821 / 822
ETERNAL INDIA
encyclopedia
WISDOM OF INDIA
of the universe. Morality must be referred back to man's innate
rationality. Only then, man can be moral, spontaneously and voluntarily.
Reason is only sanction for morality, which is an appeal to conscience,
and conscience, in its turn, is the instinctive awareness of, and reaction
to, environments. In the last analysis, conscience is nothing mystic or
mysterious. It is a biological function, as such mechanistic, on the level
of consciousness. The innate rationality of man is the only guarantee
of a harmonious order, which will also be a moral order, because
morality is a rational function. Therefore, the purpose of all social
endeavor should be to make man increasingly conscious of his innate
rationality.
Any effort for a reorganisation of society must begin from the unit
of society- from the root, so to say. Such an effort to develop a new phi-
losophy of revolution, on the basis of the entire stock of human heritage,
and then to elaborate the theory and formulate the principles of the
practice of political action and economic reconstruction, therefore, can
be called Radicalism.
Radicalism thinks in terms neither of nation nor of class; its con-
cern is man; it conceives freedom as freedom of the individual.
Therefore, it can also be called New Humanism, new, because, it is
Humanism enriched, reinforced and elaborated by scientific knowl-
edge and social experience gained during the centuries of modern
civilisation.
Humanism is cosmopolitan. It does not run after the utopia of
internationalism, which presupposes the existence of autonomous
national .states. The one makes of the other a pious desire or wishful
thinking. A cosmopolitan commonwealth of free men and women is a
possibility. It will be a spiritual community, not limited by the bound-
aries of national states— capitalist, fascist, communist or of any other
ki nd— which will gradually disappear under the impact of cosmopoli-
tan Humanism. That is the Radical perspective of the future of man-
kind.
From M. N. Roy
New Humanism: A Manifesto
Some think that the Communists are believers in violence and in [a]
destructive programme. There are differences between my viewpoint
and theirs. I have told them that their ideology is a good one. But I do
not consider that Communism is itself attached to destructive work.
The Communist ideology is worthy of consideration. It contains one
great idea which is not found in any other earlier ideologies. But I do
not want to discuss on this point. I had already written a small article
discussing about Communism. I had referred to Marx in it as the
Maha
Muni
or the great saint. By reading Marx there has been a great change
in the minds of innumerable people. B ut I am surprised to hear that the
Communists do not believe in the change of mind. This is an important
point in which I differ from them. I ask them why they say that there
is no room for change of heart in their philospohy while their own lives
are examples for change of heart and, therefore, I consider Communism
by itself is a very good and great thing. But what is the means to realise
it?....
Some believe that there was [a] satya-yuga [age of truth] in which
there was no need for the state. Some others believe that there was never
a satya-yuga but it is yet to come and bound to come. Those who say
that satya-yuga is a matter of [the] past can be called traditionalists;
those who believe that satya-yuga is yet to come are Communists. The
traditionalists and the Communists are both believers in satya-yuga.
One group describes the one that had passed away and the other that of
the one yet to come. But what do I say? The past is not in my hands
nor the future. The present only is in my hands, and, therefore, we want
to make the satya-yuga a reality of the present....
Some of the Jan Sangh Party men used to meet me. They used to
tell me: "You talk about ahimsa, but it will never be practicable in this
Kali-yuga; it was only possible in the satya-yuga of the past." These are
traditionalists. They do not believe that non-violence would go well
with the present. They oppose us thus, while the Communists oppose
us by saying that we are only wandering in an utopia. They say: "For
the present we have to be prepared to make use of violence. But
ultimately non - violence will come to prevail, that is, for achieving non
-
violence in the end we have to use a little violence today and we must
be prepared for it. Therefore, you have to suspend your non-violence
for a little." But if we are to prepare ourselves mentally for some
violence today hoping that non-violence is bound to come at some
distant stage, it is possible that non-violence itself would never be re-
alised. In this way we differ.
About the conception of satya-yuga there is no difference between
us. There is no difference either in our conception of the ideal order of
society and its nature. While saying this I pass over the minor
differences. The Communists describe the new order of society which
is to come or their conception of satya-yuga in the same way as the tra-
ditionalists describe their satya-yuga and the paradise. I ask the tradi-
tionalist to show me the steps to the paradise which attracts me. They
say: "We can show you the steps but you can see them only after death."
So if we are to reach their paradise we have first to die. What purpose
will it serve me if I cannot reach it though their paradise attracts me?
I
ask the Communists also to tell me how to reach their paradise.
They answer that I should now be prepared for some violence and
killing. One says that paradise can be reached after death and the other
tells me that the paradise will come after I kill another. Therefore both
ways do not appear to be helpful to us.
They also feel some difficulty in understanding us. They tell us:
"What you preach is nice and good but you are not the first man to
preach like this. Before you hundreds of prophets and seers had come
and gone. You are only repeating what they had said. Will you succeed
where Buddha and Christ could not succeed? Is the teaching of vio-
lence in the Bible less than what you say? [The] Bible is already trans-
lated in over [a] thousand languages. Even the soldiers who work in the
army have their Bible in their pockets with them when they fight and
die. They always have the name of God on their lips and read the Bible
on Sundays. They forget it during the rest of the week. The world goes
on in this way. What effect will your preaching have? If what you speak
is something that is going to really happen you may demonstrate it
before us. But we do not have faith." Their difficulty is that they cannot
accept what we say though our idea may be perfect and appealing. But
what is the use of going on arguing like this?