Sir Syed Ahmed Khan

• Sir Syed Ahmed Khan founded the Aligarh

movement.
• Political though of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan
• First phase spanned up to 1887, and
• the second phase started after 1887
• Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was even opposed to
political agitations.
• Critical Analysis
 Introduction
He belonged to an Elite class among Muslims. His family had been in service of Mughals.

He has witnessed the Decline of Mughal power in India. This was the time when Muslim
community in India was passing through the phase of depression.

He was concerned about the state of his community

• He believed that the upliftment of community is possible only with modernisation of

Islam.
• Islam as a religion is most compatible with science and Rationalism.
• He started publishing a magazine title Tehzeeb – Ul – Akhalaq, through his magazine
he started denouncing the outdated customs & Traditions among Muslims
He founded a ‘society for scientist research’ in Ghazipur (UP) later on society was shifted
to Aligarh.

He also founded a Journal for the promotion of scientific research known as Indian
Institute Gazette.

He was convinced that the upliftment of Muslims is possible only when they will adopt
scientific learning.
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan founded the Aligarh movement.
• This movement aimed at spreading modern education and creating political
consciousness among the Indian Muslims.
• The first national awakening among the Muslims found expression through
this movement.
• The Aligarh movement aimed at spreading Western education among the
Muslims without weakening their allegiance to Islam.
• The Aligarh movement was based on the liberal interpretation of Quran. It
strived to harmonise. Islam with modern liberal culture.
• He sought a reinterpretation of the Islam by employing tools of modern
scientific research. He proposed not only ijtihad (reinterpretation) but a
modern Ilm-ul-Kalam (structure of knowledge), a new conceptual
framework to review the relevance and significance of Islam in modern age.
 Political though of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan

The political thought of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan can be divided into two phases: First
phase spanned up to 1887, and the second phase started after 1887.

01. First phase spanned up to 1887

• During the first phase Sir Syed Ahmed Khan stood for Hindu-Muslim unity. Expressing
the need for Hindu-Muslim unity he said that for "centuries we have been living on
the same soil, eating the same fruit on the same land ..... breathing the air of the
same country."
• In 1873, he declared that religion should not be an obstacle for nationalism.
• He advocated separation between religious and political matters. According to him
the religious and spiritual matters were not linked with mundane affairs.
As a member of the Viceroy's legislative council he strove for the welfare of both
Hindus and Muslims. In 1884, he made it clear that "by the word qaum, I mean
both Hindus and Muslims. What we see is that all of us, whether Hindus or
Muslims, lie on one soil, are governed by the one and the same ruler, have the
same sources of benefit and equally share the hardships of a famine".

He was not a religious bigot or Hindu baiter. He worked closely with the Hindus in
the scientific society and the Aligarh British lndia Association.
02. The second phase started after 1887
• Surprisingly during the second phase Sir Syed Ahmed Khan changed his views,
during this phase imperialist thought found expression in his writings.
• They were based on the "emancipatory", "democratic" and "progressive"
characterisation of the British rule.
• Unlike before he opposed the application of principles of representative and
parliamentary government. He held that the western form of democracy and
nationalism would not operate in India.
• He said that in a country like lndia which was complex and full of diversities of
castes, religions and races, the system of representative form of government would
not satisfy the principles of equality.
• Democracy believes in the rule of the majority which would lead to the domination
of the more educated and numerous Hindus over the less educated and less
numerous Muslims.
• Therefore, Congress demand for a representative form of government would hurt
the Muslims most.
He said that so long as the religious, castiest and racial differences exist In India, the
western model of democracy could not be established.
• He felt that if the western model of democracy was adopted in lndia, "the large community would
totally override the interests of the smaller community."

Two-nation theory
• According to this theory Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations which had separate economic,
political and social interests and different cultural and historical background, and who cannot form a
single nation and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was averse, to the process of elections.
• ln 1888 he said that the system of election would, put the legislation into the hands of "Bengalis or
Hindus of Bengali 'type', a condition of utmost degradation" and the Muslims would become slaves of
Hindus.
• He rejected the applicability of the Self-government in India, which in his opinion would result in the
"maltreatment" of Muslims.

He even opposed the freedom of speech and the press. He openly supported the
Lyttous attack on the freedom of press
Reason for Change
• Language controversy in Awadh UP: - Until now, Urdu in Persian script has
been the official language. By this time, there was a growth of movement for
Hindi.
• The Hindi supporters felt that Hindi has become the language of masses.
Hence, Hindi should replace Urdu as official language.
• The controversy took ugly between. Neither Muslims were ready to accept
Hindi nor were Hindus ready to continue Urdu as official language. The entire
controversy disappointed Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.
• He came to the conclusion that neither Muslims nor Hindus with agree with
each other. He even assumed that, with passing time, more & more
controversial issues will emerge & hence co – existence will not be possible.
• In interest of peace, it is bettu of both live as separate communities. This
because of such thinking he has been called as originator of 2 Nation theory.
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was even opposed to political
agitations
• He argued that they would tantamount to sedition and being anti-
government or at least it would arouse the suspicion of disloyalty in the
official mind.
• He exhorted Muslims to shun politics and remain non-political and non-
agitational or politically passive and "complete a breach" between the
Muslims and the Bengal-dominated Congress.
• He sought to establish Anglo-Muslim alliance to arouse the Muslim feelings
against the Congress.
 Criticism
During his lifetime and in contemporary times, Sir Syed was criticized for encouraging
communal divisions between Hindus and Muslims. He is identified by historians as one of the
earliest advocates of the Two-Nation Theory—that Hindus and Muslims were distinct and
incompatible nations.

Historians argue that Sir Syed was emotionally unable to accept the prospect that an
independent India's Hindu-majority would come to rule Muslims, who had been the erstwhile
colonial rulers.

He also feared that Hindu culture would diminish the Perso-Arabic nature of Muslim culture,
which had enjoyed a dominant status under Muslim rulers for centuries.

His condemnation of Indian nationalists and profession of the incompatibility of Muslims and
Hindus widened the socio-political gulf between the communities that had emerged with the
Urdu-Hindi controversy.
Sir Syed was intensely criticized by religious Muslims who regarded his liberal
reinterpretation of Islamic scripture as blasphemy.

Supporters of Sir Syed contend that his political vision gave an independent
political expression to the Muslim community, which aided its goal to secure
political power in India.

Sir Syed's ideas inspired both the liberal, pro-British politicians of the Muslim
League and the religious ideologues of the Khilafat struggle.
 Sri Aurobindo
1. Philosophical foundation of Aurobindo’s Political
Thought
2. Criticism of Moderates
3. Phases of Aurobindo’s Political philosophy
4. Criticised Indian National Congress
5. Concept of Nation and Theory of Spiritual Nationalism
6. Context of theory of Nationalism
7. Aurobindo’s Concept of Nation
8. Final Goal - Swaraj
9. Evolution of Human Society
10. Critical Evaluation
 Introduction
The closing decades of the nineteenth and the dawn of the twentieth centuries led to
emergence of religio-cultural nationalism emerged as a powerful force in opposition to
the western inspired liberalism and the British rule.

Two Aspects:
• Ramkrishna Paramhamsa and Swami Vivekananda in Bengal and Swami Dayanand
Saraswati in Punjab led a revival of interest in lndian tradition.
• An other aspect of this movement was its radical political outlook. These two
aspects reinforced each other. Sri Aurobindo represents the best example in this
tradition of a leader who provided a spiritual foundation to lndian nationalism.
• According to Rabindranath Tagore, world will come to know the essence of India
through writings of Aurobindo.
• He is a great synthesiser. He has synthesised all philosopher systems of East & West
an integrated Philosophy.
Philosophical foundation of Aurobindo’s Political Thought
Aurobindo's writings reflect diverse influences. Of these, the lndian tradition of idealism in
philosophy seems to have impressed him the most. The great European philosophers
from Homer to Goethe influenced him the maximum during his formative period,
• Study of Geeta, Upanishads and Vedanta had a deep impact on his political thinking.
• As Romain Rolland said, Sri Aurobindo was "the highest synthesis of the genius of Asia
and the genius of Europe".
• He tried to integrate the materialist trend in western philosophy with the idealist
tradition in Indian philosophy.
• Vedantic philosophy as propounded by Ramakrishna and Vivekanand also influenced
Aurobindo's thinking.
He was also inspired by the remarkable vitality and diversity of the Indian intellectual
tradition. He believed that the writings of the Vedantic sages and the Buddha reflect the
genius of the lndian mind.
 Criticism of Moderates
He was dissatisfied with view of early Nationalist on British Raj.
• Early nationalists like S.N. Banerjee & Dadabai Naoroji considered British rule as ‘Blessing in
disguise, They believed British as source of modernisation, hence they should stay in India
• They were fearful that if more direct resistance & aggressive attitude is taken, British will leave
India. Hence they proposed mild Constitutional methods (Prayer, petitions, Protests within
Legislature).
• They had great faith in British’s Sense of Justice- they wanted Swaraj within British Raj. They
wanted Dominion Status for India like other colonies.

Response of Aurobindo Ghosh

• He was written a series of articles ‘New Lamps for old’ in the newspaper ‘Indu Prakash’. In
these articles, he has criticised the approach of Early Nationalist:
• Foreign rule is never a blessing, not even a blessing in disguise, Foreign rule will stop the natural
growth of a nations. Foreign rule is nothing but evil.
• Aurobindo was the first person who talked to about the goal of ‘Purna Swaraj’. He wanted
complete independence & not Dominion Status.
According to, Aurobindo, emergence of India as a Nation has a divine Mission & is for the
Benefit of Humanity and not spirit has chosen India to spread its message. India cannot
spread its message. India cannot spread the message from state of Slaver.

Since, Universal spirit is with India, India is bound to emerge as a free nation. Hence,
entire International community should support Rise of India as a Nation. Hence need to
change strategy, He had not faith in constitutional methods.
• British govt. in India is not constitutional but a Despot. They are not answerable to
Indians. Hence Constitutional methods won’t work, only Direct Action is the option. If
can be of 2 types-
• Armed Resistance
• Passive Resistance
• Aurobindo was not against the use of force. However, he believed that choice of
Strategy depends on Situations. In Indian situation, armed resistance may not be the
best. Hence, go for passive resistance
Type of program in Passive Resistance
• Strike at the very recite of British colonialism as India is a main source of raw material for
British industries and market for British products. Hence, he suggested SWADESHI &
BOYCOTT
• He was the main inspiration behind the Swadeshi movement in Bengal
• He suggested to boycott British Ports & British admin to convince Indian that they can
live without British Institutions
• He also proposed National Education. He was convince that British schools are meant
only for the production of Loyalists. Hence Passive Resistance – Swadeshi & Boycott is
the only viable option.
 Phases of Aurobindo’s Political philosophy
Early phase- (1883-1910)
• Problem of current political importance in the early phase of his political activity. His political
thought at that time consisted of
• His views on the Indian National Congress and the British rule in India.
• The Concept of Nation and the Theory of Spiritual Nationalism. a His programm of action -
Theory of Passive Resistance etc.,
• His objective was to mobilize the masses for the fight against the foreign rulers and his ultimate
goal was full freedom for the country.

Later phase, i.e. from 1910 onwards

• Aurobindo dramatically withdrew from politics in 1910 and moved to Pondicherry, following the
persistant calls from his inner self through mystic experiences
• Political ideas now expressed in the wider context of humanity and its spiritual future.
• Evolution of Human Society
• Nature of Human Unity
Criticised Indian National Congress
i) its aims and objectives,
• He declared that " The Congress was to us, all that is to man most dear, most high and most sacred." But
at the same time, he did not hesitate to express his disillusionment and dissatisfaction about its working.
• About the aims and objectives of the organization, he thought that the Congress did not have a clear cut
goal of national freedom. The leaders of the Congress were wasting time on trifles like certain
administrative reforms, which were totally inadequate to meet the need of the time.
• Their demands, he delivered were 'shamefully modest.’

ii) its composition

• About the composition of the Congress, he thought that the Congress was a middle class organization
and therefore, did not represent the Indian masses.
• The newly educated middle class leadership was only interested in gaining power and a place in the
Indian polity. He emphasised the need for converting the national movement into a mass movement by
including in it the vast numbers of the proletariat.
• He believed that the emergence of the Indian 'proletariat' on the horizon of the national movement
would be an important key to the solution of the problem of transforming the Congress into a truly
national and popular body.
iii) the motives of the leaders and the methods adopted by them for the
realisation of their aims and objectives.

• Regarding the motives of the Congress leaders, his observation was that they were not
sincere leaders.
• They were timid and afraid of displeasing their rulers. He believed that these defects in
the organization had adversely affected the national movement in the country.
• He felt that the Congress leadership had not perceived the British rule correctly and
therefore, instead of boldly asserting their goal, the leaders relied on the sense of
justice and benevolence of the British rulers. They resorted to futile petitions and
requests in the annual sessions of the Congress.
He therefore stressed the need for a broad based organization that could channelize I the
entire power of the country to free it from foreign rule. Thus, his insistence on enthusing
the masses with the spirit of independence was one of the first efforts to give a mass
character to the freedom movement.
 Concept of Nation and Theory of Spiritual Nationalism
• Aurobindo's concept of nation was deeply
Civilisation Aspect
influenced by Bankim Chandra-a great
Bengali novelist. Greek civilization Aesthetic, Beauty
• He believed that the nation is not just a aspect
piece of land nor a mass of human beings. It
Roman civilisation Morality & Ethics
is neither a figure of speech nor the creation
of mind. It is something more than a aspect
geographical unit or a figment of peoples British civilisation Materialistic aspect
'imagination.
Italian/ Fascist Evil Aspect
• India was always a nation & will be forever.
Nation Universal Sprit – God – Human Unity. Indian civilization Spiritual aspect
• Reveals itself in difference forms – every (Nearest to God)
civilization is an expression of an aspect of
universal spirit.
 Context of theory of Nationalism
Colonial masters have thrown the challenge of Identity of India as nation. They held that
India is not a Nation, it is nothing more than ‘Geographical expression’. National response
came in 2 forms
• Liberals Early Nationalist – They accepted that India is not a nation but India is a ‘Nations in making’ (S.N.
Banerjee)
• Extremists – Extremist leaders like Tilak, B.C. Paul, and Aurobindo rejected the approach of both colonial
masters & early nationalists.
• They had established that India is a nation . India was a nation from the beginning.

AUROBINDO – had applied the concept of German scholars which held that nation in
natural & Nation has a spirit. He suggested that old men of India (moderates) need new
lamps to see the sprit of India as a Nation.
• He held that it is irrelevant to understand Indian Nationalism through the western Ideas put forward by
colonial masters. To Understand Nationalism, we have to look at ‘Historical processes’ which one taking
place within India. Moderates are unable to see the spirit of nationalism among youth.
• To meet the spirit, we need a ‘ Bold theory of Nationalism’. He also warned Moderates to stop praising
British. If we continue to praise British, it will weaken the morale of those who aim to fight British.
 Aurobindo’s Concept of Nation
He has spiritualised the concept of nation ,
• Inspired by German scholars, he held that every nation is a reflection of one or the other dimension
of the Universal sprit
• In this way, he also established that ultimately. All human are part of the universal spirit.
• This, in his theory of Nationalism, we can also see the idea of Human Unity or integral view of
Humanity. Thus, he represented the civilization values of India.
• The value of Vasodeva Kutumbakan. This idea was also expressed by Vivekanand when he addressed
Americans as ‘Brothers & Sisters. Thus, Aurobindo never believed that the idea of nation is against
the idea of cosmopolitism.

According to him, aim of every nation, should be to-

• Seek its own fulfilment
• Be aware of its own potentiality
• It will be foolishness if we imitate others. It means every nation has a specific purpose to expressing
an aspect of universal sprit & each Nation should understand & develop its own destiny.
 Final Goal - Swaraj
India's liberation from foreign domination was the final goal for Aurobindo. 'Swaraj', i.e., self rule by
Indians was not merely of economic and political nature.
• It was necessary for India to perform its spiritual mission dedicated to the upliftment of
humanity.

He advocated independence for India for the following reasons:

• Liberty being the first indispensable condition of rational development intellectual, moral,
individual and political-is in itself a necessity of national life. Hence it was worth striving for its
own sake.
• In the process of development of human beings, spiritual and moral advance is more important
than material advance.
• Aurobindo was of the opinion that India with her spiritual development was destined to take
the lead for the progress of the world and for this reason too lndia must be free. India must
have swaraj to live well and happily.
• For this Indians should not live as slaves but as free people to work for the spiritual and
intellectual benefit of the human race.
The concept of nationalism which dominated his thought and activity in the early phase
was just a stepping stone to move in the direction of the unity of humankind. This unity
of humankind was regarded by him as a part of nature's eventual scheme and as the
inevitable goal of human development.

Aurobindo believes in the ideal of GITA. According to Gita :

1.One should follow the law of one’s own being (i.e.) Human, pig, lion
2.When one follows one’s own Dharma (Duty, Natural potentially) it leads to Rebirth.
But when one leaves own Dharma & follow other’s Dharma, it only leads to
‘Successful Suicide’
 Evolution of Human Society
Aurobindo argues that, in the course of its development. human society has to pass through three
stages.

01. Stage of spontaneity

• The forms and activities of community formation. The traditions and customs and institutional setup
are the result of natural organic growth.
• Natural instincts and environmental needs play an important part in its formation.
• The people believe in certain symbol which are imaginative and instinctive in nature.
• The people belonging to the same race or kinship follow identical symbols which become a religion for
them.
02. Stage of consciousness

• People become intellectually self conscious and start thinking about this life and its problems with the
help of intelligence and creative power.
• Predominantly psychological and ethical in nature.
• In this stage intellectuals get importance and come forward as the initiators of the age of reason and
revolt or progress and freedom.
03.Stage that represents both the triumph and failure of reason.
• Human beings in collectivity begin to live more deeply and purposively.
• Life of human beings at this stage will be governed by a sense of unity, sympathy,
spontaneous liberty and the spirit of individual and communal existence.
• From here humankind has to advance towards the realization of spiritualised
society. This is the ideal towards which the process of evolution of society points
out.
• In this spiritual society, 'nation' as a regulating mechanism will have no place. It
will not be worshipped by people as their God or their larger self.
• No clashes or conflicts on the basis of separate identities as nations. There
would be unity within the nations as group but there would also be ultimate
unity and oneness of the humankind. The primary responsibility of achieving this
unity was entrusted by Aurobindo to India.
 Nature of Human Unity
It will not be a mechanical unity established under the iron law of the
state or any organization because such kind of mechanical unity will
negate the diversity of various groups, individuals or races.
• There would be no suppression of individual life or the life of smaller community.
• The future society will be a society of complex oneness, a world society in which present
nations will be intrinsic parts of the whole.
• The national societies would continue to function as cultural units but their physical
boundaries will have no relevance as they would look beyond them to realise the vision of
the unity of mankind.
• He was not only hopeful but certain about the achievement of world unity and peace.
• Mankind's aspiration for peace and unity had become a reality to some extent in the form
of the establishment of the League of Nations in 1920 and the United Nations in 1945.
• He was also aware of the practical limitations of such organisations in the face of the
realities of international politics, but firmly believed in the emergence of united world.
 Critical Evaluation
01. Theory of Nationalism: Spiritual or Religious?
• It argued that attempt to mobilize the masses on an emotional basis and
detracting their attention from real issues like poverty, economic exploitation,
inequality which are inimical to the progress of the individual as well as .the
community.
• It was an appeal to Hindu religious sentiments in the garb of the cultural
heritage of the land.
• To associate religion with politics, though in the name of spirituality, is a
dangerous proposition in a multireligious, multicultural plural society like India.
• It is argued that in the ultimate analysis, this exercise has resulted in increasing
the strife between the Hindus and the Muslims-two major religious communities
in India, which finally resulted in the partition of the country.
02. Emphasis on Political Issues
• Critics point out that Aurobindo paid less attention to the issues of social
reform, which were perhaps more important and urgent.
• The defence of the radicals in this regard was that it was a matter of giving
preference in the light of circumstances existing at that time.
• In this context, Aurobindo had a very clear approach. He stated that,
"political freedom is the life breath of a nation, to attempt social reforms,
educational reforms, industrial expansion, the moral improvement of race,
without aiming first and foremost at political freedom is the very height of
ignorance and futility.“
03. Sri Aurobindo : An Anarchist Terrorist
• Because of his advocacy of force or violent means in the fight against foreign rule,
he is criticised as an anarchist as well as a terrorist in his approach and action.
• He did not disapprove of the use of violence on moral and spiritual grounds. But
he did not approve of blind terrorism against individuals in the manner of a violent
anarchist.
• His advocacy of violent means and association was a reaction against the
increasingly intolerant and uncivilised way of the British rulers
 M. N. Roy
• Ideational Journey of M.N. Roy
• Roy's Marxism
• Humanist Critique of Marxism
• Radical Humanism
• Human behaviour and
rationality
 Introduction
Narendranath Nath Roy (1887-1954), whose original name was
Narendra Nath Bhattacharya had the unique distinction of having
worked with Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.

He began his political life as a militant nationalist, believing in the

cult of the bomb and the pistol and the necessity of armed
insurrection.

The futility of this path made him a socialist and then a communist.
He joined the Communist International, but was thrown out of it as
he differed from its aim of being a movement all over the world.
 Ideational Journey of M.N. Roy

Roy passed through three phases in his career.

• In the first phase, which lasted up to 1919, he was a national
revolutionary, struggling arms for the terrorists of Bengal. He believed
that revolutionary methods is the way to achieve freedom to India.
• In the second phase, Roy was a Marxist engaged in active communist
movement first in Mexico and then in Russia, China and India.
• In the last and final phase, Roy emerged as a radical humanist,
completing his journey from Nationalist to Communism and from
Communism to Radical Humanism.
• Marxism and liadicalisin constitute the characteristics of his philosophy
 Roy's Marxism
Roy's baptism as Marxist began in Mexico in 1917 where he accepted Marxism us a
philosophy for excellence. He accepted all the major tenets of Marxism and , sought to
interpret the Indian situation along Marxist lives.

01. Capitalism was drawing its main strength of modern European capitalism and so long
as the latter was not deprived of this source of super profit, it would not be easy for the
European working class to overthrow the capitalist order.
• Thus, be concluded that the revolutionary movement in Europe was absolutely
dependent on the course of revolution in India and other Asian Countries.
• In order to overthrow foreign capitalism, it was advisable lo make use of the co-
operation of the bourgeois nationalist elements, but only in the initial stages. The
foremost task was to form a communist party to organise peasants and workers and
lead them to revolution
02. Roy gave a Marxist interpretation to Indian history.
• Its main features were gradual decay of the rural economy, steady rise of capitalism, the
conquest of India by the British bourgeois to capture new markets, to find new fields of
exploitation and export of capital.
• The 1857 uprising was the last effort of the de-throwned feudal potentates to regain their
power;
• Indian National Congress was the organisation of intellectual bourgeois to carryout their
political struggle and to facilitate economic development. Colonial exploitation prevented the
normal economic development of India and the working class was too backward to fight for
socialism.
He remarked that the Indian traditions of leadership lend themselves to
authoritarianism.
• Leader is considered infallible: The presence of a charismatic leadership indicates the fascist
tendency in the Indian politics. One may with Roy that India lacks a democratic tradition and
the existence of peculiar social structure and the tendency to hero worship makes for
authoritarian tradition. His willing about the Fascist danger in the Indian politics has proved to
be true.
03. Roy does not identify Marxism with communism
• Marxism is a philosophy while communism is a political practice. Roy
believed in socialisation of the process of production.
• When labour is performed collectively, its product must be collectively
owned. Private property must cease to be an economic necessity
before it can be abolished.
• Roy rejects the dictum that dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary
to achieve communism.
• He believes that a revolution cannot be made to order in an
industrially backward country like India, the establishment of
proletariat dictatorship cannot be envisaged. In India such a thing
cannot happen; nor did he agree with the idea of 'withering away of
the state'
04. Roy foresaw two things in establishing socialism in Indian-agrarian
revolution and building up of modern industry under the control of a really
democratic state.
• Roy did not consider socialism an immediate issue for India. Socialism was not a matter of desire for
him, he was a matter of necessity. Socialism becomes a historical necessity when majority feels a
necessity for it.

The introduction of the mechanical means of production on a large scale, the

abolition of precapitalist restrictions on production, and the attainment of certain
minimum economic level are the historic pre-conditions for establishing socialism.
• A socialist India could not be build overnight. The problem of transition to socialism in India had two
parts viz.,
• (1) achievement of free Indian democracy and
• (2) Transformation of the social order into a socialist democracy. Roy gave precedence to political
freedom over economic freedom and socialism.
 Humanist Critique of Marxism
01. Roy denounced the theory of class struggle
• According to Roy, Marx's theory of class struggle has subordinated individual
consciousness.
• He was also critical of Marx giving too much predominance to the working class. To
him, polarisation of capitalist society into the exploiting and the working class never
takes place.
• The middle class does not disappear. It is the middle class which produces
revolutionaries. Lenin recognised this fact, but failed to recognise the middle class
as a class.
• Society could never survive without some kind of social cohesive force and as such,
class struggle cannot be the only reality.
• Roy considered the proletariat as the 'most backward stratum of the society'. He
gave a place of pride to the middle class and the individual.
02. Denounced the theory of dictatorship of the proletariat as this
would establish totalitarianism.
• Revolutions cannot bring about miracles. What was needed was a judicious
synthesis of rationalism and romanticism.
• As a radical humanist, he thought that revolution was to be brought about not
through class struggle or armed violence, but through proper education. Revolution
would not bring about any sudden change.

03. Marxian economic interpretation of history is flawed

• For Roy, the biological urge of self-preservation preceded the ecoriomic motive of
earning a livelihood.
• He criticised the Marxian dialectics, The evolution of democracy to socialism was a
continuous process, and not a dialectical process.
04. Roy did not regard surplus value as a peculiar feature of
capitalism.
• The creation of surplus value and the accumulation of capital were also
necessary in a socialist society.
• The only difference between a socialist society, unlike a capitalist society
was that the surplus value was not appropriated by a particular class.
 Radical Humanism
Roy became an exponent of "New Humanism". He distinguished this from other
humanist philosophy and termed it radical. Though Roy is influenced in his approach by
the scientific materialism of Hobbes, Ethics of Spinoza and Secular politics as
propounded by Locke, he reconciled all these to propound a rational idea of freedom
with the concept of necessity.

Radical Humanism grew out of dissatisfaction with exiting major philosophies.

• Parliamentary Democracy – Inadequate as it does not give. Opportunity to masses for direct
participation in governance, hence there is a no real freedom until & unless there is Radical
democracy.
• Fascism – To be rejected as it subsumes / Submerges man under collective ego of Nation.
• Communism – Also not liberating as it subsumes man under collective Ego of class.
• Hence, we need a philosophy which gives real importance to Man as an individual & which aims to
achieve (freedom of the man).
 Human behaviour and rationality
Roy's idea revolves around Man. "It is the man who creates society, state and other
institutions and values for his own welfare. Man has the power to change them for his
greater welfare and convenience.
• His belief lies in "Man as the measure of everything". As a radical Humanist, his
philosophical approach is individualistic. The individual should not be subordinated
either to a nation or to a class. The individual should not lose his identity in the
collective ego of such notions.
• Man's being and becoming, his emotions, will and ideas determine his life style. He
has two basic traits, one, reason and the other, the urge for freedom.
• The reason in man echoes the harmony of the universe. He states that every human
behaviours, in the last analysis, is rational, though it may appear as irrational.
• While rationality provides dynamism to a man, he urge for freedom gives him
direction. The interaction of reason and freedom leads to the expression of
cooperative spirit as manifested in social relationship.
 Freedom and Man
Roy's radical humanism culminate into cooperative individualism. Roy's conception
of human nature become the basis of society and state. He attributes their origin
to the act of man for promoting his freedom and material satisfaction.

• Real liberation from all sorts of tears This includes:

• Freedom from foreign rule
• Political freedom
• Economic freedom
• Social freedom
• Freedom from religion

According to him freedom does not lie in choosing religion but freedom lies in
Man’s Capacity to reject Religion. Thus Radical humanism aims to literate man
even from supernatural fears. It targets against superstition.
The freedom will come from promotion of Scientific Rationality. He looked at Science
as liberating force. He believed that there should be promotion of scientific education

Hence, he believed that intellectual revolution / mental revolution has to precede over
political /economic revolution
Ethics is a set of principles which society found appropriate for the
conduct of social life.
• He rejects the view that religion is source of ethics. It is the Reason – source of Ethics.
Those social practise, cultural values which do not appeal Rational at present need to be
Rejected
• Society should be based on secular Rationality. Thus, Radical Humanism as a philosophy
has 3 components
• Freedom
• Reason
• Ethics / Morality

Radical Humanism aims to establish Human Society in harmony with

Principles of Nature.
• Radical humanism rejects metaphysics, it believes in Science. It also rejects duality
between matter & idea (Attack on Marxist approach). According to him, ideas emerge
during man’s struggle for survival but later on become independent reality on its own.
Radical humanism supports intellectual revolution.
• Human brain is most important means of production. It produces the most important thing –
Ideas. The crisis of Modern civilisation is lack of faith in Innate Rationality of man.
• Like Protagoras, he also believes that man is a measures of amount of freedom it gives to
man. It is natural for man to be rational. Man can’t survive without being rational.
• Radical humanism suggest the need for cultural renaissance. It suggest constant Research,
constant Examinations of our values in light of Modern Scientific. Knowledge Radical
humanism rejects ignorance, blind faith, Fatalism (doctrine of Karma).

Radical humanism has 2 features:

• 01. Critical – Criticising the existing irrelevant modes of technique.

• 02. Constrictive – creation of order which give highest importance for Human freedom.

Ultimate aim of Radical Humanism. Creation of cosmopolitan Union of Free

persons linked to each other with reason & humanity.
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar
• Ideological Orientation of B. R. Ambedker
• Debate - Ambedkar Anti – Nationalist
• Abolition of caste
• Dalit Revolution
• Compare Gandhi and Ambedker
• Compare Ambedkar & Marx
 Introduction
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born on 14 April, 1891 in Mahar caste. The Mahar caste was one of the
'untouchable' castes.

Ambedkar is the tallest leader of Dalits in India.

To mobilise his followers he established organisations such as the Bahishkrit Hitkarni Sabha, Independent
Labour Party and later All India Scheduled Caste Federation.

He led a number of temple-entry Satyagrahas, organized the untouchables, established many educational
institutions and propagated his views from newspapers like the 'Mooknayak', 'Bahishkrit Bharat' and
'Janata’.

He has written extensively on various social and political matters. 'Annihilation of Castes', 'Who Were the
Shudras', 'The Untouchables', 'Buddha and His Dharma' are his more important writings.

Dhananjay Keer- No other Dalit leader could achieve that Ambedkar could Achieve for his community.
 Ideological Orientation of B. R. Ambedker
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.

01. Liberalism upheld a narrow conception of freedom

• It 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 formal equality, permitted massive inequalities in the economic, social
and cultural arenas.
• He argued that liberal systems conceal deep inequalities of minorities such as the
conditions of the Blacks in U.S.A. and Jews in Europe
02. 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 Feurbach, 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 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
03. Critical of the Brahmanical ideology
• Brahmanical ideology 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 organising
social institutions and relations.
• It 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
04. Ambedkar was a bitter critic of Gandhi and Gandhism.
• He attacked Gandhi'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, nonviolence, decentralisation, Khadi, trusteeship and vegetarianism.

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.
Certain sections of Indian political class & intellectuals call Ambedkar Anti –
Nationalist
• Arun Shourie in his book ‘Worshiping false Gods’ has called Ambedkar Anti – National. He has given
following reasons.
• Ambedkar opposed Purna Swaraj resolution of 1929. On 8th August, 1930 Ambedkar held that depressed
classes should be grateful towards British for improving their status
• Ambedkar directed Dalits to stay away from Gandhi’s Harijan Sevak Sanghs and to stay away from INC.
• Ambedkar called Poona act as Himalayan Blunder. He wanted separate electorate for Dalits. Ambedkar
criticised Quit India movement as Mad venture of Gandhi
• Ambedkar supported Jinnah’s Demand for Pakistan.
• Ambedkar wanted Britishers to stay. Ambedkar joined the defence Advisory committee formed by British
as well as viceroy’s executive council which was set up to gain legitimacy for British efforts.

Like, Sir Syed Ahmed khan, Ambedkar also emerged as the leader of the community
rather than leader of Nation.

Ambedkar himself held that between interest of Dalits & Interest of Nation, I will give
preference to interest of Dalits,
Wrong to call Ambedkar Anti – National
• According to Arundhati Roy & Christophe Jaffrelot on the status of Indian as a
Nations, Ambedkar’s approach was a practical as that of Jyotibha Phule. It was
difficult for Ambedkar to accept & society divided by castes as a Nation.
• The concept of Nation according to Ambedkar is based on Trinity of liberty,
equality & Fraternity. There can be no nations without Fraternity However it
does not mean that there was no desire in Ambedkar for India to emerge as a
Nation.
• In his Speech to Constituent Assembly in December 1946 he held that “I know
we are divided politically economically & socially. We are a group of warring
camps, I myself is a leader of one such camp. However, I am convinced that they
will come when we will forget these differences & emerge as a Nation”
• Ambedkar believed that Sooner we accept that we are not a nation better it is
At least we will start thinking how to become a nations by understanding the
reasons by which are not a Nation.
Ambedkar’s main work revolves around abolition of
caste.
• His most important work on issue of Abolition of caste is
“Annihilation of caste” (book)
• Ambedkar’s analysis of caste can be discussed under following
heads:
1.Concept of caste
2.Origin of Varnas & Untouchability.
3.Criticism of Hinduism/Brahminism
4.Debate with Gandhi.
5.Demand for separate electronic & Compensation.
01. Ambedkar was not satisfied with explanation related to caste system found
in religious texts.
• He attempted the scientific understanding of origin to caste on basis of Anthropological Researches. His
important works in this issue include
• Caste in India
• Who were Shudras
• Origin of untouchability

02. Ambedkar also rejected the theory of Aryan invasion. As per theory of
Aryan Invasion:
• Upper caste has been the Aryans whereas.
• So – called ‘Untouchability were the original inhabitants often mentioned as Dasas or Dasyus.
• There is no such historical evidence. It means all castes in India had common origin.
03. He rejected the view of Manu Samriti according to which different varnas
originated from different Varnas originated from different parts of Viraat
Purush as mentioned in Rig Veda also.
• In Manu Samriti, untouchable are mentioned as Chandals. Chandals are those who are the
offspring of Shudra father and Brahmin mother. This shows the pollution of Brahmins by
Shudras.
• The entire concept of untouchability is based on Purity & Pollution.

04. Ambedkar has also explained the origin of Shudras as per his theory.

• There were only 3 Varnas – Brahmin, Kshatryas & Vaishyas shudras were originally Kshatriyas.
However they were those Kshatriyas who did not accept the hegemony of Brahmins
• Hence Brahmins stopped Upanayan Sansadhar for this group unanaya Sansadar is linked to
purity hence it was believed that they remain polluted.
AMBEDKAR’s Explanation of Untouchability

He has used the term ‘Dalits’ it comes from Marati word ‘Dal’ which
denotes Broken & Ambedkar calls Dalits as Broken men. According to
him, there used to be tribunal way of life & tribal wars.
• Gradually some tribes started settled life. When settled life started, Agriculture stated.
This started the practice of cattle rearing & not killing cattles for food as it was not
needed. Initially, the main wealth used to be cattle but now it become land.
• There were certain tribes which remained nomadic. These tribes continued to remain
dependent on cattle even for food.
• Many of such tribes were defeated & got scattered. Thus they became Broken &
became weak. Settled tribes did not include these tribes within their Society. Since
they lacked land, they were made dependent on the settled tribes.
• There was a contract between those who were living in the village and those who were
settle on outskirts of village. Those on outskirts will ‘Watch & ward’ the security of
people in the village and in return will get food & shelter.
01. In Manu Smriti, they are mentioned as ‘Antyaj’ meaning
‘Born in the last’.
• Ambedkar does not accept the explanation & suggested that they were called
Antyaj because they were living outside the village or in the end.
• According to Ambedkar, these (many of these) tribes has accepted Buddhism.
Brahmins targeted them because of anger because these tribes insisted on
remaining Buddhist.
• Hence, Ambedkar believed that practice of untouchability is also because of
Anger & Rivalry between Brahmins and Buddhists.
• He even mentions that originally Beef eating was not prohibited. But to regain
the lost space, Brahmins stopped eating non – veg food. This made them claim
Brahmins as PURE he even mentions that Exogamy was not prohibited among
Varnas. This practice was later started by Brahmins to show their exclusiveness.
02. According to him, there is a no pure blood on the sub – continent.
• Intermixing of blood has already taken much before even the origin of caste system.
• He does not consider untouchable as a part of Hindu society since they have been socially
segregated, they should also be politically segregated. According to him, any amount of economic
equality will not help. No upliftment is possible without rejection of Hindu social order.

03. Hinduism as a religion & caste system as a social order has ruined Dalits.
• He even believed that the social order will ultimately ruin Hindus themselves. It will ruin India
itself.
• It is because of caste system where person’s status is based on Birth, Hinduism cannot be
‘Missionary Religion’ Hinduism cannot go for conversions like Islam or Christianity.
• He held that Hindus cannot form a Nation. They are segmented communities & warning tribes.
• He held that Hindus are the race of Losers. They will continue to lose to other religions.
• Thus caste system is not just responsible for the exploitation of Dalits but is responsible for the
Weakness of India as a Nation.
04. According to him, Hinduism is nothing but Brahminism. It is the
hegemony of Brahmins.
• The core idea of Hinduism is endogamy. Hence, without ending endogamy caste
system can’t end. Hence, biggest anger of Brahmins is against inter caste marriage.
According to him, Hinduism is not a religion but madness. He held that, I had no
choice but being born as Hindu.
• However, it is in my capacity not to die as Hindu. The Religion which force poor to
remain poor; uneducated to remain uneducated, which allows man to touch excreta
of cow but not touch fellow human being is nothing but madness.
• In other societies, inequality is social. In Hinduism, there is Justification of inequality
even in philosophy’
• According to him, Hindus are not bad people. Their main problem is they are nightly
religions. Hence, even Hindu social reforms would not be successful. There is nothing
in Hinduism except caste system. One cannot reject caste being Hindu.
• Annihilation of required rejection of Hinduism Hence he held that there is a need to
put dynamite on Vedas & Many Smriti.
05. On the issue of conversion
• There was disagreement between Gandhi’s & Ambedkar
• Gandhi if person is born in a particular religion, there is a Divine will. One can accept good
things from other religion but one should not leave one’s religion
• Ambedkar – Wanted to convert. He even explored conversion in Islam & Christianity. But
ultimately found spiritual satisfaction in Buddhism.
• On issue of Varna system, there was disagreement here too.
• Gandhi varna system is division of labour it is a feature of even advanced societies However,
Gandhi rejected caste system can untouchability.
• Varna exist as caste, Caste is not division of labour but division of labours. It is also not a
sensible economic system profession is not based on Merit but on Birth. Gandhi’s
impracticality is evident as he himself was not observing his varna dharma.
• Hence, abolition of caste & Varna as same Ambedkar criticised Harijan sevak Sanghs formed
by Gandhi. He compared it with Pootna (the mythological character sent to kill Krishna by
nursing poison in form of milk.
 DALIT REVOLUTION
Ambedkar has analysed the relevance of Marxist mode of revolution in Indian –
Situation. He found that it was not appropriated.
• The Basic structure of Indian society is not economic rather Ideological. Brahminism forms the Basic
Structure & hence, just Economic upliftment will not give them a life of Dignity. Hence. he Suggested
Annihilation of caste by putting Dynamite on Vedas & Manu Smriti.
• Thus, Dalits will have to go for building Counter Hegemony. He was influence by Liberal scholars like
John Dewey, a lawyer by profession, Ambedkar had faith in constitutional methods.
• According to him, Society in India is more exploitative & hence the state can work for Dalits. He favoured
State led Affirmative action.
• In this context also, his view was different from Gandhi. Gandhi favoured Panchayati Raj was against
state led model. Ambedkar found Gandhi’s approach too idealistic held that Indian villages are ‘Den of
Ignorance where caste system is more entrenched.
• Modernists like Nehru, Ambedkar preferred State led approach. Ambedkar knew that change in status of
Dalits required the emergence of Consciousness among Dalits themselves.
• Hence, he brought magazines, newspaper, establishment societies for generating awareness.
Ambedkar’s mantra for Dalits “Agitate, educate & Organise”
 Compare Ambedkar & Marx
Ambedkar was influenced by Marx’s idea of social Justice which aimed at ending
the exploitation of poors.
• However, he felt that Marxist methods are not so relevant in Indian Situation (Brahminism – Basic
Structure
• He disagreed with Marx on 2 Basic issue

01. Marx’s concept of Religion – Ambedkar did not agree that all religions
are opium of masses’. Buddhism is not opium of masses. Perhaps, Marx did
not know about Buddhism
• Buddhism as a religion has lot for nourishment for human soul untouchable can embrace Buddhism as
it will provide untouchable a source of Inspiration.
• Spiritual Satisfaction and creation of world Brotherhood.
02. Marx’s concept of state –
• He did not agree with Marx’s view that state is in instrument of exploitation.
• Society is more exploitative than state & hence he preferred Affirmative
• Action By State
• If Gandhi was “Father of nation” Ambedkar was “father of Constitution”. The 2
leaders has similar aims though as Saint & Ambedkar as Doctor.