HUMANISM IN INDIA
Dr. R.M. Pal & Mahi Pal Singh

In some parts of India (Bengal, for example) in the nineteenth century there was a renaissance movement (short lived though). The students and teachers of the Hindu College of Calcutta, a renowned center of secular education, laid the movement and the rational and humanistic thought. As a result Bengal had scholars and reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar and Michael Madhusudan Dutt. Then in the twentieth century India had an anti-Brahmanical movement focusing on the caste-ridden Brahmanical religion. In the south it was led by E.V. Ramaswami, popularly known as Periyar and in the west (Maharashtra) the movement was led by Mahatma Phule and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Then we had in Maharashtra a very powerful rationalist movement and rationalists like Agarkar, Pandit Laxman Shastri Joshi, Sahuji Maharaj and many others. We had also an atheist movement led by Gora. The movement is being continued by Gora’s son and is based at Vijayavada in Andhra Pradesh. In spite of these positive movements humanism as a way of life has not taken roots in India.

Humanism in India is not a living force. Caste and religion play a major role in the social and cultural life of the Indian society. Both are interdependent, as the hierarchical system of caste has been sanctified by the scriptures of the Hindu religion, which has always been controlled by the Brahmins who have placed themselves at the top of the caste hierarchy. Since both have been devised to wield an absolute control over the social and cultural life of the masses by promoting ignorance and blind faith, which have been primarily responsible for the social slavery of the Hindus, they leave little space for rational thinking, scientific search for truth and individual freedom which are the essence of humanism. Muslims may claim to be a caste free society but ask the Muslims who are gathering under the banner of All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaj. They call themselves Dalit Muslims and are demanding reservation in jobs like the people belonging to the Scheduled Castes because all the positions of influence have been occupied by the upper caste Muslims. They complain that they are discriminated against by the high caste Muslims even within their own community. So far as illiteracy, ignorance and blind faith are concerned, Muslims are way ahead of the Hindus. Most Muslim parents, particularly from poor families, continue to send their children to Madarsas which only impart Koranic education denying them modern scientific education, thus perpetuating ignorance, fanaticism and unemployment thereby keeping them languishing in continued poverty.
One positive impact of the western civilization, with its new ideas and achievements, which was noticeable by the end of the nineteenth century, was that it created in the more intelligent people a desire for reform and a general aspiration for social and cultural reorganization which gave rise to introspection, self-examination, an interest in historical research and studies, rationalism and scientific criticism. As a result many bold reformers came to the forefront with the desire to change the course of social development by breaking the stagnant social order dependent on caste based hierarchical system and the long standing tradition of blind faith.1

“The basis of the Hindu tradition, customs, laws, caste system, untouchability, etc. is the Brahmanical religion. It furnishes a moral sanction to all cultural and social aspects of Hindu life on the basis of transcendental values. The desired reform, therefore, required a drastic criticism of the Hindu religion itself. … The rationalist religious views of Brahmin reformers did not reach beyond the idle class. Jyotirao Phule, the founder of the non-Brahmin reform movement, struck at the very roots of Hindu religion and tradition.”2

In the south the anti-Brahmin movement started by Ramaswami Naiker (Periyar) derived its strength from the philosophy of humanism and even today the followers of Periyar in the south, especially in the Tamil Nadu, while rejecting the Brahmanic religion, follow the broad guidelines of Humanism. Besides, Mahatma Jyotirao Phule and Dr. Ambedkar, both belonging to the depressed sections (untouchables), were humanists. They were joined by M.N. Roy who advocated the development of a renaissance movement and worked for the promotion of human rights, scientific temper, rational thinking and humanist view of life through his magazines ‘The Marxian Way’, later changed to ‘The Humanist Way’, and Independent India, later changed to ‘The Radical Humanist’. He called the caste system ‘an ugly relic of the past’, and believed that it should be done away with while retaining and promoting the humanistic values of the past. In fact all of them agreed that the caste system should go and individual freedom should be established; that it was essential that far-reaching social changes should take place in the country before a democratic political regime could be established. All of them were also of the opinion that modern education was the foundation of the reforms they all advocated. M.N Roy believed that a philosophical revolution was necessary for that. He asked, “Can a social revolution take place before a philosophical revolution has disrupted the authority of traditional values? The history of Europe has answered the question in the negative. There a philosophical revolution heralded an era of political and social upheavals.”3

It is our fundamental right to criticize authority – and in the context of societal violation of human rights, religious scriptures, divinities, avatars, prophets, saints, gurus and of course the holy loafers of our time even though they are patronized by our top ranking politicians. The scriptures and the divinities have the divine right to prescribe; but why can’t we have the right to at least question them? Not many Hindus would openly question the “absolute truth” reportedly contained in the Vedas, the Gita, or the great Puranas, or even the Manusmriti (in which Manu first propounded the hierarchical system of caste dividing the Hindus into higher and lower castes). Most Hindus accept Chaitanya and Ramkrishna as avatars; no Muslim can dispute the authority of the Koran or the Prophet (it was because of this that Taslima Nasreen was hounded out of Bangladesh, her own country, and recently turned out of West Bengal by its Marxist government and later from India by the Congress led United Progressive (Progressive!) Alliance (UPA) government); and no Christian will question the authority of the Bible.

M.N. Roy did exactly this when he rejected the Karma theory as enunciated in the Gita, a respectable book of the Hindus, which contains a monologue delivered by Lord Krishna to Arjuna. In chapter 4 Lord Krishna says, “four Varnas (castes) were created by me, according to their innate aptitudes and tendencies and the action they perform.” The “Sudras” (the lowest castes consisting of carpenters, weavers, barbers, washer men and tanners of leather and shoemakers) are assigned the duty of serving the other three Varnas to meet their needs. None of them could transgress the limits of their Varnas in general but the Sudras were absolutely forbidden to transgress their duties, which would invite punishments if they dared to do so. Roy also rejected the theory of transmigration of soul, heaven and hell and rebirth because in the name of these people were supposed to live life as ascetics, being contented with whatever they got in return for their labour without any right to ask any questions or protest.

Roy was of the view that a humanist society was not possible without a sound political system. Roy was also the first thinker who thought that real democracy was necessary for the establishment of a humanist social order because it was only in a democracy that the values like sovereignty of the individual, equality, freedom of thought and expression and respect for the human person could be achieved. That is why he favoured party-less direct democracy. According to him the party system by its very nature is bound to degenerate into party dictatorships. He said, “Under such circumstances, the sovereignty of the individual becomes meaningless; democracy demands that the sovereign individual must merge himself in a party, be a subservient part of an impersonal party machine. It is known from experience how, in an atmosphere of political backwardness and general ignorance, this system can be abused; how people of questionable character can occupy positions of public trust by virtue of belonging to a particular party. A party gives priority and prominence to people not of intellectual merit nor of moral integrity, but to those who can be of the greatest help for it to capture power. The result is that parties often serve the purpose of promoting the ambition of individuals either thirsting for power for the sake of power, or for material gain.”4 Jayaprakash Narayan, a great socialist, exponent of civil liberties and power to the people, like Roy, was highly impressed with his idea of party-less politics, wrote to him in a letter dated 12 September, 1953: “Dear Mr. Roy, I have been wanting for a long time to come up to Dehra Dun to discuss with you the question of non-party politics. You have done more thinking on this subject than anyone else in this country.”5 Roy’s prophecy has proved true and the Indian polity has degenerated into what may at best be called a benevolent dictatorship of various political parties, which only aim at coming to power, and retaining it and the only beneficiaries of the system are the main functionaries of the parties.

A large number of intellectuals in our country maintain that religious people like Gandhi, who desired and worked for the abolition of untouchability and emancipation of the Scheduled Castes (Dalits), whom he called Harijans, the people of God, but continued to support the religion which sanctioned and supported the hierarchical social order (Desiring to work for God but going with the devil!), because of which people belonging to Scheduled Castes consider Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (According to Ramendra Dr. Ambedkar rejected the Brahmanical interpretation of Nirvana, which makes him a rationalist and humanist), and not Gandhi, as their leader and emancipator, are also humanists. This question must be decided once for all, as religion has always remained an insurmountable stumbling block in the way of achieving an egalitarian, equitable and humanist social order.

Indian society is highly caste ridden even today and the political leadership of the country has only increased the chasm dividing the so-called upper, lower and other backward castes on the one hand, and the Hindus and the Muslims on the other, for their vote-bank politics and it incites caste and communal tension to the detriment of the whole society if it suits their narrow political ends. It will not be wrong to suggest that but for the divisive tactics of the political leadership of the country on the basis of caste and religion, whatever it may claim, the society would have achieved a greater cohesion on its own because of the compulsion of co-operative interaction in the day-to-day economic and social life. Spread of education among all sections of the society, which has been neglected because of the lack of political will to do so, would have led to economic prosperity and further eroded religious fanaticism and caste barriers.

Socialist of all hues, particularly after the death of Ram Manohar Lohia, have concentrated on achieving political power and even where they have been in power nothing has been done to promote a socialist society free from economic and social disparities. The Ambedkarites have concentrated in securing and protecting job reservations in search of economic prosperity and the social aspect of the problem has been lost sight of. The Radical Humanist movement started by M.N. Roy, which had a huge following at one time, is a diminishing force with the passing away of one leader of the movement after another in spite of having a sound egalitarian and humanist ideology and programme of empowering people and bringing about a social cohesion.

Inter caste marriages which have started taking place, mostly in metropolitan and big cities, have made little difference in the social structure as they take place mostly within the upper castes or lower castes, as the case may be. Inter caste marriages involving people from the upper and lower castes invite strong reactions from families and the community, often resulting in social boycotts, suicides and murders. The same reaction is noticed in the cases of people involving the majority Hindu and the minority Muslim religions, many a time resulting in communal tension and communal riots. People working for the establishment of a humanist social order in India still have miles to go before they achieve this goal. Unless the movement attracts more and more people and produces a large number of social activists the goal will remain as distant as it has remained so far.