tagore thought that man is not a tool in the hand of physical forces. Even man somehow has the capacity to play a part in evolution; he has the power to change the pattern of his behavior and responses. His responses are not automatic, they also cannot be predetermined. However, he did not say that Nature or physical forces do not have any determining influences on man, because man is a product of biological evolution 7. Roy also thought that man is not the tool of physical forces and man has the capacity to struggle against those forces of nature. Roy also held that man as a biological species influence by general laws of organic evolution. He says, Human nature, therefore, is determined by those laws. Subject, to an evolutionary process, it cannot be an immutable category [8]. Roy s reason or rational faculty was the surplus according to Tagore. However, Tagore s surplus was an infinite aspect of man, which he called peculiarity, with which man appeared on earth. Tagore thought that this surplus enables man to transcend his limitations from which other animals can never free themselves. It is the capacity of going beyond himself [9]. Roy also held that the rationality of man is innate. He says, Human nature is essentially rational human nature can evolve can be changed. Roy thought that this continuous change of human nature is the manifestation of the unfoldment of human personality[10]. However, Roy rejected any infinity in man. Reason was the biological product of man. Tagore and Roy both appreciated the multifariousness of human needs and possibilities and recognized that science and technology were essential for the satisfaction of these needs and for the realization of these possibilities. Tagore was a religious man, but his religious faith did not prevent him from acknowledging the crucial importance of science in human development. In his view scientific inquiry and the application of scientific knowledge, instead of being distrusted and discarded, had to be guided by regard for human freedom, integrity and harmony. Sivnarayan Ray, one of the Colleagues of Roy says, I do not think that Roy would have at all disagreed with him on this score [11]. www.ijirssc.in Page 112
Roy thought that the world would be a much better place to live in when a comfortable human existence had secured for all. To him Tagore was against modern industrialism because it disrupted the class of landed aristocracy to which he belonged. He was against gluttonous demand for a general rise in the standard of living, because an improvement in the material conditions of life correspondingly quicken the intellectual aspect of human existence, making the ancient benevolent patriarchy of Tagore s ideas, a thing of the dead past. Roy thought that Tagore s solution of the social problems already left behind the evolution of modern civilization. But later on, when Roy moved from Marxism to radical humanism, he had read again Tagore s Nationalism, Gore and the Kalantar essasys, Roy felt that he had not been altogether fair to Tagore. Because he thought that there were some important points, of affinity between Tagore s universalistic and decentralist ideas and the principle of radical humanism[12]. Roy rejected the prophetic aspect of Tagore, because Tagore became the gurudev to his admires. However, he accepted Tagore as a poet because he thought that as a humanist poet, we could learn from Tagore. Roy says Let the past bury its dead, however illustrious they, may have been and learn a motto of life from the poet Tagore a poem he wrote before he became a prophet and began to preach mysticism as all prophet s always do. However, the poet survives the prophet. Let us laugh at the prophet, but learn from the poet. Here is what you can learn: Let us go forward, forward brothers! To lag behind, is to live for nothing, What is the use of living a life, which is death?[13] V. Conclusion: It is very difficult to compare Roy with the prominent people of his period, because the circumstances in which he worked and the fields that he covered are so unique that no comparison or construct is likely to be meaningful. As a lifelong revolutionary and a thinker of great originality, both Roy and Tagore make a position of their own in the international field. Indian culture and tradition influences thinking of both the philosophers.thus, Roy agreed with Tagore as a Humanist, faith on science and technology, uses of modern technology for the progress of the society. He admired Tagore as a humanist poet but in other aspects, he differed from Tagore. Roy was a materialist and had no faith on spiritualism, mysticism etc. which Tagore appreciated. Believing in materialism, Roy rejects spiritualism and religion. Concentrating on man, he denies the possibility of any supernatural power like God, immortal abiding principle in man like soul and any religious rituals like prayer, worship etc. and other superstitions. However, unconsciously Roy accepts spirituality in the sense of spiritual values. Tagore called his humanism as the religion of man which has a universal approach as he gives much importance on humanism as a religion rather than any institutional religion that binds www.ijirssc.in Page 113
people in one platform. However, Roy s approach is materialistic touched with moral values, which, is suitable particularly for man, in Indian society and in general for man, in the world. References : [1] Jena K. C., Contribution of M. N. Roy to Political Philosophy, S.Chand and Co.(Pvt) Limited, Ram Nagar, Delhi-55 p. 142 [2] Roy M. N., Politics power and Parties, (1960)Ajanta Publication, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7 p.133 [3] Sarma Nilima, Twentieth Century Indian Philosophy, Bharatiya Vidya Prakasana, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7 p.64 [4] Ray S.N. (Ed.) M.N.Roy: Philosopher Revolutionary,(1995)Ajanta Publication, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7 p245 [5] Ray S.N. (Ed.) M.N.Roy: Philosopher Revolutionary,(1995)Ajanta Publication, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7 p.p.256-257 [6] Tagore Rabindranath, The Religion of Man., The Hibbert Lecture for 1930. Third impression 1949. George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Museam Street, London.p-43 [7] Lal Basant Kumar, Contemporary Indian Philosophy, Matilal Banarasidass, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi p.62 [8] Roy M. N., Reason Romanticism and Revolution(1952) Vol I and II, Renaissance Publishers Ltd, 15 Bankim Chettarjee Street, Calcutta., p-18 [9] Lal Basant Kumar, Contemporary Indian Philosophy, Matilal Banarasidass, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi p. 63 [10] Roy M. N., Politics power and Parties, (1960)Ajanta Publication, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7 p. 146 [11] Ray S.N. (Ed.) M.N.Roy: Philosopher Revolutionary,(1995)Ajanta Publication, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7 p.p.258-259 [12] Ray. S.N.(Ed), Selected works of M.N.Roy. Vol.II., (1988) Oxford University Press, Delhi p.p.343-346 [13] Roy M. N., Humanism, Revivalism and The Indian Heritage, p.89 (Article from The Radical Humanist, vol. xxvi, Nos.-7 and 8, Date- Feb. 18, 1962, Feb. 25, 1962) www.ijirssc.in Page 114